PS3 Blu-Ray or 360 HD-DVD? [Archive]

Shacklebolt

Jan 17, 2007, 05:30 AM

Okay, I realize this is a VERY, VERY narrow thread, as I don't know many people who own a 360 the HD DVD player and the PS3... hell, I'm one of them, but I don't have them in the same place to compare.

I think the HD-DVD player for the 360 is awesome. With the 5.1 sound going and the picture being... well... nice... it's just an awesome movie experience.

That said, today I actually hook up my PS3. I've said it before - I expect the quality of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD to be 100% identitcal.

Does anyone here who has a PS3 have problems with the Blu-Ray quality?

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 05:43 AM

It was only some of the first BluRay discs. They weren't compressed very well and some of the darker scenes have mpeg artifacts.

Newer movies are no problem and yes. Both formats output identical picture and at identical resolutions (although the ps3 itself doesnt output BluRay at 1080i does it?)

Both formats are great offering much better picture quality. Plus stick on Dolby Digtal True HD sound and wow its amazing.

In only the 6 or so weeks that the 360 HD-DVD drive came out I have bought 16 HD-DVD's :eek: Love the quality.

And of course will be getting a ps3 shortly and have no doubt I'll be buying bluray movies that I cant get on HD-DVD

Of course no-one really knows which will win, and with the current situation of multiplayers and studios releasing discs with both formats on the same disc, it could be simply be a case that both continue to exist much like DVD-R & DVD+R.

bozigle

Jan 17, 2007, 05:50 AM

Humm...
that is one of the big mistake made by the bluray side.
For some reason plenty of movie are still encoded with MPEG-2 instead of the both newly algo H.264, and VC-1. on the other hand, most HD-DVD are encoded in VC-1.
So no matter how good is the quality to start from... a HD-DVD will have a much better quality than the same BD... until they realised that they should use a better codec... (and they might release a new version "collector" of the BD that is properly encoded)
When you buy your discs, check on the codec if present on the jacket MPEG-2 is just too old for the HD format in term of quality

bozigle

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 05:56 AM

most HD-DVD are encoded in VC-1.

actually I think all are arent they.

Shacklebolt

Jan 17, 2007, 06:09 AM

Well, I could test hypothetically by getting the Blu-ray of Unforgiven (I already own the HD). I thought it looked spectacular on HD, but we'll see. I've been dropping so much money on electronic gadgetry over the past month that if I feel like I can save 25 bucks, I'll take it.

Funny story, actually. I bought my PS3 60gb, R:fom, an extra controller, and A Knight's Tale on Blu-Ray from Best Buy. On the way to the front, I asked one of the ladies if I would get a discount for paying in cash (as opposed to credit card) - she responded with, "We can't. But I can give you 5% off on the controller" (so what, $2.75 off). When I went to check out, I made a point to say to the lady, "Remember, I was offered 5% off that controller." She looked at me like I was crazy, as the total came up to just short of 800.

bozigle

Jan 17, 2007, 06:12 AM

actually I think all are arent they.

Yop! from the ones i saw, they are all VC-1 but as the BD they can support MPEG-2 and H.264...
let's hope they don't get stupid and keep up with a good codec.

I was just trying to be on the safe side
bozigle

jdechko

Jan 17, 2007, 07:42 AM

...it could be simply be a case that both continue to exist much like DVD-R & DVD+R.

Hmmmm... good point. I knew that + and - were different somehow and that eventually they just made dual format readers/writers, I just don't know how they're technically different. As for HD-DVD and BluRay, I know a little more about the competing formats, but overall are the differences between them comparable to the differences between + and -? And more importantly (and this is more of a rhetorical question) are the manufacturing companies able to overcome these technical differences to provide us with a solution, whether it's a dual (or tri- if you include a standard DVD layer) format disc or a dual (tri-) format player?

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 07:58 AM

whooleytoo

Jan 17, 2007, 08:05 AM

Arstechnica did a great article on Xbox360 v PS3 (albeit, it was hosted by Microsoft to show their console was as good if not better); which included comparison of both HD DVD formats.

On a big 1080p screen, the author claimed he could see tiny differences between the two formats in some scenes with freeze-frame; but they were insignificant. Effectively, the two formats are equal.

aj98

Jan 17, 2007, 08:44 AM

Both formats output identical picture and at identical resolutions (although the ps3 itself doesnt output BluRay at 1080i does it?)

I believe it does.

It'll output whatever format your TV can handle; It's been a while since I set mine up, but I seem to recall a function in the PS3 setup utility where you specify the formats/resolutions your TV supports.

My TV is 1080 native; I get 1080p when I play a bluray DVD.

AJ

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 08:55 AM

I believe it does.

