HD-DVD officially dead (finally!)

[Keranu]

Why do you really want a stack of discs that take up a shitload of space, don't have a lot of movies available, and don't even have as many special features as DVD?

BTW, apparently the collector's edition of Pulp Fiction on DVD is a laser transfer, watch the deleted scenes.

Sarcasm?

No, truth.

More sarcasm?

[quoth09]

Now those who have been paying attention, could say I'm doing the same thing, by saying that all I'm going to do is download now. But here is the difference, I'm what you call a smart consumer. I've already been buying DVDs for 7 years or more. I'm tired of spending endless amounts of money, just because these movie companies/studios decide what format makes it, and what new technology has to supersede the previous, that myself and others have already invested in. Leaving people high and dry is no way to treat a consumer, and it does nothing but piss people like myself off. They offer no upgrade programs, and throw the same old recycled shit in our faces, and I'm tired of it.

You're not a being savvy; you're being unreasonable.  DVD has been around for more than a decade thus far, and will likely remain the dominant format for years to come.  Expecting a single format to be supported forever is just nuts.  Nobody has left you 'high and dry', as your DVDs have no expiration date and will play in any of the next-gen players.  Sony isn't forcing you to do jack shit.

HD-DVD is undeniably inferior to Blu-Ray (30gb < 50gb), and the only reason that any studios originally backed it was because the discs were cheaper to make and therefor more profitable.  Studios aren't behind some conspiracy to ruin a format, but are merely businesses trying to maximize profits, and if Sony were to try to win in an underhanded war, they'd lose their asses to the masters on the HD-DVD side.

It's unreasonable to ask companies to respect myself and others then I guess, and look back at who kept them going.
No, DVDs have no expiration date. They also only play in SD, and look like shit on all the HD players and HDTVs that the market will only be selling in about year. Ask anyone here, plenty of comments about DVDs looking like shit on HDTVs, upscaled or not.

In reference to:
'HD-DVD is undeniably inferior to Blu-Ray (30gb < 50gb)'
Size has nothing to do with this. And even if it did, there is an old saying: It's not the size of the disc, it's what you do with it. Dual layer HD-DVD was being worked on, so your point is null in that fashion, as that would have made HD-DVD 60GB, though that would have been countered by BluRay probably doing the same to 100GB.

[Kitsunexus]

Why do you really want a stack of discs that take up a shitload of space, don't have a lot of movies available, and don't even have as many special features as DVD?

BTW, apparently the collector's edition of Pulp Fiction on DVD is a laser transfer, watch the deleted scenes.

Sarcasm?

No, truth.

More sarcasm?

No, I'm being serious. Why does everybody think LD>DVD?

[quoth09]

Why do you really want a stack of discs that take up a shitload of space, don't have a lot of movies available, and don't even have as many special features as DVD?

BTW, apparently the collector's edition of Pulp Fiction on DVD is a laser transfer, watch the deleted scenes.

Sarcasm?

No, truth.

More sarcasm?

They do this a lot with DVDs. The companies will transfer special features/deleted scenes from laserdiscs, because they either no longer have the masters around anymore, or the commentaries were specifically made for LDs at the time. No one was looking at there being another format back then, nor was one being widely talked about or expected that the same material would be presented elsewhere. I have a few DVDs like this as well. There are also some DVDs that used the same exact transfer that the LD got, they just went back and added menus for the DVD release. Obviously those are none that have been released anytime soon, as I am talking about releases from no later than 2000 or 2001, mainly late 90's stuff.

[quoth09]

Why do you really want a stack of discs that take up a shitload of space, don't have a lot of movies available, and don't even have as many special features as DVD?

BTW, apparently the collector's edition of Pulp Fiction on DVD is a laser transfer, watch the deleted scenes.

Sarcasm?

No, truth.

More sarcasm?

No, I'm being serious. Why does everybody think LD>DVD?

Plenty of reasons:

No compression, which equals
No artifacts (99% of the time) which equals
Looks better than DVDs (especially early ones)
Full size artwork (record size covers, some with gatefold sleeves, some with director comments)
Better artwork than DVD
No region lockouts
Discs don't skip or freeze up
Movies that still aren't on DVD
Some movies that still have better transfers than DVD counterparts
Movies that always have better transfers than any VHS
etc. etc...

[Kitsunexus]

Plenty of reasons:

Aight, let's do this.

No compression

But you have to flip the discs over.

No artifacts (99% of the time)

If you spend more than $50 on a player, you don't get noticeable artifacts.

