http://formatwarcentral.com/index.ph...-at-targetcom/Target.com has a pre-order listing for Venturer’s upcoming “cheap” HD DVD player. The only problem is the player is priced at $249.99. This contradicts the previous press release indicating the player will be priced at $199.00 or less. We wonder who on earth would buy this player, since our local Costco has the Toshiba HD-D2 for the same price.
so there goes the savior of the HD-DVD format, $249 just doesn't have the same ring to it that a $199. The PS3 is a much better deal and a hell of allot more reliable
Results 1 to 22 of 22
$199 HD-DVD player not so cheap- Oops
That's interesting. I'm sure it won't be as enticing to buyers now.
lol Jus't don't understand your logic but ok. I mean, by better deal you mean you can play games on the PS3, then ok... but not all videophiles play video games. Reliable? Sure... since you know the statistics and all... Im not saying your not getting more out of your PS3 than you would a standalone HD DVD player (lol this is too funny to type since your comparing the 2) but to make claims about reliability and which you view is a better deal is just silly.
The SHD7000 will play back HD DVDs at 1080i, support Dolby TrueHD have HDMI output. It's fairly similar in functionality to Toshiba's low-end DVD player, but since it's from China, Venturer's able to cut the price down to the sub-$200 point. It doesn't qualify for the 5 free HD DVD movies like Toshiba players do.
Even at $100 an HD-DVD player couldn't outsell Playstation 3s this holiday season.
LoL! All he HD-DVD camp talked about this year was getting a $199 player on the market and they phailed?
This "format war" is looking more like a format squabble or just straight up "format target practice" by the day..
The surest sign that you are on the right side of a debate is when you find yourself against those who are stuck in the past because they have no future.
lol...well ain't that some ****...who would of thunk...
LMAO!! So much for the cheap HD-DVD player we've heard about for the past 6 months or so. Whats really going to slow down HD-DVD players sales is Target.com is the only place you can get these HD-DUD players because they don't sell them in their stores, which will effect "some" customers who are thinking of getting into HD movies.
This has everything to do with Blu-ray BECAUSE if HD-DVD can't get those "real" cheap players to the market soon that'll make it harder for HD-DVD to catch up to Blu-ray AND gives Blu-ray more time to get their cheap players out. Try looking at the big picture instead of just trying to increase your post count.
"Xbox is about to become the next water cooler”
The PS3 cannot output DTS:MA/HD either, not yet anyway, and could never send it out Bitstream, ever. Also HDMI 1.3/1.3a is a lot of marketing hype, Blu-ray and HD DVD do NOT support Deep Color..... rather an expanded colorspace, which you don't need HDMI 1.3a for, rather 10 or 12 bit processing in your TV, which almost no TVs have until later this year or early next year. Either way....
But I agree..... if they really wanted to make an impact they would have had the $199 price tag.
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Rep Power
There is still time to release a sub 200 dollar hd dvd player before christmas, its only october. Not that I would buy one. Im happey with my ps3 bluray and pretty much every hd dvd exclusive is available on the xbox marketplace in hd. No need for another hd player here.
Why would HD movies advertise 1080p if there was no difference between it and 1080i?
And btw, 250 bucks is a lot cheaper than current bluray players, I can't believe some people in this thread.
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Rep Power
Consoles i own : ps2 xbox360 Ps3 Wii psp
Wanna see what i look like www.facebook.com/laoman
In addition, it isn't just marketing hype. Sure, one isn't likely to see a difference between "Glengarry Glen Ross" in 1080i and in 1080p on a 13" screen. But for much larger displays and content with a lot more motion, more people are likely to be able to see a difference at normal viewing distances. I just don't see how you can claim that no one can see a difference under any circumstances like it's a scientific law or something. 1080p displays are still relatively new, and the their performance is still improving (compare the 60" Pioneer Pioneer Elite Pro-150FD to first gen 1080p displays) . One can't establish that the human eye isn't able to tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p, scientifically. And anecdotally, many people prefer 720p over 1080i for content with a lot of motion. So, I would expect them to prefer 1080p over 1080i for content with a lot of motion, as well.
As for HDMI 1.3, Deep Color isn't the only new feature supported by HDMI 1.3. Lip synch, bitstreaming Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA, and higher bandwith are other features. I know for a fact that there are already HD disc players that output bitstreamed DTS-HD MA and/or Dolby TrueHD. So, HDMI 1.3 clearly is not just marketing hype.
And as I understand it, for Deep Color -- the content has to be encoded in Deep Color, the HD disc player has to support Deep Color, and the display has to support Deep Color (also, anything connected between the HD disc player and the display would have to support it). I'm not sure if any released or announced HD disc players support 30-bit plus color or not, but there's no reason why they couldn't. There is no limitation in either format that would prevent it. If someone buys a player or receiver because it has HDMI 1.3 ports and they believe that it supports Deep Color when it doesn't and/or they think they can get Deep Color without a display that supports it -- then that's their fault, not marketing hype. I would be very surprised to see a company actually claim that its product supports Deep Color when it doesn't. And to be clear, Deep Color is not 10 or 12-bit color. It's 30-bit or more.
On what basis are you concluding that the PS3 will never be able to bitstream DTS-HD MA? What necessary hardware does it lack?