It'll output whatever format your TV can handle; It's been a while since I set mine up, but I seem to recall a function in the PS3 setup utility where you specify the formats/resolutions your TV supports.

My TV is 1080 native; I get 1080p when I play a bluray DVD.

AJ

Sorry your right, bit of confusion. It was that the PS3 doesnt currently output BluRay movies in 720p at all.

It supports 480p / 1080i / 1080p for BluRay movie playback.

So if your TV is 720p or doesnt support 1080i - your BluRay movies will be downscaled to 480p making them no better than DVD :o

e²Studios

Jan 17, 2007, 09:59 AM

Haoshiro

Jan 17, 2007, 10:36 AM

jdechko

Jan 17, 2007, 10:56 AM

Well technically they probably are very different. But if LG has managed to make a multi-player and Warner Bros are able to make discs with both, it causes a bit of a dichotomy.

Because - if you historically force the consumer to make a decision - they eventually do and one of them (or neither) will come out on top.

Betamax - VHS (vhs won)
MiniDisc & Philips DCC - (neither really won)

But - If you say well were going to be friendly to the consumer and give them the option of Not Deciding - then simply no decision is reached and a clear winner is never evident. Great for consumer & manufacturers but not for deciding a clear winner.

DVD-R DVD+R

So if the consumer say's we'd prefer multi disc players and combo discs, which will probably be the case - both formats stand a very good chance of holding in there.

Expect in 12-18 months time, nearly all the main manufacturers (Philips LG, Samsung, Mitsubishi etc...) to have released combi HD players and burners, whilst Sony will continue to only support 1 format (it's own)

I also expect DVD to still be on top in 3 years time.

Yeah, I can kinda see that the dual-format thing is where this is headed based on what's happened so far, with the customer ultimately ending up with a dual-format player and just purchasing whatever movies he/she wants with no regard as to the format. One of the worst things about being on the bleeding edge of technology is having to worry about your format of choice being abandoned. There are already dual-format players on the market (Samsung, I think has one out, too). That and dual-format discs practically ensure that neither format will completely lose, but neither should there be a clear-cut "winner".

e²Studios

Jan 17, 2007, 11:04 AM

Yeah, I can kinda see that the dual-format thing is where this is headed based on what's happened so far, with the customer ultimately ending up with a dual-format player and just purchasing whatever movies he/she wants with no regard as to the format. One of the worst things about being on the bleeding edge of technology is having to worry about your format of choice being abandoned. There are already dual-format players on the market (Samsung, I think has one out, too). That and dual-format discs practically ensure that neither format will completely lose, but neither should there be a clear-cut "winner".

Samsung is Blu-Ray only, LG has the only dual format player that was announced at CES this year.

December sales results put Blu-Ray on top of HD DVD for both hardware and software. Japan is 96% Blu-Ray adoption, HD DVD's encryption method was cracked, Blu-Ray has the support of most the top studios and the biggest group of hardware manufacturers.

Food for thought. In all reality HD DVD proving they cannot secure studios IP is a death blow, especially this early in the game.

As far as the stand alone BD players being bad, have you ever used one? the reviews on the Samsung were great, and the Sony standalone also has great reviews. The new Toshiba HD DVD is supposed to be better than the first one, but the HD DVD add for the 360 on was critized by most home theater sources and reviewers. The problems with most the early BD players was the interface, not the video quality as it is with the 360 player.

Blu Ray will be the clear winner by years end, DVD will start its phase out mid to late 2009.

Ed

zero2dash

Jan 17, 2007, 11:04 AM

DVD-R DVD+R

It's interesting that you bring up -R/+R. I think neither of those was really adopted as a "standard" because it wasn't a really big deal for most people. With movies - you're stuck with one or the other. But with blank media like that, I think consumers just buy whatever they can use (and pay more attention to brand names than anything).

Plus, once dual format burners came out years ago, then the -R/+R war really hit a bottom because it didn't matter anymore; most people could use either and both were equally supported. :o

Expect in 12-18 months time, nearly all the main manufacturers (Philips LG, Samsung, Mitsubishi etc...) to have released combi HD players and burners, whilst Sony will continue to only support 1 format (it's own)

I also expect DVD to still be on top in 3 years time.

Agreed wholeheartedly on both counts. :D
Sony lived and died with Betamax and didn't release VHS players for awhile; I expect to see the same with BluRay if it doesn't take off like they hope.

I think too many people own DVD players, too few people own HDTVs, and it took most DVD owners awhile to go from VHS->DVD and I don't expect any overnight switchers anytime soon. IMHO the standard DVD format is pretty entrenched in most households; players are cheap, discs are cheap, and it's cheap to make your own DVDs (or copies if you are so inclined ;)). DVD isn't going away anytime soon, no matter how well HD-DVD and BluRay do or don't do.

