Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Media Fight - PS3 Blu-ray vs. 360 HD DVD Add-On

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the gaming-movie-players-go-now dept.

Movies 214

An anonymous reader sent a link suggesting we might enjoy High Def Digest's next-gen console media comparison. They take a look at the PlayStation 3's Blu-ray playback capabilities, and compare it to the performance of the Xbox 360's HD DVD add-on. The article offers a number of technical details for the movie, audio, and gaming buff. As you might expect, given the companies involved, both products basically perform their functions very well. From the article: "That doesn't mean both aren't without their drawbacks. The Xbox 360 add-on suffers from a lack of HDMI and analog outputs, though it still delivers excellent results despite those limitations. The PS3, meanwhile, also lacks analog outs, but it does have HDMI 1.3 support and can decode Dolby TrueHD. The lack of 1080 upconversion of 720p sources on the PS3 is a huge issue, though, so unless you have a 1080p-capable HDTV, you may suffer buyer's remorse."

cancel ×

214 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

it's the games, stupid (3, Insightful)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079000)

An anonymous reader sent a link suggesting we might enjoy High Def Digest's next-gen console media comparison. They take a look at the PlayStation 3's Blu-ray playback capabilities, and compare it to the performance of the Xbox 360's HD DVD add-on.

A comparison of the actual games might be a bit more relevant. To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone buys a gaming console BASED ON THE FUCKING PERFORMANCE OF THE OPTICAL DRIVE. They buy it because it has the games they want to play.

Re:it's the games, stupid (5, Insightful)

toejam316 (1000986) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079008)

Actually, The PS3 would be a viable purchase JUST for Blu-Ray playback, simply because is so damn dirt cheap compared to a full player. a 60gb PS3 will cost LESS here than a Blu-Ray player FOR PC. PC players are generally the cheaper kind. Think about it.

Re:it's the games, stupid (3, Informative)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079036)



That would be an insightful comment, except that it's completely wrong. You can buy the Samsung BDP1000 Blu-Ray player for LESS than a playstation 3 (if you can even get your hands on a playstation 3), and the Samsung outputs at proper 1080p resolution. The playstation 3 does not.

Put simply, anyone interested in blu-ray video content is going to have a player that does the job properly. The PS3 is for games.

Re:it's the games, stupid (0)

toejam316 (1000986) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079066)

Yes, thats true, but face facts here, most of the faults with the PS3 and be fixed up with (Hopefully unless sony has made ANOTHER blunder) a Firmware Update. And the adverage user isn't going to think "Gee, this movie sure would look better on a *Insert Superior Blu-Ray/HD-DVD Player Here*" their going to think "Wow! This is waaay better than my DVD Player! OFF WITH ITS HEAD!". And to be honest, I dont think many users will notice the faults. Higher quality video IS higher quality video, no matter what you do with it (Unless you manage to slip in random images taken at 64x64 resized to 1280x1024). And I never heard of that Blu-Ray player before, so sorry about that :P. Combine that with the fact the adverage home user will use it for games, and the (as far as I've seen) heavily emphisised fact that the PS3 CAN play Blu-Ray, its probably going to be the dominant player for a while. Remember, consumers dont think purchases through as much as they should. Even when they do, the market is so damn flooded with products you might as well just throw a dart at a flyer and hope.

Re:it's the games, stupid (1, Insightful)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079130)

Remember, consumers dont think purchases through as much as they should.

Which means that most consumers aren't going to spend the time to even understand what the fuck blu-ray is, or what HD-DVD is, and why it provides them a (slight) benefit over DVD. Honestly, what percentage of consumers are buying the PS3 to play movies? Look at it this way; we have two groups of customers:

1. Hardcore videophiles: Anyone seriously into movies isn't going to be satisfied with the PS3's mediocre blu-ray output (i.e. not 1080p), which means if they buy it, they'll be buying it for the games.

2. Casual videoconsumers: Anyone not into movies isn't going to give a fuck about the blu-ray movie performance details, and will be buying it for the games.

This "optical drive pissing match" article is completely irrelevant to the customer base they're aiming at. It's Sony marketing, and it's not even done well.

Re:it's the games, stupid (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079466)

You can buy the Samsung BDP1000 Blu-Ray player for LESS than a playstation 3

Umm are the prices that far out of whack compared to Norway? Best prices around here (forget the exchange rate, look at the relative prices)

Cheapest PC burner: LG GBW-H10N 4795,-
Playstation 3 (preorder): 5489,-
Cheapest standalone: Samsung BD-P1000 11295,-

All figures from hardware.no, which has all the major webshops covered. So at least around here BD-P1000 is over twice the price of a PS3, not that PS3 will be released here before March. Are you comparing store BD-P1000 prices to eBay PS3 prices or something?

Re:it's the games, stupid (1)

StillAnonymous (595680) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079596)

It's not just Norway. In Canada, the price of the BD-P1000 at Future Shop is $1300 compared to the PS3 at $650 and the rewriters at $900 for the Sony or the LG model.

If I were even remotely interested in Blu-Ray (I don't have an HDTV), I'd seriously consider the PS3.

Re:it's the games, stupid (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17079572)

Yeah, just like nobody bought the PS2 for it's DVD player capabilities (with the games being a bonus) in the system's early years.. Oh wait, that's wrong, a lot of people did!

History proves you wrong. This is the exact same situation and Sony is betting on it.

Re:it's the games, stupid (3, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079588)

Yeah, just like nobody bought the PS2 for it's DVD player capabilities (with the games being a bonus) in the system's early years.. Oh wait, that's wrong, a lot of people did!

Nobody I know did that.

Re:it's the games, stupid (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17079940)

I did.

Re:it's the games, stupid (2, Insightful)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079972)

Yeah, just like nobody bought the PS2 for it's DVD player capabilities (with the games being a bonus) in the system's early years.. Oh wait, that's wrong, a lot of people did!

History proves you wrong. This is the exact same situation and Sony is betting on it.