EDIT: There have been displays that support 10 or 12-bit color for quite a while now.
The frame rates between 1080i and 1080p coming from a pure 1080p source and then through HDMI make 1080i VS. 1080p useless, there is no difference, even in fast moving scenes. They are basically identical, you will never see a difference. If a TV properly deinterlaces 1080i material there is no "fast motion" preference, you are merely thinking of TV signals, this is totally different I'm afraid, you got it wrong.
It is mostly marketing hype since the vast majority of the market have no clue what HDMI 1.3a can do, or how to use it. And how can you say it isn't marketing hype when they advertise "Deep Color" on their products? Blu-ray and HD DVD do not support Deep Color, its never going to be on either format. Ever. Thats a fact.
I never said Deep Color was 10 bit or 12 bit. I said expanded Color Space was, most people don't understand the difference. SD Decoders use 601 Decoding, and have since the 1990s, same with 701 decoding for HD Material, but almost no one uses it in their 10 or 12 bit TVs, thats why its useless if you have a 10 or 12 bit TV without the proper decoder - thus my comments before.
It is Marketing hype. On what basis? The basis that the DTS Organization said more than once that for the PS3 to be able to Bistream DTS:MA is impossible. They also said that if the PS3 wants to decode it they would have to work closely with Sony, something which no one has talked to them about. So I never said it was impossible to decode, I said its not going to happen soon. And it wouldn't be a feature of HDMI 1.3a, rather the decoding and sending as LienarPCM, something which HDMI 1.2 could handle, let a lone HDMI 1.2a.
I didn't argue that "people wouldn't see the difference"... because there is ZERO difference between 1080i and 1080p with films off of HD DVD or Blu-ray, you can argue all you want, but there is no difference. Heres why:
There Is No Difference Between 1080p and 1080i
My bold-printed, big-lettered breaker above is a little sensationalistic, but, as far as movies are concerned, this is basically true. Here's why. Movies (and most TV shows) are shot at 24 frames per second (either on film or on 24-frame-per-second HD cameras). Every TV sold in the United States has a refresh rate of 60 hertz. This means that the screen refreshes 60 times per second. In order to display 24-frame-per-second content on a display that essentially shows 60 frames per second, you need to make up or create new frames. This is accomplished by a method called 3:2 pulldown (or, more accurately, 2:3 pulldown). It doubles the first frame of film, triples the second frame, doubles the third frame, and so on, creating a 2-3-2-3-2-3 sequence. (Check out Figure 1 for a more colorful depiction.) So, the new frames don't have new information; they are just duplicates of the original film frames. This process converts 24-frame-per-second film to be displayed on a 60-Hz display.
It's Deinterlacing, Not Scaling
HD DVD and Blu-ray content is 1080p/24. If your player outputs a 60-Hz signal (that is, one that your TV can display), the player is adding (creating) the 3:2 sequence. So, whether you output 1080i or 1080p, it is still inherently the same information. The only difference is in whether the player interlaces it and your TV deinterlaces it, or if the player just sends out the 1080p signal directly. If the TV correctly deinterlaces 1080i, then there should be no visible difference between deinterlaced 1080i and direct 1080p (even with that extra step). There is no new information—nor is there more resolution, as some people think. This is because, as you can see in Figure 1, there is no new information with the progressive signal. It's all based on the same original 24 frames per second.
Because IT IS Scientific law. MOTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
What would sitting distance, and material have to do with anything if they are on Blu-ray or HD DVD? 1080i is still the same resolution as 1080p, same resolution, same amount of visual information, same SMPTE rating for distance, same THX rating for distance, same degree of viewing angle, same screen size, its all the same, now if it were coming from the Cable or Satellite then its different sure.
Thats why, and the only way you can see a difference is with TVs that support 1080p/24. This has been known for a long time, 1080p/24 as existed for a long time, but only recently implemented into TVs this fall/winter. And/or 120hz TVs. Things like Sony's "Motion Flow" technology.
Lip synch is the only thing truly worth mentioning right now. Thats about it. Although most people don't report problems before hand anyway. HDMI is actually considered one of the biggest blunders in the Home Theater world, it had no proper implementation or organization and the regulation and standardization on the product was terrible, from Silicon to everyone who was responsible for making HDMI the HDCP Compliant "must have", even though there were better alternatives.
Bitstreaming TrueHD or anything else other than DTS:MA/HD is pointless, since almost all players can decode and send it out anyway. If the PS3 had the ability to use DTS:MA/HD it would be in this way, not Bitstreaming it, thats also a fact.
Same with Deep Color, its a lesser known fact, but a fact none the less, Blu-ray and HD DVD do not support Deep Color in any way shape or form, and never will.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By SonySan in forum PlayStation 3 and Legacy ConsolesReplies: 5Last Post: 05-06-2009, 08:57
By Jakibikajasy in forum PlayStation 3 and Legacy ConsolesReplies: 0Last Post: 08-18-2007, 08:27
By skyline_2k7 in forum Off-TopicReplies: 7Last Post: 07-12-2007, 09:36
By AJJets107 in forum Off-TopicReplies: 20Last Post: 01-05-2007, 22:52