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 11:07 AM

Chances are the 360 addon and the PS3 BD player are pretty equal in quality, only the PS3 has weak BD competition and the 360 has strong HD competition.

Yeah I'm delighted with the quality and have no problems recommending the drive.

Ed, In regards to you comment on the 360's drive

I have not read any negative comments about the 360 drive from users, and the other guys in my clan with the drive love it also and have not had any technical issues.

Can you elaborate what these complaints / issues are ?

The no 720p on PS3 bluray is a by far more of a technical issue in fairness.

At least the 360's HD-DVD does exactly what it says on the tin and outputs all resolutions. 480/720/1080i/1080p and also Disc access time & startup is actually faster than most standalone HD-DVD players.

jdechko

Jan 17, 2007, 11:10 AM

Plus, once dual format burners came out years ago, then the -R/+R war really hit a bottom because it didn't matter anymore; most people could use either and both were equally supported. :o

And thinking about, I honestly believe that's where we're headed with HD-DVD and BluRay. In ~2 years, it'll be a moot point.

DVD isn't going away anytime soon, no matter how well HD-DVD and BluRay do or don't do.

True, stores have only recently (past 12-18 mos) stopped selling VHS in large quantities.

fiercetiger224

Jan 17, 2007, 11:55 AM

This months EGM just rated the PS3 as one of the best Blu-Ray players on the market. As for the HD DVD add-on drive for the 360, they said it was lackluster with a poor picture quality compared to HD DVD standalones and "you get what you pay for at $200".

From what I have read there has been a lot of acclaim for the Blu-Ray player in the PS3, and a lot of complaints about the quality of the HD DVD player add-on for the 360.

The PS3 was made from the start to be a top-quality Blu-ray player. It was made to display true 1080p, along with uncompressed Dolby TrueHD audio. The 360 will always be inferior just because it's an add-on.

Yes, you do get what you pay for. Let's add this up. If you got a 360 pro, along with an HD-DVD player, $399 + $199, that already cost just as much as the PS3. Not only that, but Microsoft will keep it at those price points until Sony does their first pricedrop. They know that they can milk as much money from customers as they can right now, because most customers will be like "Oh, the 360 is cheaper than the PS3, I can get this first, and then get an HD-DVD drive later." And they need to keep it at those price points because they're actually making a profit right now. Their system appears cheaper, until you add those two together. It's just a misconcept for customers.

Personally, I'd like everything built into one unit, and not as an add-on. And for the PS3, you definitely get what you pay for. I know that some people say, "The 360 has better games now! So it's a better value!". And I say, who cares. You know what you're getting. The PS3 is a better value for long term, not short term. And a lot of games that are on the 360 are also on PC, which I vastly prefer over console versions. The PS3 will have games that won't be on the 360 or PC. And that's where your value comes in. The PS3 WILL have excellent titles by fall of this year. Have patience.

I like the 360, it's just that there aren't that many titles that are appealing me right now, and I can find most of those on PC. I'm just waiting for Halo 3, the true reason to own a 360. :D

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 12:04 PM

The PS3 was made from the start to be a top-quality Blu-ray player. It was made to display true 1080p, along with uncompressed Dolby TrueHD audio. The 360 will always be inferior just because it's an add-on.

The 360 outputs 1080p too and also uncompressed Dolby TrueHD.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Please stop FUD'ing. As much as it iritates me when people post unsubstantiated rubbish about the ps3, it goes the same way with the 360.

Really it does nothing than make you look ignorant.

Dagless

Jan 17, 2007, 12:16 PM

The 360 outputs 1080p too and also uncompressed Dolby TrueHD.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Please stop FUD'ing. As much as it iritates me when people post unsubstantiated rubbish about the ps3, it goes the same way with the 360.

Really it does nothing than make you look ignorant.

Yea. That guys comment was uber-FUDable.

What's nice about the 360's HD-DVD drive is for the 6 or so million who bought a 360 before the drive was announced, they just got a next gen video drive for 130 quid. Comparitively speaking that's damn cheap.

There still seems to be a bit of confusion about the whole HD video situation. My brother wanted to get a HD-DVD drive despite him only having an SDTV... "Well they can fit more extras on right?". poor technophobes. Though it cracked myself up when during a talk about HDTV my folks asked "can you get some kind of High Definition DVD player?". They still don't know what BluRay is.