So if Sony had released the PS3 with a Uber Holographic-Movie Disc (which will work on your Holographic-TV that will be relased in 2020) for only $20,000 you think people will line-up to buy one?

The fact is that the PS2 sold as a DVD player because DVD was taking off (at the time my local Blockbuster was carying a handful of DVD's for every new-release movie), everyone wanted a PS2, and the PS2 was within the typical price range of a videogame console. Essentially, the PS2 worked as a DVD player because it was a DVD player and a videogame console that was the same price as a DVD player and a traditional price for videogame console at a time when everyone wanted a DVD player.

Blu-Ray/HD-DVD are not popular mainly because there are too few movies, the movies are too expensive, and they're not readily available to buy or rent; the PS3 as a movie player is more expensive than a HD-DVD player, is much more expensive than the traditional game console, at a time where people don't care about HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players.

1080p what? no, wrong (1)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079664)

What do you mean the PS3 doesn't have proper 1080p playback? The PS3 will play back BD movies at any resolution. The only playback issue with BD movies is that you need HDMI for 1080p for some reason. That's it. The scaling limitation of the PS3 is limited to games that only support 720p. As laughably stupid that is in its own right, it does not affect movie playback.

Where can you get a Samsung BD player for under $600/500?

more wrongness (2, Informative)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079688)

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=samsung+bd+p10 00&btnG=Search+Froogle [google.com]

The two models of the PS3 are $500 and $600. $700 - $800 is not less than $600.

Re:more wrongness (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17080160)

Check this out. [google.com] You can get a new PlayStation 3 for only $400. You only have to pay by Western Union or MoneyGram wire transfer. What a deal! And look at that brand new Nintendo Wii for $200...

Re:more wrongness (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17080200)

Is there no taxes in the US?
Here in Quebec it's 14 something %.

I always refused to speak the language of retail sellers with their 599,99 and other bullsh*ts. I always find it funny when people always speak about prices in sellers terms. The price of something is the price you f***ing pay.

So it's not 699,99$ CND it's 810 bucks for christ sake.

My 2 cents (actually 3)

Re:it's the games, stupid (1)

apostrophesemicolon (816454) | more than 7 years ago | (#17080076)

and remember:

PS360GB = $600

XBOX360 = $400 + $200 for HDDVD (with no HDMI output i might add)
                  = $600

not to start a flamewar here but the fact stands. same price, but one is external and HDMIless. btw, by being external, is there any performance toll for the HD-DVD as opposed to having the drive internal?

Re:it's the games, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17080222)

"Actually, The PS3 would be a viable purchase JUST for Blu-Ray playback, simply because is so damn dirt cheap compared to a full player. a 60gb PS3 will cost LESS here than a Blu-Ray player FOR PC. PC players are generally the cheaper kind. Think about it."

Agreed. I'm considering a PS3 myself ... not to play games, but to use it as my home computer and DVD/Blu-Ray player.

On a 1080p set, the PS3 can... ...upconvert DVDs to 1080p ...run a full OS ...connect USB devices ...has Bluetooth

The only bad points I see are that the OS can only use about 1/2 of the system memory (??why??), and that the USB HDTV tuners haven't been ported to Linux yet and may (??) not work on non-x86 systems (unlikely?). The only issue that won't be resolved is flash playback.

If those two problems are solved, the PS3 will be quite a nice replacement for hundreads of dollars of other equipment I'm due to buy anyway.

Re:it's the games, stupid (1)

Deag (250823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079068)

There are plenty of reviews of games out there as the article said, it would be too much to have read though? I thought this was a good article, it gave a good balanced technical review of this feature in both of the new consoles. Hard to find that sometimes on the web
Not every article has to be about the games you know...

Re:it's the games, stupid (1)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079074)

The PS3 may be a "gaming console" to you, but it's also the cheapest HD-DVD player on the market. For hi-fi movie afficionados, some of whom probably read Slashdot, the PS3's performance as a video player is a lot more relevant than any games for it.

Re:it's the games, stupid (4, Funny)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079084)

Oops, my bad, "Blu-Ray," not "HD-DVD." In my head, they're both code-named "that thing that looks about the same as a DVD on my TV, but has more annoying DRM built in."

Re:it's the games, stupid (1)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079094)

I have mod points. But I couldn't find the "-1 moronic irony" tag. So I am forced to reply instead. The PS3 is supposed to be the 3rd in a line of game players. The fact that it's not makes me think that Sony has lost their direction, much like they did with the PSP. But regardless, it comes Blu-Ray equipped, not HD-DVD equipped.

Re:it's the games, stupid (1, Informative)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079214)

The PS3 may be a "gaming console" to you, but it's also the cheapest [blu-ray] player on the market.

Except that it's not. That's a load of BS. As has already been mentioned, you can get a Samsung BD-P1000 for less than the PS3, and the Samsung actually has 1080p output (the PS3 does not).

Re:it's the games, stupid (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079274)

Wait, wait, the PS3 DOES NOT have 1080p output?

Re:it's the games, stupid (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079366)

The article says quite clearly that the PS3 has 1080p output. What you mean is that it doesn't do 1080p24. And it seems likely and reasonable that a firmware update could address that and other issues.

Re:it's the games, stupid (1)

markjl (151828) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079082)

Mod parent down -- the poster missed the point of the article.

The article's web site audience is focused on High Definition movies. Both game consoles are trying to expand their scope to be a home media center (for movies, pictures, music, etc.) as well.

In fact, the article agrees with the poster's comment, making it a redundant observation and not +3 Insightful. RTFM, from the fine Article...

Conclusions -- Which One to Buy?

Sorry, I can't tell you which is the best next-gen game console -- that's all about the games...

Re:it's the games, stupid (1)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079162)

In fact, the article agrees with the poster's comment, making it a redundant observation and not +3 Insightful. RTFM, from the fine Article... "Conclusions -- Which One to Buy? Sorry, I can't tell you which is the best next-gen game console -- that's all about the games..."