Looks better than DVDs (especially early ones)

The way you are wording that seems objective, and added in as filler to make the list bigger. WHY does it look better, if that's even true?

Full size artwork (record size covers, some with gatefold sleeves, some with director comments)

OK, that's actually something I do agree with you on.

Better artwork than DVD

But this is just more objective bullshit of a personal opinion.

No region lockouts

You can look up codes or download firmware that remove region lockout for most players.

Discs don't skip or freeze up

If you take care of your shit, shit works. Don't handle your DVDs without a Kleenex (none of that Vicks shit or lotion shit either), and make sure your DVD player is in a cool dry place. They don't put that on the back of the box for their health.

Movies that still aren't on DVD

Again, this is subjective because every movie that I have ever wanted has been released on DVD. Also, I'm pretty sure they don't make laserdiscs anymore, so if you see a movie you like in theaters, well, good luck.

Some movies that still have better transfers than DVD counterparts

And there are some DVDs that have EXCELLENT transfers. It depends on how good of a job the studio feels is "cost-effective".

Movies that always have better transfers than any VHS

But VHS sucks in general, and I don't use it.

[Necromancer]

It's unreasonable to ask companies to respect myself and others then I guess, and look back at who kept them going.
No, DVDs have no expiration date. They also only play in SD, and look like shit on all the HD players and HDTVs that the market will only be selling in about year. Ask anyone here, plenty of comments about DVDs looking like shit on HDTVs, upscaled or not.

How have the companies disrespected you?  They're selling what the public wants to buy, which I shouldn't need to point out to someone that has dumped a Wega because it was too heavy/bulky.  Your DVDs played in SD when you bought them, so you shouldn't be surprised that they still play in SD.  Using quality scaling equipment, DVDs can look equally good on HD sets as they did on a similarly sized SD set.  I'd bet that a lot of the people bitching about the quality of their DVDs are comparing 'em between their 42" (or larger) LCD and their 32" (or smaller) CRT.  Few SD rear projection sets had picture quality that would compare favorably to newer sets.

In reference to:
'HD-DVD is undeniably inferior to Blu-Ray (30gb < 50gb)'
Size has nothing to do with this. And even if it did, there is an old saying: It's not the size of the disc, it's what you do with it. Dual layer HD-DVD was being worked on, so your point is null in that fashion, as that would have made HD-DVD 60GB, though that would have been countered by BluRay probably doing the same to 100GB.

30gb HD-DVDs are already dual-layer, as are 50gb Blu-Rays.  You're likely thinking of their double sided specifications, which double capacity to 60gb and 100gb, respectively.  So far, experimental HD-DVDs have been developed with three layers (51gb) and ten layers (150gb); experimental Blu-Rays have been developed with four layers (100gb), six layers (200gb), and ten layers (250gb).  As far as 'it's what you do with it': they both use the H.264/AVC codec.

[Kitsunexus]

I'd bet that a lot of the people bitching about the quality of their DVDs are comparing 'em between their 42" (or larger) LCD and their 32" (or smaller) CRT.

Hey now, after I changed the aspect ratio I LIKE my new TV.

[Joe Redifer]

Ah man, this seems to be a hot topic.

First of all, 30 GB HD DVD is dual layer.  They were trying for a special tri-layer which would have made it 51GB.  Yes, 51.  Blu-Ray also has a much higher bandwidth than HD DVD (ie: it can read more data at a time, it's like having cable modem vs DSL... or so).  That means higher bitrates for the video and more uncompressed or lossless audio.

DVD is better than LaserDisc in that it is stored in component format whereas LaserDisc is composite AT BEST.  DVD is also 480p and offers a true anamorphic picture.  However any DVD player... actually EVERY DVD player will exhibit compression artifacts.  That's just the nature of the MPEG beast.  It is absolutely impossible to eliminate them.  Some movies will have more than others, etc, but the MPEG2 format is an extremely poor one.  the early DVDs were the worst because they compressed the movie to fit on a single layer.  I hate compression.  I agree with Keranu about the edge enhancement treatment (or sharpness) that many DVDs get these days.  I hate seeing that white halo around contrasting objects in the image.  Unfortunately the studios that do this do it because they actually think it makes the image look sharper or clearer.  They did this with the crappy Star Wars Episode 1 DVD.  Enough people complained to the point where they didn't do it at all or as much for Episodes 2 and 3.