Haoshiro

Jan 17, 2007, 12:22 PM

Not to mention the PS3 BD drive probably added... oh... $200 to the price of the system. Effectively making it pretty much identical in cost to the addon. Point is, you get what you pay for.... either way your just getting a $200 player, either integrated or external! :D :p

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 12:25 PM

What's nice about the 360's HD-DVD drive is for the 6 or so million who bought a 360 before the drive was announced, they just got a next gen video drive for 130 quid. Comparitively speaking that's damn cheap.

Not to mention the PS3 BD drive probably added... oh... $200 to the price of the system. Effectively making it pretty much identical in cost to the addon. Point is, you get what you pay for.... either way your just getting a $200 player, either integrated or external! :D :p

What iritates me is that on one hand you have someone saying the PS3 is cheap for a BluRay player, and its the most expensive machine on the market because it was designed to be a top notch movie player and has all these extra features.

Crticising microsoft for not having 1080p via HDMI, but hold on what about 720p on PS3 ?

They then criticise microsofts add on for $200 saying its too cheap and you get what you pay for, and yet it in the the next hread they will then add all the 360 extra's and complain its more expensive than a PS3...

So if its more expensive surely your getting what you paid for right? The arguments do not stack up and its getting really silly.

Do you not see irony people before you post beacuse I certainly do.

Why can people not simply except that both players PS3 BluRay & 360 with HD-DVD both represent great value for money, both offer great picture and sound and both are not perfect (360 lack of HDMI - PS3 lack of 720p movie support).

Stop spreading FUD people and exercise your mind before you post. :mad:

e²Studios

Jan 17, 2007, 12:30 PM

The 360 outputs 1080p too and also uncompressed Dolby TrueHD.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Please stop FUD'ing. As much as it iritates me when people post unsubstantiated rubbish about the ps3, it goes the same way with the 360.

Really it does nothing than make you look ignorant.

I'm not Fud'ing :)

"Also, if you want the full resolution of Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby True HD, or DTS' trio of new formats, any or all of which are available on HD DVD, you're not going to get it from the Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on. That's because these formats require either an HDMI output or an analog multichannel output--both of which are lacking on the 360 and the external drive."

From a C|Net review.

They also went on to say that it lacked the sharpness of a HDMI connected unit.

I dont doubt that its a good solution for a X360 owner, but in my opinion its lacking in far more areas than the PS3's BD player is. I'm trying to make points without turning this discussion in to a flame fest...

Ed

greatdevourer

Jan 17, 2007, 12:33 PM

Yes, you do get what you pay for. Let's add this up. If you got a 360 pro, along with an HD-DVD player, $399 + $199, that already cost just as much as the PS3. Not only that, but Microsoft will keep it at those price points until Sony does their first pricedrop. They know that they can milk as much money from customers as they can right now, because most customers will be like "Oh, the 360 is cheaper than the PS3, I can get this first, and then get an HD-DVD drive later." And they need to keep it at those price points because they're actually making a profit right now. Their system appears cheaper, until you add those two together. It's just a misconcept for customers. Actually, 360 + HDDVD is cheaper ;)

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 12:40 PM

I'm not Fud'ing :)

"Also, if you want the full resolution of Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby True HD, or DTS' trio of new formats, any or all of which are available on HD DVD, you're not going to get it from the Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on. That's because these formats require either an HDMI output or an analog multichannel output--both of which are lacking on the 360 and the external drive."

I wasnt refering to you Ed ;)

But I get TrueHD and DTS output from my HD-DVD's optical ouput into my DD Decoder as it is, so that's not exactly true.

e²Studios

Jan 17, 2007, 12:43 PM

I wasnt refering to you Ed ;)

But I get TrueHD and DTS output from my HD-DVD's optical ouput into my DD Decoder so that's not exactly true. ;)

I can get Dobly Digital and DTS from my PS3 too, but i dont think i can get TrueHD as its only supported as a format over HDMI, as in Dobly Labs only supports it over HDMI. I'm not sure what the 3 DTS HD Audio varients are, but DTS (5.1) and DTS ES (7.1) are both carried over a optical cable fine.

Edit: From Dolby Labs : "To gain any real benefit from Dolby TrueHD, you will need to have an A/V receiver, as well as a complete 5.1 speaker setup. Your receiver must have an HDMI input, and/or dedicated analog inputs for at least 5.1 channels of information (your receiver's manual should tell you whether or not you have the correct inputs). You cannot use the optical output for Dolby TrueHD."

Maybe the X360 & PS3 players are downmixing to Dobly Digital/DTS over a optical cable?

Ed

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 12:57 PM

Maybe the X360 & PS3 players are downmixing to Dobly Digital/DTS over a optical cable?

Ed

Possible I guess. It does sound better though. Superman Returns got my stomach rumbling with it loudness and clairty with TrueHD selected.