Which is exactly the point I'm highlighting. He's looking at them not as game consoles, but as video players, which is a completely useless comparison. Anyone interested in next-generation video can have (or already does have) a competent player. Such players can be had at a lower price point than both the PS3 and the XBOX+ADDON.

Re:it's the games, stupid (1)

GNious (953874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079394)

I AM interested in "next-gen" video, but aint no chance-in-hell I'd fork over money for Both a video-player And a game-console. I do not have that kind of cash, not room in my 50m2 living-room. I want 1 simple-to-use box that does it all and that the Girlfriend-unit wont murder me in my sleep for spending money on.

(I am going for the PS3, btw...)

/G

Re:it's [SIC: no longer] the games, stupid (1)

markjl (151828) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079608)

"Such [HiDef Video] players can be had at a lower price point than both the PS3 and the XBOX+ADDON."

That is not true (see below). Sure gaming is one reason to compare, but I believe you are sticking to a single dimensional analysis rather than seeing the media convergence device Microsoft and Sony are fighting to get into your living room. The article does not mention the Wii because it's audience cares about hi def movies -- not games! For this audience, the Playstation3 gaming platform is a secondary consideration to its BluRay, HDMI 1.3, and 1080p HDTV capabilites.

I'll use the US retail prices from now on... The PS3 ($499 or $599 version) is the cheapest BluRay player, by a margin of hundreds of dollars today. Recent price check on BluRay players: Sony Samsung BDP1000 ($1000), Pioneer's player ($1000+), and I think I've heard of a Philips player as well ($?).

The core XBOX 360 ($299) + HD DVD ($199) add on (which is a 2nd generation Toshiba drive) add to $498, which is roughly equal to the retail price of the base, first generation model Toshiba HD-A1 HD-DVD player ($499). The street price has started to drop on the first generation players, so you are correct in your assessment if price was the only consideration for HD-DVD movie playback.

But I think you can see that Sony and Microsoft are discounting hardware in order to gain market acceptance and market share for a new gaming platform and for a new high definition DVD playback device.

Why would Microsoft release the HD-DVD add on and why would Sony cripple it's lauch to bundle BluRay for their consoles if gaming was the only way to evaluate them? Because there is more to consider.

The next generation consoles are a converged business platform. They represent a war involving video, audio, and game content delivered via online and software media. Each platform drives hardware, software, codec, and network components for sales, licensing, and royalties.

Expect the consoles to clash and potentially partner with iTV, iTunes, cable, satellite, and other media providers. I don't know how soon or how successful they will be, but be prepared for people to evaluate them not on games, but on: "can I get or rent (this movie, my music, my pictures, etc.) on my XBOX 360 or Playstation3?"

Re:it's the games, stupid (1)

Nuroman (588959) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079170)

Yeah, and all I want to know about my cellular phone is, does it make telephone calls?

Analog Hole (3, Funny)

paganizer (566360) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079002)

This will probably be the first time a large number of customers begins to "get it" in regards to having DRM force-fed down our throats.

In addition, this will probably be the first time that the lack of a analog hole will actually result in a large number of people being screwed.
(its a joke)

Re:Analog Hole (1)

adam31 (817930) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079196)

This will probably be the first time a large number of customers begins to "get it" in regards to having DRM force-fed down our throats.

Soooo... They didn't "get it" with the iPod?

Re:Analog Hole (1)

Strolls (641018) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079550)

This will probably be the first time a large number of customers begins to "get it" in regards to having DRM force-fed down our throats.
I'm seeing otherwise. There's some annoyance in the UK at the moment that a lot of screens without HDMI were sold a couple of years ago as "hi-def ready", but it seems the average consumer just understands that this TV "isn't compatible" with their Sky box or the upcoming movie players. They don't feel the need to apportion blame, either - consumers are just used to electronics things being incompatible with each other.

Sorry. This just seems to be the way of the average consumer. :(

On the upside, I just bought a 42" screen for £320, about 11% of its retail price three years ago. :D
It has plenty of component & RGB scart inputs, and works fine with my Wii. :D

Stroller.

Add-on peripherals (like drives) to consoles... (3, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079006)

... usually end in failure.

-Sega CD, 32X, etc.

No one wants to buy extra hardware to play games and these add-ons better be dirt cheap if they expect anyone to pick them up for HD-DVD playback. That and why is there even a need to replace DVD as it stands for most people?

I understand the benefits of blue-ray and HD-DVD for computer storage for applications like games, archiving, etc. But console history is filled with failed peripherals.

Re:Add-on peripherals (like drives) to consoles... (1)

jpardey (569633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079040)

If there is, it will be dirt cheap. It would probably be worth it for Microsoft and/or friends, as an attempt to help HD-DVD and crush Blu-ray.

Re:Add-on peripherals (like drives) to consoles... (1)

MoriaOrc (822758) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079044)

> No one wants to buy extra hardware to play games and these add-ons better be dirt cheap if they expect anyone to pick them up for HD-DVD playback.

MS has said [gamespot.com] the player will be only used for movies. It seems like (assuming you want an HD-DVD player at all) a decent price if you already own a 360, but otherwise not so much otherwise. A quick check at Best Buy and Circuit City's websites for "HD-DVD Player" puts it at $200 for the add-on, about $500 for a stand alone player. Although I guess a Core 360 + HD-DVD add-on is about the same price as a standalone player.

Re:Add-on peripherals (like drives) to consoles... (1)

Deag (250823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079096)

From a business point of view, maybe.
But as a user it can really add to them or even save them. Years ago I had a commodore CDTV [wikipedia.org] , one of those vcr like units. But I don't think any games came out for it (apart from Lemmings which was great!). The only thing the saved it was that you get an external amiga floppy drive with it that allowed you to play standard Amiga games on it. Might have been old games at the time, but as a ten year old, I didn't know the difference.

