If by content they mean the whole movie in iPod format then I am all for it. The only thing I would want on a true video iPod is movies, shows, & videos. Not incomplete extras with commercials.
Of course. Any data disc can store any kind of file you want. Video DVDs, after all, are just data DVD-ROMs with movie-containing files in the VIDEO_TS folder. It's my understanding that something similar will be used for HD-DVD and BD as well, so the ability to have iPod-compatible content is a no-brainer.nagromme said:Considering that you can put DVD-ROM content on any DVD or BD, it seems perfectly doable to have the BD-ROM content be files for iPod.
Actually, the dependency is the other way around. The PS3 is (supposedly) ready to go, but it was delayed because the content providers have not yet reached consensus on the DRM BD movies will be required to use.nagromme said:BTW, is Blu-Ray totally dependent on the (often-postponed) PS3 release date? Or with PS3 delayed, is there hope of seeing Blu-Ray arrive ahead of PS3?
The PS3's delay may be what kills BD (since it is expected to cost much less than standalone BD video players), but it's because of delays in the BD standardization process, not the PS3 itself that are causing the PS3 delay.nagromme said:Blu-Ray is so much better than HD-DVD, I'd hate to lose it just because a game console is late.
It's not quite that simple.dr_lha said:In what way? BetaMax failed mainly because the tapes has too small a capacity compared to VHS, but the quality of the video was basically the same as VHS, so in essense it was worse. Anybody tells you anything else is believing an urban myth, or backed the wrong horse in the early 80s.
Better than this. BD is 25G per layer. 2-layer discs (50G capacity) will be supported immediately. 4-layer discs (100G capacity) have been demonstrated. The developers claim that 8-layer discs (200G capacity) should also be possible.joebells said:Yeah blu-ray is 50 gigs compared to 35 for hd-dvd(numbers might be off a gig or two).
The DVD Forum (sponsors of HD-DVD) have been saying this. The BD supporters are saying that although it will require new equipment purchases, the costs will be quickly made up, given the massive quantities that studios publish movies in. Overall, I don't think the actual cost to consumers will be any different.joebells said:What hd-dvd has going for it is cost to manufacture. The existing regular dvd pressing plants require little modification to make new hd-dvd disks. Blu-ray requires almost new lines and so the cost is greater at least for now.
They said the same thing about DVD being backward compatible with CD. But dual-laser drives became available almost immediately, regardless. (Has anyone here seen a DVD player incapable of playing audio CDs? I never did.)joebells said:I also believe that hd-dvd is backwards compatible and blu-ray will require the inclusion of a second laser to be backwards compatible so not all players will be.
What hassles? Unless you plan on making copies of your discs, nobody will notice or care. Just like most consumers don't notice or care about the CSS encryption on existing DVDs.Thataboy said:Can someone please explain to me why ANYONE is looking forward to Blu Ray or HDDVD? Is the supposed "amazing" resolution really worth the price and encryption hassles?
shamino said:And older TVs without HDCP will still be able to display analog HD (via the component video inputs.).
supremedesigner said:Well, you're wrong. You haven't seen Blu-Ray yet, they're not even out yet. Why judge when you don't see one yet?
BTW, I check HD-DVD at Best Buy and it looks nice. Not too sure about Blu-Ray since it's kinda similar to BetaMax. Also, I don't know people will go for PS3 since all games are going to be at least $70-$100. That's way too pricey plus too expensive. But that's me.
Thataboy said:Can someone please explain to me why ANYONE is looking forward to Blu Ray or HDDVD? Is the supposed "amazing" resolution really worth the price and encryption hassles?
I'll stick with plain DVDs, thanks.
dukebound85 said:Yea ok even if it means that it costs alot more to produce these than HD-DVD. I don't know about you , but I dont want to buy expensive media when a cheaper alternative nearly as good is right there.
Thanatoast said:Does Sony sell a portable video-player? Would it want to compete with itself? Why give iPod a leg-up when they could include a version to fit their own player's needs? Complicated.
Yes and no.astral said:I'm not up to speed on this, but I remember reading awhile ago that the content providers wanted to limit this analog output to 480P, thus negating the advantages over DVD for people without HDCP.