Anyone noticed they snipped the bit about Blu-Ray selling 65% and HD DVD 35%

Usual Betanews Bias shows itself again.

Some more links to share,

http://www.videobusiness...amp;articleid=CA6467868

http://www.highdefdigest...ls_HD_DVD_by_2_to_1/848

The gap closing between Blu-Ray standalones and HD DVD standalones.

300 was a fantastic movie, its no surprise the hi def versions are selling well, its like an orgasm of art for you eyes. And its also a man-movie .. not like the other feminine crap hollywood's been coming out with.

Speak for yourself. eye-candy does not make a film.

Indeed, eye candy alone does not a good movie make.

not a bad of a movie.

if you liked it serach for "united 300" in youtube. lol

Apparently I'm the only one who hated that slow motion borefest.

Haven't seen it yet, it just showed up from Netflix on HD-DVD. If I like it as much as I liked Sin City, I'll buy it.

By the way, the BD version of 300 is outselling HD-DVD but not by much. Typical of all HD movie sales.

I would imagine all the people with dedicated BD players are driving movie sales. The PS3 not the driving force of BD apparently.

plus 1

Good, not great. IMHO, definitely better than Alexander, better than Troy, better than Kingdom of Heaven Theatrical Version, not as good as Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut... As far as post-LOTR epics are concerned. I'm not sure how I'll take 300 the second time around.

I think people are tiring of seeing two sides of thousands of soldiers running at each other. It was an awesome sight for Braveheart. And carried on through Gladiator and LOTR. But it's really becoming old hat.

Troy seemed very soap opera-ish to me whereas Gladiator was gritty and the cinematography was much better.

All 3 LOTR films were spectacular and they were all filmed at once with the same director. This is why they are so seamless from one story to the next.

We will see, I hope I like it as it's a Frank Miller adaptation. Sin City 2 should be out in 2008.

Latz, you are not alone.

You can get a good idea by the sales ranking at Amazon. I would imagine the BD version is selling better considering there are 4 million BD players out there.

Indeed, the Blu-Ray version is just behind the DVD version. The HD DVD is way down that list.

The Blu-Ray version is also cheaper. Nice.

http://www.amazon.com/gp...d_1/102-3399534-5021760

Stop already. Did you read my quip about you on the upcoming HD-DVD player thread?

In case you are too lazy to go read it, I copied and pated it here:

"Hey Dave(s),

I see you base electronics on looks rather than performance. You fall into the percentage of the population that are mindless sheep and has no clue about anything technical.

You are and will always be nothing but a half witted troll. If you notice, not person (except all of your usernames) ever disagrees with me.

It must suck to know you will always work for someone else from 9-5 every day (including weekends apparently) for a living until you are 65 or whatever the retirement age on that side of the pond is, at which point, you will have to survive on whatever you have managed to save up in your meager, unimportant existence.

This is why I am thankful every day that I'm nothing like you or your kind. People like you make my day better because it makes me realize that I'm not a mindless drone who's opinion is given to them. You are like an ant or a worker bee, but less important because no one listens to your nonsense.

Your posts are comical because it is so apparent you are a frustrated and confused individual with an unnatural obsession of the Sony Corporation, who doesnt even pay you to be a shill.

I can't say I feel sorry for you because you chose to be the way you are.

I see you got up at 6:26AM to run to your computer to see what Hollwood__ had to say about you. Low and behold, all of your supporters are early risers too.

Funny thing is, if you actually cared about performance, you would realize two system, supporting identical codes, one with 30GB/32Mbit/sec, the other 50GB/54Mbit/sec, you would see that Blu-Ray is vastly superior.

Whilst today, that's not obvious, as most companies support both formats, and therefore encode to the lowest common demonitor (bitrate and size of HD DVD), once that format dies, the encode bitrate of Blu-Ray DVD will rise far above what it is today.

Even funnier is that after a year Blu-Ray still hasn’t matched the interactivity features HD-DVD has had since day one. Nor is network connectivity required or picture in picture. I still find it interesting that all of the highly interactive HD-DVD's (like 300 and Batman and Matrix) either are not released on Blu-Ray or are neutered to the point that they have no additional interactive elements over the standard DVD.

And when Blu-Ray is finally up to the same level of features HD-DVD has, movie publishers will not be inclined to take advantage of them because a large percentage of players already in the wild will not support it (and may even break).

Is Blu-Ray ever going to be able to take advantage of the extra capacity of the discs that are being taken up by uncompressed audio formats that would not be required had the Blu-Ray consortium mandated decompression of the new HD audio formats like the DVD forum did.

It is funny.

Since Hd-dvd did submit for a triple layer disk which will be 51 Gb then I guess if and when they start using that format then they will be higher from your logic as 51>50

Well said.

There's no arguing disc size or potential bitrates, but I have yet to see or read about any proof that this is noticable in most home setups.

I believe it would probably require 1080P to see any difference, if it is even noticable.

Its kind of like lossless audio - the majority of consumers really won't care.

You know that if they go tripple layer, every single HD DVD player produced to date will be worthless? Firmware upgrades WILL NOT be able to make the pickup able to focus on the 3rd layer, it's a hardware change.

That is simply not going to happen. 51GB discs are PR used to fool poeple.

Anyone notice, HD DVD fanboys use the "you don't need 50GB, all it's filled with is useless crap, 30GB is fine" spin, when talking about the size deficiency of HD DVD.

HOWEVER, all of a sudden, that same useless crap is now something special when it applies to HD DVD...