Re:Add-on peripherals (like drives) to consoles... (3, Insightful)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079182)

yeah but what fails is the 32x games, the 64dd games etc, because they rely on you having the add on which not many people do. HD-DVD is different because the 360 add-on is not its only platform. DVD didnt fail because you had to buy a dongle to watch them on the Xbox, and the add-on-ness of the 360 hd player wont cause HD-DVD to fail. if it does fail it'll be a larger set of problems than that.

as for the sales of the add-on, there is no large critical mass required - as long as MS dont overproduce them and sell the minimum amount needed to cover costs then it wont be a problem.

Re:Add-on peripherals (like drives) to consoles... (1)

Jesterboy (106813) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079354)

DVD didnt fail because you had to buy a dongle to watch them on the Xbox, and the add-on-ness of the 360 hd player wont cause HD-DVD to fail.
I think there's quite a difference between a $20 dongle and a $200 add-on, external unit.

Re:Add-on peripherals (like drives) to consoles... (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#17080078)

Sega's CD drive could do a lot more than play FMV-stuffed games; it was a damn good CD player UI back then, but the best part was the two RCA phono jacks on the back - which you could play all the games through.

It still crashed and burned, unfortunately.

Re:Add-on peripherals (like drives) to consoles... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17079924)

I think the more interesting comparison in this case would be the Blu-ray against the Xbox 360's HD video download service. There are numerous problems with the service as of right now. It's slow, there's not enough storage space, there's not enough content, etc... but as it matures, it could seriously contend with the HD optical disk formats. The option of not having to spend any more money on hardware that has a 50-50 chance of being obsolete in 2 years is a huge bonus in my mind.

I hate Sony (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17079012)

I hate Sony blah blah blah blah Sony are the suxxor blah blah blah blah Nintendo are cool, yeah go Nintendo blah blah blah

Holidays (1)

kramer_jamesm (466934) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079018)

It's all about the money

If they can sell an entire PS3 for $600... (1)

Cordath (581672) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079024)

Where are the PC Bluray drives that go for $200?

Seriously, what is up with this HD format war? The first HD format that becomes affordable (and actually works) on the PC platform is the HD format I'll be adopting. I'm not alone. This *is* a race, but somehow it seems like both sides *want* to lose.

Re:If they can sell an entire PS3 for $600... (1)

bartoku (922448) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079138)

"The first HD format that becomes affordable (and actually works) on the PC platform is the HD format I'll be adopting. I'm not alone." You are not alone! If I was not so lazy I might have said it first. The first blue lasered drive with cheap media will win! Who buys HD movies? I have the 1080p big LCD in the living room, but I do not even own any DVDs. I am waiting for the UHD where I can see the grain in the film and know there is no higher quality to sell me later.

Re:If they can sell an entire PS3 for $600... (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079270)

The 360's HDDVD drive already works on PC... I'm not sure how well it works, but I'm waiting for some more info because I'm seriously considering buying one. I've already watched some of the 1080p content available over at apple.com and needless to say, I'm spoiled against DVD's and DVD rips.

And the winner is... (3, Insightful)

eddy (18759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079500)

The format that first/most conviniently gets ripped and XvidD'ed.

The main reason for the PS3? (4, Insightful)

jpardey (569633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079032)

It seems probable to me that the primary motivation for the PS3, is to put a blu-ray drive under every expensive TV. Perhaps that is why there is no 720p downsampler, they want people to look at blu-ray disks and say wow. Rather than creating a cheap console that will do the job, they went overkill (I want one, by the way, even if I may never get one). With high prices, and low cost alternatives, you can expect that the early owners of PS3s are going to have their displays up to date as well. Demand for blu-ray grows, more studios sign on, Sony Pictures can put out more movies in Blu-ray, and pretty soon the profits destroy the losses on the PS3. More of an "investment" than a "terrible blunder" if you consider not just game sales, but blu-ray proliferation.

Re:The main reason for the PS3? (2, Insightful)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079276)

I think this is exactly true. Sony already did it once with DVDs and the PS2 -- for a lot of people the PS2 was the first DVD player they owned.

Re:The main reason for the PS3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17080190)

Except that DVD was already an established standard at the time. Sony tried to do this before with the PSP and the UMD format and frankly that has not lived up to their expectations. You cannot force a new media format through these channels.

Honestly what I think will happen is that within the next few years someone will develop and start selling players capable of both BluRay and HD-DVD, plus all previous formats. The format war will become irrelevant as players adopt that model as OEMs don't want to risk being a loser in the format war. In the end it will be the early adopter who loses out as those early players will only play one format, and the PS3 is included in that list.

Why are we advertising this failed format war... (4, Informative)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079038)

Look.. the formats are stillborn.

they were announced months ago, and despite being advertised everywhere sales are lack luster to non-existent.

everyone on slashdot got it right.. it didn't offer anything substantially different to dvd.. was much more expensive, and imposes incredibly confusing, draconian, and prohibitively expensive DRM schemes.

heck.. in my local area theyre running ads trying to get people interested by directing them to a website where they explain the rediculously complicated HDTV crap.. (why your component won't play at full 1080 p---probably lying about it too to gloss over the whole DRM point like all the ad nazis do)

Re:Why are we advertising this failed format war.. (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079260)

This reminds me of when DVD came out and there was a backlash among fans of laserdiscs. In both cases, the format doesn't offer anything hugely different (still just movies on a disc) and in both cases there are some drawbacks to adopting the newer technology, but ultimately, the new technology will be adopted because of two things: (1) more advantages than drawbacks and (2) once the new format has been around for a while the cost difference becomes insignificant -- if the difference in cost is next to nothing, people (both consumers and producers) will go with the newer standard.

Re:Why are we advertising this failed format war.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17079346)

This reminds me of when DVD came out and there was a backlash among fans of laserdiscs.

The difference is that there were about four people in that backlash watching eight films between them. The real dominant format was VHS; laserdisc was just a museum piece to most people.

Now almost everyone has a DVD player and a pile of movies and are not sitting in front of their TV going "Jesus, this is crap quality. I wish there was something better", which was what a lot of people WERE saying about VHS.

Re:Why are we advertising this failed format war.. (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079438)

I think the comparison is still valid because right now, the people that are switching from DVD to an HD format are not normal people, they're the same type of people who were using laser discs back then.