I noticed my amp switches to 96khz rather than 48khz so it looks like the full clarity is going through. ? :confused:

As long as it sounds good I dont mind. :D

I have a list of BluRay titles I plan to buy when I get my PS3 too. Once you've seen HD movies it's hard to go back to DVD though regardless.

e²Studios

Jan 17, 2007, 01:05 PM

Possible I guess. It does sound better though. Superman Returns got my stomach rumbling with it loudness and clairty with TrueHD selected.

I noticed my amp switches to 96khz rather than 48khz so it looks like the full clarity is going through. ? :confused:

As long as it sounds good I dont mind. :D

I have a list of BluRay titles I plan to buy when I get my PS3 too. Once you've seen HD movies it's hard to go back to DVD though regardless.

Agreed it sounds great, at least coming from a PS3 owner that loves watching BD on it :)

From what i remember 48khz is Pro Logic/Pro Logic II/x and 96khz is Dobly Digital/DTS :)

And yes i find myself almost re buying movies on BD that i have on DVD, my common sense usually kicks in though and i dont.

Ed

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 01:09 PM

And yes i find myself almost re buying movies on BD that i have on DVD, my common sense usually kicks in though and i dont.

Ed

LOL, I need some of your common sense transplated. I've bought 16 films in less than 6 weeks and I have them all on DVD :D Even orderd Willy Wonka the 1970's version on HD the other day :rolleyes: Like its going to be that much improved :o

I need a Credit Card divorce :D

Coded-Dude

Jan 17, 2007, 01:18 PM

rolf.....I was gonna buy Searchers(1956) on BD just to see what the quality looked like.
But I hesitated - I am trying to stick with action movies for now, but others will follow.

Transporter(one and two), Talladega Nights, & Underworld: Evoltuion. <- All MUCH more enjoyable in HD
I think Resident Evil: Apocalypse is next(it came out yesterday)

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 01:22 PM

Underworld: Evoltuion.

ooo that's ones on my definite to buy list too :D what's the quality like and is there TrueHD sound with that one.

My head tells me to only buy 'new' titles but my CC screams 'go on, GO ONNNNNNNN' :D

Talladega Nights - does it still come with the PS3 ?

Dagless

Jan 17, 2007, 01:24 PM

aj98

Jan 17, 2007, 01:29 PM

Even orderd Willy Wonka the 1970's version on HD the other day :rolleyes: Like its going to be that much improved :o

You might be surprised.

HDNet Movies is part of the DirectTV HD package.
That channel has run many older flicks at 1080i.

They are indeed much better/cleaner/sharper, etc.

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 01:30 PM

... How can a movie be more enjoyable in a higher resolution? And I've seen my fair share of HD. the only thing it did was add more clarity. Didn't make the acting or directing better, the story more compelling or anything like that. Unless they've got extra footage in the actual feature length film...

I love artwork, looking at a picasso painting in an artbook is all well and good, but compared to seeing it in a gallery in the flesh and to see the extra details does add another level to your enjoyment.

HD - Does it make a poor movie better ? no of course not.

But seeing depth, clairty, colour and objects in a movie you never noticed before, does make the experience better and it increases my enjoyment.

You might be surprised.

HDNet Movies is part of the DirectTV HD package.
That channel has run many older flicks at 1080i.

They are indeed much better/cleaner/sharper, etc.

Yeah I bought 'The Thing' on HD-DVD too and its 20 years old at this stage and the picture is amazing, much more noticeable than I would have thought.

Coded-Dude

Jan 17, 2007, 01:40 PM

... How can a movie be more enjoyable in a higher resolution? And I've seen my fair share of HD. the only thing it did was add more clarity. Didn't make the acting or directing better, the story more compelling or anything like that. Unless they've got extra footage in the actual feature length film...

Watching DVD in 480p on my 37" HDTV is lackluster at best.....HD makes a WORLD of difference. (although upscaling might help a bit)
I you want to translate that to: higher resolutions make movies better, then thats your prerogative, but the experience is just better(IMHO)

Here is a good review of Underworld(the same review that made me buy it)
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/underworldevolution.html

I don't know if Talladega Nights still comes with PS3 or not, but I would have preferred the Uncut Edition, if that has any worth to you.

aj98

Jan 17, 2007, 01:40 PM

Talladega Nights - does it still come with the PS3 ?

Not 'in the box' but it did at BestBuy as of 12-31-06 :)

In my PS3 box was a coupon book for 10$ rebate on each of up to 7 BD movies.

http://www.blu-raymovierebate.com/ps_movies.html

jpfisher

Jan 17, 2007, 01:46 PM

rolf.....I was gonna buy Searchers(1956) on BD just to see what the quality looked like.
But I hesitated - I am trying to stick with action movies for now, but others will follow.