Sure Blu-Ray has lagged in it's interactivity features, as the spec has only recently been finalised. However, ALL Blu-Ray players will play ALL future movies that conform to the new spec, they won't however be able to access the special features. PS3 will almost certainly be updated to the new spec (as it's got ethernet, it's software based, and has ample resoures to handle the new functionality)

That doesn't mean they won't include it in new hardware. Though it would suck for people that already have an HD-DVD player. Me personally I don't care about HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. I think I'll bypass them both. I don't buy movies anyway, I don't even own one standard DVD. If I watch a movie I mostly rent, but I hardly do that though too.

This is why I avoid HD.
The market is unstable, and they are using early adopters, and their cash, as test platforms for new tech.

I feel for the people who bought HDTV's from 2003-2006. Because what you have now is so much cheaper and such better quality. We are just beginning to get out of the infancy of HD. I'll wait until it's exiting adolescence.

What really is messing with people who bought an HDTV from 2003 to 2006 is the industry rolling over and complying with Hollywood's insistence on digital protection. Some tv's have Component only and may or may not have the required HDMI or DVI that has HDCP support.

Quite honestly, most people would be just fine with 720p. 1080i is OK, but 1080p is overkill unless you're just that anal retentive/discriminatory about video.

Heck, 480p/DVD resolution is fine for a lot of people.

It's the marketing, price, and content protection technologies pushed by Hollywood that really is the problem with HD.

I'd be interested in the breakdown if 300 was released in both formats. Did the HD DVD version sell more? Did the Blu-Ray version sell more? How did that compare to regular DVD sales of 300?

DVD Salesrank #2
Blu-Ray Salesrank #3
HD DVD Salesrank #7

http://www.amazon.com/gp...d_1/102-3399534-5021760

actually #7 is the wide-screen single disc dvd.
hd-dvd combo sits down at #10 and blu-ray still at #3

Is there anything with quantities sold?

Who cares, they are relative to each other.

I want to know the difference in sales. At this point it can be any ratio due to speculation, 10:1, 5:1, 2:1 take your pick.

Week 1:
Blu-Ray: 163,000+
HD-DVD: ~90,000

"This is madness!"
"No. This! Is! A format war!"

Does it really make a difference that WB happens to be the leading HD disc selling studio so far? It's not like people a couple of years from now will be like, "You know since Warner has been the leader in selling HD movies, I'll go out and buy the HD reissue of 'Practical Magic'!"

Also in other news, the HD-DVD version includes the dvd version as well..

if i wanted the dvd verison id probably buy the dvd.

The point is you get a HD format and a regular dvd which means no matter what you cannot lose, sure you can just buy the dvd version, the point is if you wanted to go with HD why would you choose blu-ray what added value does the blu ray version bring?

Um, sure a great argument for those that don't already have HD-DVD players! But what about us that do? Why do I have to pay $5 to $10 more to get a standard def DVD on the back side that I don't NEED.

This is why I bought "300" on BluRay (I own both format players) I saved $6 over the HD-DVD one.

I get asked to loan out my movies so it works out for them since the HD has the regular DVD on it. They can still watch my disk since it has both formats on it.

Can I also get the VHS version too?

Nice, being forced to pay $5 more for low-def version on the same disc?

Have they ever heard of choice? If I have a HD player, I only want the HD version, I don't want to be forced to buy the SD version aswell for extra money.

That's nice but I doubt that's the majority.

HD-DVD really needs to consider offering HD only versions at a reduced cost. I mean Warner is asking vendors and all alike to please lower costs to consumers yet they pull this duo-format disc crap. Makes no sense.

i consider buying a product i will not use and do not want a losing situation. thats like saying if i only have a dvd i should be buying the hd-dvd combo version just for the added value.

I guess on that pathetic 42" plasma of yours VHS, DVD, and HD would all look about the same.

The problem is your set doesnt do 1080p, I looked it up. The best you can do is 720p or 1080i.

Looked like you are the one who got "pwned" to quote your silly leet speaking ass.

"The best you can do is 720p"

Thats funny, wasn't Davey blurting for the longest time that nothing is truly HD if it isn't 1080p?

I like the combo set. I have my HD-DVD set in my room. I took advantage of the regular DVD over the weekend though. It's very convinient for when I want to watch my movies in the living room and not my room.

You do realize the "majority" isn't even buying either format today and I'm sure has different needs than the rest of us early adopters.

The only problem with the Combo's is that they charge more than they need to. They could probably charge just $2 more and make up the extra cost in producing it. For $2, its well worth having the DVD Version.

I travel a lot in the summer on weekends and often take the Netflix titles we get with us. When its a Combo, it works out great. When its Blu-ray or HD DVD only, not so great. Combo's are good. And I felt worth the extra $5 for 300.

Nah. The majority probably wants it. A lot of people probably only have 1 player. Therefore if they want to watch it somewhere else, all they haft to do is flip it over. Or maybe if they want to watch it on the road or something. Saves you from having to re-buy it on DVD.

You can also loan them to someone who only has a standard DVD player. Most homes don't have two HD-DVD players let alone two HDTV's.

Also, you can load the standard version into a Kaleidescape or any other movie server.

"Have they ever heard of choice?"

Now you want choice? What about the PS3 forcing you to get Blu-Ray and charging more for it?

Hypacrit.

Yep. I told you. :)

Funny, it accepts 1080p just fine.

You're talking crap as usual. (like when you claimed it was a back projector, or that the PS3 was a 20GB model).

...and in other news, the plain ol' dvd of "300" sold very well, too.