Anyways, you do raise a good point, to the normal consumer Bluray/HDDVD do not offer the nearly as great advantages over DVD as DVD did over VHS. That said, I still pretty confident that an HD format will overtake DVDs. While I doubt many normal consumers will be buying HD formats for the next few years, there are definitely enough of the "afficianados", the people who have HDTVs and care about the better picture quality, to support it as a format and that is the key part. As that market develops it will bring down the cost of the equipment for playing (and manufacturing) the discs. Once HD players get down to the point where they're not considered expensive by most consumers (say under $100) then "normal" consumers will start buying. If a consumer is looking to buy a player and a regular player is $50 and a player which plays both DVD and Bluray (or HDDVD) is $80 then it becomes very easy for that person to say "Hey, why not get the combo player? It's about the same price and I'll be able to rent both types of discs and I can borrow movies from my home theater nerd friend who only buys Bluray discs now."

The other thing to keep in mind is that even before consumers actually start buying HD players, they're likely to have some device that uses them -- soon enough it will be standard for computers to come with drives for HD discs just like a DVD-ROM is standard now.

Re:Why are we advertising this failed format war.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17079656)

While I doubt many normal consumers will be buying HD formats for the next few years, there are definitely enough of the "afficianados", the people who have HDTVs and care about the better picture quality, to support it as a format and that is the key part.

But aren't those people exactly the ones that bought laserdiscs? They weren't enough to move that format into the mainstream even against VHS.

However, you are right to point out the importance of price and at the end of the day computers and consoles will play a big part in reducing this; something laserdiscs did not have on their side.

We'll see. I've yet to actually see HD running on an HD TV so I've no idea if the hype is accurate (er..., in which case it's not hype) but I do know that I don't actually feel any need to improve on my DVD player or digital TV broadcasts for that matter.

Re:Why are we advertising this failed format war.. (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079690)

But aren't those people exactly the ones that bought laserdiscs? They weren't enough to move that format into the mainstream even against VHS.
That's a very good point, we shall see.
We'll see. I've yet to actually see HD running on an HD TV so I've no idea if the hype is accurate (er..., in which case it's not hype) but I do know that I don't actually feel any need to improve on my DVD player or digital TV broadcasts for that matter.
I have to say the difference is stunning. I don't know if it's enough to convince most people (not enough for me yet) but it really is remarkable.

Re:Why are we advertising this failed format war.. (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079990)

"but it really is remarkable."

At any realistic distance? Having done some rip/encode of my own DVD's, I fairly quickly found out that I could barely tell the difference between DVD resolution and half that rescaled and reencoded. I mean, sure, 5 inches away, on a still picture I could, but on a moving picture at ordinary viewing distance? I'd have to have a damn good reason to imagine I saw any appreciative difference.

Heck, I can recall reading a survey they did on HDTV owners a few years ago. Most were very impressed with the much better image quality; however, it turned out not even half had actually tuned to the HD channels...

I suspect that most people would get a much larger improvement in actual picture quality by getting new prescription lenses than a higher resolution TV. Or even better, an eye upgrade.

Re:Why are we advertising this failed format war.. (1)

Val314 (219766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17080274)

The HDTV's I have seen in shops all had a miserable picture quality. (much lower than my good old CRT TV)
Very bad colors, tons of artifacts,...

From my point of view HDTV is a step down. (until true digital HD broadcasts are available)

Re:Why are we advertising this failed format war.. (1)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079896)

Bluray/HDDVD do not offer the nearly as great advantages over DVD as DVD did over VHS
Right you are. Remember, in addition to the better quality audio/video, some of the biggest advantages of DVD over VHS for consumers were: no need to rewind, random access, extra content, smaller storage volumes, more robust media (digital versus analog). Add to that the advantage for manufacturers: efficiencies of stamping out discs versus making pre-recorded tapes. Then include the advantages for content providers: region encoding, encryption/copy-protection. All 3 interested parties won with the switch to DVDs so you had a slam dunk. The move the HD/Blu-Ray is not so compelling for any but the content providers.

Hehe ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17080290)

I think the biggest problem with laserdisks was their huge size [www.cdr.cz] .

Re:Why are we advertising this failed format war.. (1)

pinkfloydhomer (999075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079510)

I don't even know where to begin... It of course takes some time for the sales of HD-DVD and BluRay to get some momentum. Look at the sales of DVD when it arrived in 1996. I would say that it was only by 2000 that it was beginning to be very common and much later than that before DVD was more common than VHS. Slowly, as more and more people get displays capable of true 1080p, the need for better picture quality will be evident to everyone. Even the best DVDs look like crap on a large high-resolution display compared to a true HD source. The low resolution and compression artifacts of DVD are all too evident. Then slowly HD-DVD and BluRay players will get as cheap as DVD players are now, all the while more and more titles will be released on the two formats. We are still in the very early phase. I wouldn't be surprised if there are already more early adopters of HD-DVD and BluRay than there were early DVD adopters shortly after its release. And the early players are even cheaper than the first DVD players. The formats are not stillborn, they are just in their infancy. Do you expect them to replace DVD overnight? Do you think that replacing DVD overnight is a criterion of success for the parties supporting and developing the formats?

Re:Why are we advertising this failed format war.. (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079708)

I think the main reason we haven't seen any substantial use of the new formats is because it's just too soon. We've just recently reached the point where DVDs are ubiquitous. Everybody has a player, the price of the media is fairly reasonable, and the average person has a fairly substantial DVD collection going.

Even if the difference were substantial, I wouldn't buy them right now. I'm too far invested in DVDs and that investment has been over too short of a time, in my opinion, to essentially scrap the project. I could run both, of course, but that's irritating in a lot of ways (taking up space, some movies in hypothetically substantially different qualities, etc).

The fact that the difference isn't that substantial only adds to the inertia.

As for the DRM, let's face it: Few people outside of sites like this know or care about it.