The Searchers is one of the finest looking films I have on HD DVD; the Blu-ray version should look exactly the same as it's from the same master and uses the same compression codec.

Ford used deep focus compositions in the film in many scenes. You really can't appreciate these on the recent DVD remaster; the background is muddled and appears out of focus due to the MPEG-2 compression and 480 line resolution. Watching the film in HD is a new experience, one closer to seeing a VistaVision 35mm print; you can see details in those mountains in Monument Valley that is simply not appreciated in SD.

Action movies, while full of special effects and loud explosions, most often deliver lazy and uninspired cinematography and visuals. Watching the work of a true master like John Ford in HD shows you what the format can do to improve home viewing.

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 01:47 PM

Here is a good review of Underworld(the same review that made me buy it)
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/underworldevolution.html

I don't know if Talladega Nights still comes with PS3 or not, but I would have preferred the Uncut Edition, if that has any worth to you.

Not 'in the box' but it did at BestBuy as of 12-31-06 :)

In my PS3 box was a coupon book for 10$ rebate on each of up to 7 BD movies.

http://www.blu-raymovierebate.com/ps_movies.html

Thanks for the info guys. Guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed that for €629 they throw in a movie or two ;)

Are BluRay movies region free like HD-DVD's are currently ?

Yet to see a single BluRay disc at retail here yet (or a player come to think of it). So may need to buy from Amazon like I do my HD-DVD's.

jpfisher

Jan 17, 2007, 02:01 PM

Are BluRay movies region free like HD-DVD's are currently ?

Yet to see a single BluRay disc at retail here yet (or a player come to think of it). So may need to buy from Amazon like I do my HD-DVD's.

No. The Americas/South East Asia/Japan are "Region A", Europe, Australia and Africa are "Region B" and the rest of Asia is "Region C."

HD DVD is region free at the moment; although that does not mean that players act as region free players for standard DVDs. My Toshiba HD-A1 is locked into playing R1/R0 NTSC discs -- it won't even play R0 PAL discs. I had to keep my region free DVD player kicking around to play SD DVD imports.

fiercetiger224

Jan 17, 2007, 03:04 PM

Actually, 360 + HDDVD is cheaper ;)

Haha by one penny! WOO!

I'm not arguing which console is better. Both consoles are awesome. I'm just merely stating facts about each systems value. Whoever gets mad over facts is silly. The point is, you can't compare between 360 and the PS3. If they had the same feature set, then yes, you could compare them. But they're targeting different markets. Blah blah blah, the PS3 is too expensive. Yada yada yada the 360 is cheaper. :rolleyes:

Dagless

Jan 17, 2007, 03:20 PM

Haha by one penny! WOO!

I'm not arguing which console is better. Both consoles are awesome. I'm just merely stating facts about each systems value. Whoever gets mad over facts is silly. The point is, you can't compare between 360 and the PS3. If they had the same feature set, then yes, you could compare them. But they're targeting different markets. Blah blah blah, the PS3 is too expensive. Yada yada yada the 360 is cheaper. :rolleyes:

Nope.

269+129= 398 (360)
425=425 (PS3)

Plus you also get extra controllers and games bundled free with the 360 now.

e²Studios

Jan 17, 2007, 03:22 PM

Nope.

269+129= 398 (360)
425=425 (PS3)

Plus you also get extra controllers and games bundled free with the 360 now.

And in the US market that would be

399.99 + 199.99 = 599.98

20GB PS3 = 499.99
60GB PS3 = 599.99

I think that is what he is getting at. It is exactly a cent cheaper. And this isnt including the wifi adaptor you need to get the X360 on a wifi network, or a charger of some sort for the X360 controller(s), if you add those two things its actually more expensive.

It's been said before, buy what has the catalogue of games that you most enjoy. I love RPG's, the PS3 is the clear choice for me. As the EGM article this month said "A new FPS for the 360, can you imagine that?!?!". I can only take so much "American" style gaming, and that seems to be what dominates on the 360 as far as titles are concerned. Of course those are the reasons i bought a PS3, I'm sure everyones opinion differs but no ones opinion is the "right" choice, or has merit over anyone elses opinion. Its just that, an opinon.

Ed

Dagless

Jan 17, 2007, 03:31 PM

e²Studios

Jan 17, 2007, 03:40 PM

hmm. truth be told if I lived in America then I think I would be torn between the 2, seeing that neither have games (upcoming or released) that are getting me excited and similar prices.

Still. I suppose the 360 comes with bundled extras over there too? I know my local game shops give away an extra controller and game of choice at for the Premium package.