I don't know why people are saying that DVDs look like ass on an HDTV.  They look really good on my HDTV in 480p.  They also look good when upscaled to 1080i on my PS3.  DVDs look good on most TVs, period.  But Blu-Ray looks phuggin' great (depending on the movie, as always).

I don't think I've had DVDs freeze up on me very often, nor a LaserDisc, but it has happened on both formats for me... but never on my own personal discs.

[Kitsunexus]

However any DVD player... actually EVERY DVD player will exhibit compression artifacts.  That's just the nature of the MPEG beast.  It is absolutely impossible to eliminate them.  Some movies will have more than others, etc, but the MPEG2 format is an extremely poor one.

I don't get what you guys mean by artifacts...my Magnavox player has absolutely nothing wrong with it, or maybe I just haven't been looking. Sometimes when things move it looks like they consist of vertical lines, but this only happens on my computer, so I chalked it up to my shitty software DVD decoder.

This brings up an unrelated question, but it has to be asked. Why do DVDs look so shitty on a computer? It looks like you are watching a game of Phantasmagoria someone played that was recorded on one of the very first VHS camcorders.

[Joe Redifer]

If you can't notice the artifacts, you really don't want anyone pointing them out for you or else you will always notice them forever and ever.  But artifacts are things like "mosquito noise" around edges of color, marco blocking, piss-poor gradients, interlacing/deinterlacing artifacts, etc.

DVDs look really good on my computer.

[Kitsunexus]

interlacing/deinterlacing artifacts

I'm guessing that's the one I'm talking about, since I have a vague understanding of what interlacing means thanks to ZSNES, but I'll be honest with you, I didn't understand any of that other stuff.

DVDs look really good on my computer.

But you probably have a zillion-dollar computer.

[Necromancer]

This brings up an unrelated question, but it has to be asked. Why do DVDs look so shitty on a computer? It looks like you are watching a game of Phantasmagoria someone played that was recorded on one of the very first VHS camcorders.

I'd guess a combination of crappy decoding software, crappy scaling software (scaling to a display with far higher pixel density than most televisions, no less), and that you're likely sitting much closer to the computer screen than you do to a television.  The optimal distance that you should be from the display (where you can no longer discern individual pixels) is about 7.5 times the picture height.  For a 20" display it's 6'-3", yet it's only 12'-10" for a 42" display.  I'm betting that you don't sit six feet away from your computer monitor.

[Keranu]

No compression

But you have to flip the discs over.

Flipping discs is easy and if that's too much work for 'ya, you can always get a dual sided player. Besides, no compression is worth it!

Looks better than DVDs (especially early ones)

The way you are wording that seems objective, and added in as filler to make the list bigger. WHY does it look better, if that's even true?[/QUOTE]It pretty much is objective, but that doesn't stop me personally from prefering the natural, analog look of LD over DVD! There are technical advantages of both, but it's what I think that matters anyways .

Better artwork than DVD

But this is just more objective bullshit of a personal opinion.[/QUOTE]Objective, but majority ruled .

No region lockouts

You can look up codes or download firmware that remove region lockout for most players.[/QUOTE]That sounds like more of an inconvience than flipping discs!

Discs don't skip or freeze up

If you take care of your shit, shit works. Don't handle your DVDs without a Kleenex (none of that Vicks shit or lotion shit either), and make sure your DVD player is in a cool dry place. They don't put that on the back of the box for their health.[/QUOTE]Generally this is true, but as I have said, I had brand new DVDs skip before. Also keep in mind that DVDs are smaller and thus scratches would effect them more than the bigger and badder LDs. You could say that LDs are more prone for scratches since they are bigger, but I've never in my experience had a LD skip and never had to wipe one, unlike DVDs.

Movies that still aren't on DVD

Again, this is subjective because every movie that I have ever wanted has been released on DVD. Also, I'm pretty sure they don't make laserdiscs anymore, so if you see a movie you like in theaters, well, good luck. [/QUOTE]You're subjective for only having a limited taste in movies on DVD . I'm going to be un-subjective and say new movies suck.

Some movies that still have better transfers than DVD counterparts

And there are some DVDs that have EXCELLENT transfers. It depends on how good of a job the studio feels is "cost-effective".[/QUOTE]And there are lots of LDs that have EXCELLENT transfers!

Movies that always have better transfers than any VHS

But VHS sucks in general, and I don't use it.
[/QUOTE]And some DVDs suck worse than VHS (The Wizard!).

[Keranu]

If you can't notice the artifacts, you really don't want anyone pointing them out for you or else you will always notice them forever and ever.

Hahaha, so true.