I do not agree that the formats are "stillborn." I think they will be picked up, but anybody expecting a huge and immediate uptake was being delusional.

Re:Why are we advertising this failed format war.. (1)

pinkfloydhomer (999075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079838)

The difference _is_ substantial. Not on a 20" CRT tv but on larger high resolution displays like big LCD and plasma screens and most notably a 100" picture from even a cheap 1280x720 front projector. The flaws of DVD are all too evident in these cases. And likewise the superiority of the new formats.

Re:Why are we advertising this failed format war.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17079848)

"Rhetoric": The only bloody weapon in an intellectual's inventory, and consequently intellectuals hold nothing above it.

Uhm... No. (0)

scolen2 (956819) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079230)

As someone who works in this world of too many video standards I have found that almost no one gets it. As for this artical, all it proves is that Sony did it right, while microsoft did it wrong. You DO NOT want upconverstion ever!!! If your source is 720p thne you want it delieved to your TV as 720p, if your source is 1080i, you DO NOT want it delivered to your tv as 1080P. You also do no want HD source delieved though component video 4:2:2 to your TV. While it does do the job, it will not supress future HDCP protection. So in closing... Sony did it right, and microsoft blew it. I should know, I was on the iHD HDDVD side of the wall for a long time. It might be a better Disc spec, but microsoft basicly did everything in their power to make the format fail, and sony learned a importaint lesson from the PS2 making the DVD #1 10 years ago.

Re:Uhm... No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17079288)

You can configure the xbox360 to output without scaling if you got a tv that can take the source and do the scaling...

Re:Uhm... No. (-1, Flamebait)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079570)

Up conversion of 720p to 1080i is much better than down conversion to 480p, which I think *you* don't get. Additionally if your display device can't accept the native resolution than you are upconverting or downcoverting. Of those two options which would you prefer? I'd rather have a scaler go upwards and have software try to interpolate for the pixels that aren't there, rather than reducing the pixels to the same output as DVD. This alone makes the 360 *signicantly* better than the PS3 and makes you clueless. If my output is going to be the same 480p resolution as a DVD, than what's the point of BluRay and how can a PS3 be better than a 360 under this requirement, it can't? I'm sure if you really worked as much with the "video standards" as you say you do, you'd have realised this.

Re:Uhm... No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17079762)

All decent TVs do 720p or 1080p. Those limited to 1080i are about 4-5 years old. Why would someone buy an HD console or DVD player when their TV set is shite?

Re:Uhm... No. (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079788)

1080p TV's have only been into consumer level pricing for the past 6-8 months period. And a TV that 4 years old is shite? What kind of planet are you on where you buy a new 60" TV every couple of years? Look at your post and try and defend that statement, try and show that the average lifespan of a TV's is less than 4 years before they are thrown out. You don't actually believe what you wrote there do you?

Hey there mister anonymous coward (or should I say dannycim) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=209458&cid=170 79316 [slashdot.org] Next time at least try to use some different words to make your childish game a little less obvious next time.

Hardware Vs Firmware (0)

adam31 (817930) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079246)

Your Xbox 360 will Never, ever have HDMI outputs, while the PS3 downscaling to 480p can be fixed with a simple firmware update. Online. And will likely be included in the firmware before you have a chance to even buy one at a store.


If the biggest downside can be be fixed in firmware... that's really kind of an upside.

Re:Hardware Vs Firmware (2, Informative)

prencher (971087) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079364)

If you look at the Xbox 360 Component HD AV Cable" [xbox.com] , you can see they have a special connector at the xbox end of things, it outputs both audio and video.

Wouldn't it be possible for them to make a new cable that has a HDMI or DVI connector on the other end? I would guess that port outputs digital and it's converted in the cable to whatever formats they need. For example the above cable's has a toslink plug for digital audio - it plugs right into the cable's connector, not the xbox.

The other thing that makes me think this is possible is that Todd Holmdahl said in an older interview [teamxbox.com] , that "We're poised to hit the sweet spot of the HD market at launch and as the market matures, and we will provide an HDMI for our customers when it makes sense.".

Re:Hardware Vs Firmware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17079736)

Sorry for being an anonymous coward (I'll create an account I swear!)...
But Microsoft has already confirmed Xbox 360 and its HD-DVD drive are both fully compatible with HDMI v1.3 digital out, and the only thing stopping them from outputting it right now is just the lack of a proper cable.

So, Xbox 360 and its accessory have the exact same out-of-the-box HDMI functionality- ZERO- because neither have cables in the box.

It is a numbers game (1)

alphan (774661) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079262)

Possibly almost all of the Xbox 360 games will be DVD only, hence gamers won't be inclined to buy the HD-DVD. Plus, for the new customer who is into HDTV and movies, XBOX+HDDVD is not really a better solution than PS3.

On the other hand, there will be at least as much Blu-Ray players as PS3s.

At the end, the war is not about technology but numbers.

Re:It is a numbers game (1)

Phernost (899816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079320)

While price point they are equal for the total package. I went with Xbox360+HDDVD since my HDTV doesn't support HDMI 1.2, but it does have VGA. I was not about to drop another $3000 just to watch and play my game in HiDef, because some flawed copy protect is missing from my TV. That's my 2 cents.

Re:It is a numbers game (1)

Crusty Cracker (824806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079882)

Unless I'm missing something, ALL games on the 360 will be on DVD. Previously they've stated that the HD-DVD drive was for movies only.

HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray (5, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079292)

I've been saying this from the beginning, but Blu-Ray will be the winner of the HD format war simply because it has a cooler name. HDDVD is hard to say and sounds like obscure computer nerd bullshit. Blu-ray on the other hand sounds like a devastating weapon that has fallen into enemy hands, putting the world at risk and now needs to be saved by a commando soldier who was recently kicked out of the army for disobeying orders and saving a village of orphans, but now is the world's only hope to avoid sure destruction. Coming to theaters near you, this July 4th.

I think the choice is obvious.