We saw some bundles during the holidays, but none now. If you really took the two and matched them spec for spec the X360 is actually more expensive, but it seems to be hard for people to see that :(

Ed

MacRumorUser

Jan 17, 2007, 03:49 PM

We saw some bundles during the holidays, but none now. If you really took the two and matched them spec for spec the X360 is actually more expensive, but it seems to be hard for people to see that :(

Ed

At this point I dont think price is the biggest factor - if it was the 20gb would be far more popular than it seemingly is. Games are.

Biggest pity was the PS3 never launched with enough strong titles. The 360 didnt either, but it got away with it because it was the first out of the block.

But when you seem more expensive (until closer inspection) and launch 12 months after your main rival; then maybe unfairly - you're expected to launch with titles that out gun the competition, and it's on this front that it has been lacklustre to say the least.

Especially considering some games like Fight Night Round 3 have had an extra 10 months in development and still come out worse. That's E.A's fault - they suck anyway ;)

But heck there's enough games in the pipeline to get the PS3 over the hiccup.

Anyway this thread is about BluRay & HD-DVD so get back on topic peeps ;) :D

jaw04005

Jan 17, 2007, 05:24 PM

OK. Well, I own both a PS3 (with Blu-ray) and XBOX 360 (with HD DVD add-on).

There are positives and negatives to each format, but overall both look pretty much the same and include the same features.

However, in my PERSONAL opinion ...

• VC-1 encoding does a much better job of smoothing over source material imperfections like graininess. VC-1 has sort of become the codec of choice for HD DVD, however it is supported on Blu-ray. But many Blu-ray studios prefer to encode in AVC (basically h.264) and MPEG-2.

• My XBOX 360 is extremely noisey, almost to the point that it's annoying if watching films with quiet or softer moments. (Speculation: This is supposed to be fixed in the future version 2 release of the XBOX 360 later this year.)

•My PS 3 is extremely quiet, even during movie playback. We frequently forget to turn the PS 3 off, it's so quiet.

•The PS 3 has an HDMI port. This is important if movie studios decide to enable HDCP in the future. However, HDCP is not required for current shipping Blu-ray and HD DVD titles. HDMI (which is essentially DVI + audio) also provides a much clearer, sharper picture on my Samsung HDTV. (Speculation: The 360 v.2 I alluded to earlier apparently includes an HDMI port.)

• The XBOX 360's add-on is only $199. Therefore, if you ALREADY OWN a 360, the add-on is your most affordable solution.

• The XBOX 360's VGA cable (which you would assume would give you optimal playback quality) has issues with some HDTV's resolutions including my 1366 x 768 Samsung. It only supports up to 1360 x 768. This causes my TV to perform scaling, which unfortunately softens the picture quality. Also, the VGA cable tends to wash out certain colors (at least on my TV). Component is the alternative, however I have another device using my 1 set of component inputs.

Not HD DVD vs. Blu-ray related, but the PS3 does not currently support upscaling of current DVDs. Apparently, Sony has confirmed that they are working on that feature to be released in March. However, the XBOX 360 will upscale DVDs using the VGA cable.

Overall, it's all going to come down to which movie studios you enjoy the most. Are you a Disney fan? Want the latest HD version of Pirates of the Caribbean that will be released in March? Go Blu-ray. Are you an Universal fan? Is Jurassic Park your favorite movie? Go HD DVD. (Note: Jurassic Park has not been announced as an HD DVD title, yet.)

Here's the latest studio support list:

Blu-ray: Exclusive support from Fox, Disney, MGM, Lionsgate and Sony with non-exclusive support from Warner Bros, Paramount and New Line Cinema.

HD DVD: Exclusive support from Universal only with non-exclusive support from Warner Bros, Paramount and New Line Cinema.

CES Update: Read what you will, but Universal did not unveil a schedule for any new HD DVD titles. However, the HD DVD camp did have a strong showing of future hardware.

Good luck.

Haoshiro

Jan 17, 2007, 06:47 PM

One thing that I like about the HD-DVD addon is that it comes with a universal remote and a movie (King Kong). It's annoying you don't get a remote with even the 60GB PS3.

I still like the option of not being able to buy it. I do have one now, but I never intended to, and it was almost a year before I actually did.

fiercetiger224

Jan 17, 2007, 09:31 PM

And in the US market that would be

399.99 + 199.99 = 599.98

20GB PS3 = 499.99
60GB PS3 = 599.99

I think that is what he is getting at. It is exactly a cent cheaper. And this isnt including the wifi adaptor you need to get the X360 on a wifi network, or a charger of some sort for the X360 controller(s), if you add those two things its actually more expensive.