Re:HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray (1)

ultrafunkula (547970) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079318)

If anything I would say that the HD-DVD name would be more beneficial because the average consumer knows what a DVD is are they are being told that "HDTV" is the newest television technology.
I don't think that most of the uninformed consumers would think of chosing a technology with a "cool" name.

Re:HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray (2, Insightful)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079350)

I didn't mean to seriously suggest that people would pick it just because it's a cooler name, but I definitely think that Bluray will be the winning format and that it will be due substantially to it having a better name (although I accept that this will be patently unprovable). Blu-ray is a name that sticks in the consumer's head, HD-DVD on the other hand, while more descriptive, is easily ignored.

To someone uniformed, the name "HD-DVD" doesn't stand out, it sort of sounds like "HDTV" and sort of like "DVD" so you group it in with those technologies in your mind. Blu-ray on the otherhand doesn't sound like anything else so it stands out in the casual observer's mind as something distinct and different -- a new technology.

Actually I'd argue HD-DVD is a much better name (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079634)

The reason being that form the name alone, most people know what it is. Everyone knows that DVD = movies. That's what their movies are currently. Most people also know that HD = high def. High def TVs are called HDTVs, cable and satellite companies talk about HD channels and so on. Thus HD-DVD = high def DVD. Easy to understand. Even if you go to a store, knowing you want high def movies but not knowing what they are called, HD DVD is likely to make sense.

Blu-ray, however, nobody knows what it is. Sony actually has been doing a good deal of advertising to that end, to try and get people familiar with the concept that Blueray and the abbreviation BD = movies. They realise that it will not be automatic.

So I'd say HD-DVD is the better name, marketing wise.

Re:Actually I'd argue HD-DVD is a much better name (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079804)

I'll admit that it can be argued either way, but I still think HDDVD is a worse name.

Superficial differences aside, I'd bet bluray wins out anyways, mostly just because it can hold more data. The only thing working against Bluray is that it requires slightly more new machinery to produce (due to having a thinner plastic layer), but that's a one-time cost for manufacturers, so I don't think it will be a big deal. Also, last time I checked Blu-ray had more companies (both software and content) on their side.

Re:Actually I'd argue HD-DVD is a much better name (1)

Gromius (677157) | more than 7 years ago | (#17080116)

I'm with you on this, I used to think Blu-ray was the much cooler and better name and was annoyed HD-DVD had such a lame name. Part of the reason was I thought HD-DVD sounded too antiquated, implied (to me atleast) that it was still using the red laser of dvd (I know it uses blue) while blu-ray made it clear it was using a lower wavelength blue laser and therefore more capacity. When this came up in a conversation with my non-techy friends it went as follows

Me : I think blu-ray has a better chance because it makes it clear its using a blue (ish) laser to the public and therefore is a next generation storage tech while HD-DVD doesnt and sounds decidely last gen
Them: What the hell are you talking about blue lasers for? I think HD-DVD will prevail because everything is pretty much everything HD these days while I havent seen any blu-ray tvs.

After that conversation, I suddenly became convinced that to the general public HD-DVD is such a better name. See we understand why its called blu-ray and think its a cool and descriptive name, however nobody else does.

Re:HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray (2, Insightful)

staeiou (839695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079402)

I've been saying this from the beginning, but Blu-Ray will be the winner of the HD format war simply because it has a cooler name. HDDVD is hard to say and sounds like obscure computer nerd bullshit. Blu-ray on the other hand sounds like a devastating weapon that has fallen into enemy hands, putting the world at risk and now needs to be saved by a commando soldier who was recently kicked out of the army for disobeying orders and saving a village of orphans, but now is the world's only hope to avoid sure destruction. Coming to theaters near you, this July 4th.

No. VHS vs. Betamax proves you wrong on that one.

Re:HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079512)

This is true, but the technological differences were more substantial with VHS/Beta than with Bluray/HDDVD. Ultimately to most people, especially casual consumers, Bluray and HDDVD are almost identical. On the other hand VHS had a distinct advantage to most consumers -- from its first introduction there were tapes available that were long enough to record full-length movies whereas Beta tapes of that length were not available until significantly after its launch.

Re:HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray (2, Funny)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079884)

True, but HDDVD could be said as "H Double-D Vee-Dee"

This conjures up images of large breasts (the double-d) and STDs (V.D.) Also, I've heard that some junkies refer to heroin simply as "H".

So, if said in the right way, HDDDVD could be interperated as "Herion, gigantic boobs, venereal disease"

It might not be the image HD-DVD manufacturers are looking for, but it'd sound good (properly used) in a gangsta' rap song.

The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (3, Informative)

dannycim (442761) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079316)

More FUD from the Sony bashers. PS3 does 1080p just fine. What it doesn't do is upscale 720p content up to 1080i if the TV only doesn't do 1080p. So what it does is feed the 720p content directly to the TV to do what it can with it, provided it supports 720p. If it doesn't, the PS3 downscales the content to 480p.

So in order to suffer the downscaling, you need a really crappy HDTV which doesn't support 1080p AND 720p.

Personally, I'd be more frustrated at a lack of HDMI on my HD content player as any moderately decent HDTV support either of those two modes fine.

Re:The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (3, Informative)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079644)

So you are cool with paying hundreds of dollars more to only downcovert to the same video resolution as the WII / standard DVD? Only in the past 6-8 months has 1080p come into the price range of most consumers, so the amount of HD TV's in consumers hands that support 1080p are most likely limited to a single digit percentages at this time, so I'd saying any "moderately decent HDTV" will support either of those modes fine is completely insane. The number of TV's that don't do 720p that are in consumers hands today are a much larger percentage than the number of TV's that will accept a 1080p input, so it is a very large concern to a very large number of people.

Re:The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (0, Flamebait)

Troed (102527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079666)

The number of TV's that don't do 720p that are in consumers hands today


... exist only in the USA. Get over it, you're a small part of the world. There's next to nill non-720p-signal-capable HDTVs anywhere else.

Re:The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079776)

Oh... so your rebuttal is that because it's in the US it doesn't matter. Ok, you go with that then, all the people in the US don't matter at all, and Sony is stupid to even to want to sell in the US market. How stupid of Sony to think of anyplace other than Japan, because that's all that matters. Thanks for your intelligent rebuttal.

Re:The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079790)

so your rebuttal is that because it's in the US it doesn't matter

Yes. You're talking about old CRT HDTV sets - modern screens (and that's the variant we have in Europe, btw) are all flat (LCD, Plasma) and are 720p natively (or accept the signal and scale it) or, now, 1080p.

Re:The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079832)

Umm.... I think you are mistaken by making such statements. You don't have front & rear projection units either, that DLP isn't available? And define old? What do you think is the average lifespan of a TV for consumers? The average consumer computer display lifetime is over 5-6 years, why do you think a 50"+ TV turn-over rate would be higher than that? Nobody's arguing that if you buy a TV today, you are going to get it, but you can't say that everybody in Europe replaced their TV's in the past 2-3 years. You can't just run from this thinking that the TV in people's homes are going to be replaced every couple of years, because that's not reality.

Re:The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17080054)

You're incorrect if you believe that the sets you listed above do 1080i and 480i/p but not 720p. Either they're not HDTV (thus 576i here) - or they do 720p (or, they at least accept it as a signal and scale from there).

So, back to my original statement. The problem you so desperately want to be huge (most likely being a fanboy of some sorts) isn't, since it's limited to old CRT HDTVs that have only really been popular in the US anyway.

Re:The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17080180)

"So, back to my original statement. The problem you so desperately want to be huge (most likely being a fanboy of some sorts) isn't, since it's limited to old CRT HDTVs that have only really been popular in the US anyway."

Thanks for all the replies. Each of your statements were crystal clear, so I don't know what the other guy was complaining about.

Bottom line: If someone has a TV that can't handle HDTV input, the blame is not on the PS3.

Re:The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#17080250)

Hahaha... it's hillarious how you are replying to yourself, can you get any more obvious? Please, try harder.

The last line is hillariously fanboyism, re-read it yourself. It's so obvious, I'm almost tempted to say that you were trying to be sarcastic, and really saying that the PS3 doesn't support one of the standard HDTV spec's when all new TV's support all the specs, but a brand spankin new PS3 doesn't. That's lovely irony there folks. Really, if the PS3 was older I'd understand it, but every *new* TV supports all of the HDTV specs, but the brand new cutting-edge PS3 fails to support things that a regular old, boring tech new TV does? That's pretty damn funny.

Re:The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#17080198)

Hmmm... looks at my own 50" Toshiba 50HX70, does it do 720p??? Why no, no it does not. Is it a CRT based HDTV, no no it isn't (it's LCD rear-projection). Was the 50HX70 only sold ever sold in to the US and no other country, why no no it isn't. And I'm pretty sure all the adds say that it's a HDTV system with line doubling.

My rear-projection LCD flat screen display isn't actually sitting in my basement, but it's actually a figment of my imagination because the limitations are limited to only CRT based HDTV's, and a rear-projection tv never was never made that only did 480i/480p/540p/1080i, but not 720p. Because obviously if the TV does all those other resolutions, but not 720p could not be made. Would you like to tell me again what doesn't exist?

The only console I own was a gifted dreamcast so I'm pretty sure that a console fanboy moniker would apply to you not me (you sure seem to have a vested interest in proving that there are no non-720p TV's in the world), I'm more of a hometheater buff who's waiting for the digital TV technology gell a bit more (every new HDMI spec has required new hardware, they just finished 1.3 a couple of months ago) before I convince the S.O. that we should throw out a perfectly working 50" HD display, for 1080p display resolutions that no satelite or cable providers output today, and only could currently be used for something that there is a format war occuring. Unless I have money flowing out my ears, it would be completely idiotic to purchase a TV for that purpose at this time.

Maybe you should step back from the keyboard and ask yourself why you are trying so hard to convince me that my TV doesn't exist, and if you are not the fanboy here.

Re:The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (1)

stabiesoft (733417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17080092)

I happen to "own" one of those TV's. I'm an early adopter (5 yr old TV, which was 5K at the time), and the pic is still very good. So yes, for the early adopters, not having 1080i output scaling is a problem. I will be waiting to purchase a blue ray/hd-dvd combo box that can do the scaling. If none comes out b4 the tv finds the end of life, then I guess I can wait till then. The problem is if the player company's piss off people like me, then there will not be enough early adopters to make it come to fruition. I'd like a HD player, but it has to work without buying a new tv. Oh, and I stil prefer my CRT tv to the latest flat panels. The blacks on LCD just suck, and plasma generally does not have 1080 resolution. The DLP's and LCoS offer a decent black level, but then I'm sort of back to a deep unit just like my CRT RPTV.
Adding to the overall lack of "I gotta have a HD player" is lack of titles. Blue Ray has yet one more problem in that most of the titles are still MPEG-2 encoded, which if you look very closely, ain't that great even at the higher bit rate of B-Ray.

Re:The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079846)

Uh huh... So the fact that the US is the world's largest consumer market and therefore the prime target to most multi-national corporations products, is completely lost on you?

Oh well your from Europe I'll understand your bias...

Re:The PS3 does 1080p just fine. (0, Flamebait)

Troed (102527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17080032)

Oh well your from Europe I'll understand your bias..

At least we can spell "you're" correctly, and compose grammatically correct sentences.

That's funny, seeing as... (0)

TheNoxx (412624) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079496)

My bloody RSS feed had an ad for HD DVD right below this article.

Ha.

not enough 1080p movies (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17079978)

the problem with all this bullshit, is i can't go down to the local video store and rent a movie in 1080p. until i can, no one is going to give a flying fuck about 1080p. there's no significant catalog of movies at that resolution.

Because I never see it mentioned (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 7 years ago | (#17080150)

When I see the HD solutions for Xbox360 vs PS3. I never see anyone saying. "I would prefer to have one box under my TV than two", because I would. I can't see the add-on being anything more than a novelty if its not a standard.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>