It's been said before, buy what has the catalogue of games that you most enjoy. I love RPG's, the PS3 is the clear choice for me. As the EGM article this month said "A new FPS for the 360, can you imagine that?!?!". I can only take so much "American" style gaming, and that seems to be what dominates on the 360 as far as titles are concerned. Of course those are the reasons i bought a PS3, I'm sure everyones opinion differs but no ones opinion is the "right" choice, or has merit over anyone elses opinion. Its just that, an opinon.

Ed

Well said! I'm glad SOMEONE caught that I didn't add the wireless adapter to the price of the 360. C'mon, that's another $99.99. So the price would be 699.97. Another item that would be sitting outside of the console...Instead of being built in.

And EGM is right, Xbox360 is obviously appealing only the Americans, while the PS3 will more likely be appealed to the Japanese markets. We'll just have to see what happens in the next year. Maybe the Japanese will be willing to get an Xbox360 over the year... :rolleyes:

Dagless

Jan 17, 2007, 09:46 PM

And EGM is right, Xbox360 is obviously appealing only the Americans, while the PS3 will more likely be appealed to the Japanese markets. We'll just have to see what happens in the next year. Maybe the Japanese will be willing to get an Xbox360 over the year... :rolleyes:

From what I've seen the Japanese have selected their console - the Wii :D

And you're right on the WiFi front. Infact it'd cost me an awful lot just to get a working 360 (WiFi+VGA). This is why I'm still not settled on one of the alternative consoles. Both machines will probably cost me the same.

fiercetiger224

Jan 17, 2007, 09:58 PM

From what I've seen the Japanese have selected their console - the Wii :D

And you're right on the WiFi front. Infact it'd cost me an awful lot just to get a working 360 (WiFi+VGA). This is why I'm still not settled on one of the alternative consoles. Both machines will probably cost me the same.

Yup, the Japanese are craaazy about the Wii. Or should we say, all over the world? :D Currently I own the Wii, and I'd like to say, it has great potential.

Haha, about the value of the 360, I guess fanboys like to defend what they like. The mere fact is that if you wanted both wireless and HD-DVD, it would cost $100 more than the top end PS3 model. If you take out both, and compare it to the 20 GB PS3, maaan, does the PS3 still have its value. $499 for Blu-ray. I would like to state that Sony is making a biig mistake by marketing the 60 GB model as the best value. I'd say the 20 GB is a better value, because you DON'T need wireless, or the card reader. But, I guess Sony is pushing the 60 GB just because it's cheaper for them to sell than the 20 GB.

Dagless

Jan 17, 2007, 10:05 PM

In 360's defence though, if you don't need/want a HD video option then you end up better off.
Right this minute I probably wouldn't buy into next gen discs myself. I'm a firm believer in HD downloads over discs (despite being on a 512kbps connection).

To this day I cannot fathom the reasons for MS not sticking in WiFi. Every other console and handheld made since 2003 has it built in. Why isn't there an internet explorer on it too? again... DS, Wii, PSP, PS3 all do it to some extent. Would be a nice free extra to throw in there. Especially with the resolutions that thing can go up to.

sikkinixx

Jan 17, 2007, 10:14 PM

From a numbers standpoint, won't Blu-Ray have an advantage simply because there will be millions of PS3 owners ? (no matter how much you loathe PS3, you have to admit they are gonna sell more than a few million of them) and if every owner buys just 1 blu-ray movie than thats millions of blu-ray discs sold.

Obviously every person won't buy one but then there are people who buy a dozen so it will kinda even out.

I wanna buy some Blu-Ray movies to see the difference but I need an HDMI-DVI cable or an adaptor but I don't wanna spend then $70 everywhere seems to charge for them :mad:

MacRumorUser

Jan 18, 2007, 04:58 AM

fiercetiger224

I swing this thread back around to the proper TOPIC, and you post again with your rantings and ravings over price.

If you want to talk price, open your own thread. STOP HIJACKING peoples threads for your own personal ajenda and motives everytime.

There is an option in the forum to post NEW thread - use that to post your own.

If you feel compelled to step in and take someone elses thread from them again - you will be reported.

takao

Jan 18, 2007, 07:58 AM

From a numbers standpoint, won't Blu-Ray have an advantage simply because there will be millions of PS3 owners ? (no matter how much you loathe PS3, you have to admit they are gonna sell more than a few million of them) and if every owner buys just 1 blu-ray movie than thats millions of blu-ray discs sold.

the difference is that with the 360 add on everybody who buys it is going to use it for watching HD movies
since blue ray is built in with the PS3 many will have it and not use the blue ray feature at all

sure in raw numbers blue ray might lead in terms of players untill standalone hd-dvd gets cheaper but it's more important to watch media sales