«

T.B. wrote:
> Appropriately named "dork" babbled:
>
>> Another thing, Warner Brothers masters ALL it's new HD stuff in HD-DVD
>> first, then copies it to Blu ray.
>> So if your watching a Blu ..Beta Ray WB movie, it's just a copy of an
>> HD-DVD.
>
>
> That's got to be the dumbest thing I've read in this newsgroup, and believe
> me, a lot of stupid comments have been posted here over the years.

Yeah, it's like he couldn't even tell the difference between VC-1 and
MPEG-4 AVC!

Derek Janssen (uh, he happens to be correct)

T.B. wrote:

> Appropriately named "dork" babbled:
>
>> Another thing, Warner Brothers masters ALL it's new HD stuff in HD-DVD
>> first, then copies it to Blu ray.
>> So if your watching a Blu ..Beta Ray WB movie, it's just a copy of an
>> HD-DVD.
>
>
> That's got to be the dumbest thing I've read in this newsgroup, and believe
> me, a lot of stupid comments have been posted here over the years.

Well, let's wipe away such foolishness with some data-crunching
evidence, then, shan't we?:

Given that VC-1 is the said codec used for HD-DVD releases, and Blu-ray
champions MPEG-4 AVC, we at least have references to check which title
uses which--

So, as we can see from a sampling of titles from the dedicated-Blu
trilogy of Disney, Fox, and Sony, the listed "Video Codecs" for mastering:
Disney:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=306
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=507
Fox:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=560
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=601
Sony:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=546
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=349

And the video codecs for Warner?--Ha! No difference at all:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=545
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=571
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=375

(Ho, ho, that's rich! "Warner using one crappy HD codec because they're
too cheap-bastard to master two separate releases, and singlehandedly
representing the biggest setback about keeping a dual-format war
going"...As if! Yuk yuk! What a maroon!)

Derek Janssen

dork wrote:
> "Jordan" <> wrote in message
> news:a0c65bbe-6b0e-42ef-a0e2-...
>> On Dec 28, 1:48 pm, "Shonk" <a...@a.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> why are people so negative about blu-ray
>> Because Sony shouldn't be allowed to control the entire distribution
>> chain from the time a movie is made through it being sold to the
>> consumer.
>>
>>> 50gig a disk
>
> Toshiba has a 51GB disk approved by all members including Disney. By the
> time it arrives later this year it will be a finished and fully tested spec
> unlike Beta Ray.

Guess what Einstein... it will NOT arrive this year, since there are
only two more days left from your own post... and don't hold your breath
for it coming up any time soon... The 100GB BD format is more compatible
with the current BD players than the 51GB is with the current HD DVD
players (read Toshiba).

>
> note that MOST Beta Ray movies are still on 30GB disks.

Beta Ray (I'm assuming you're trying to be witty here)... that's cool,
except for one thing... it does not help your cause, especially when you
think of BetaMax being supported by one hardware manufacturer, just like
HD DVD is presently.

HD DVD is not in the greatest of shape, not even in your mind...
otherwise you'd not stoop so low out of the blue... you're way too
desperate bud!

>
> In fact most games especially from EA that are on the PS3 are just regular
> old...DVD's.
>
> Another thing, Warner Brothers masters ALL it's new HD stuff in HD-DVD
> first, then copies it to Blu ray.
> So if your watching a Blu ..Beta Ray WB movie, it's just a copy of an
> HD-DVD.
>
>
>

I'm sorry to hear that if I buy a "Blu-ray" disc made by Warner I'm only
getting HD DVD quality... that's pretty low of WB



--


------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bogdan Macri - Photography & Consulting

bogdan dot macri at geemail dot com

Bogdan Macri wrote:
> dork wrote:
>>
>> Another thing, Warner Brothers masters ALL it's new HD stuff in HD-DVD
>> first, then copies it to Blu ray.
>> So if your watching a Blu ..Beta Ray WB movie, it's just a copy of an
>> HD-DVD.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that if I buy a "Blu-ray" disc made by Warner I'm only
> getting HD DVD quality... that's pretty low of WB

It's become the "symbol" of why the industry just isn't working under
that dual-format system that the draft-dodgers think is so "livable" and
"economic":
Unless companies want to spend money creating two separately different
industries--which Warner, for one, DOESN'T--any industry with two
different formats is forced to sell to the Lowest Common Denominator.
And as long as HD-DVD exists, *that* just happens to be Lowest.
And that seems to be the problem with all the Dual-format studios right
now...Oops, wait. There's aren't "all the dual studios" anymore, are
there? Just Warner.

Trust us: When we say we want to wipe HD off the face of the earth,
it's not brand loyalty or rah-rah cheerleading for "evil" Sony.
It's wondering just how darn long we're going to have to suffer for
buying an innately defective product, when all the machinery is readily
available to NOT make it defective.

Derek Janssen (CES'08 Countdown: 9 days...At this point, we'll even
take a VC-1 Casablanca, if it's one more step toward Unconditional
Warner Surrender)

In article <lwXdj.2271$sX5.1177@trndny01>,
Derek Janssen <> wrote:

> Bogdan Macri wrote:
> > dork wrote:
> >>
> >> Another thing, Warner Brothers masters ALL it's new HD stuff in HD-DVD
> >> first, then copies it to Blu ray.
> >> So if your watching a Blu ..Beta Ray WB movie, it's just a copy of an
> >> HD-DVD.
> >
> > I'm sorry to hear that if I buy a "Blu-ray" disc made by Warner I'm only
> > getting HD DVD quality... that's pretty low of WB
>
> It's become the "symbol" of why the industry just isn't working under
> that dual-format system that the draft-dodgers think is so "livable" and
> "economic":
> Unless companies want to spend money creating two separately different
> industries--which Warner, for one, DOESN'T--any industry with two
> different formats is forced to sell to the Lowest Common Denominator.
> And as long as HD-DVD exists, *that* just happens to be Lowest.
> And that seems to be the problem with all the Dual-format studios right
> now...Oops, wait. There's aren't "all the dual studios" anymore, are
> there? Just Warner.
>
> Trust us: When we say we want to wipe HD off the face of the earth,
> it's not brand loyalty or rah-rah cheerleading for "evil" Sony.
> It's wondering just how darn long we're going to have to suffer for
> buying an innately defective product, when all the machinery is readily
> available to NOT make it defective.
>
> Derek Janssen (CES'08 Countdown: 9 days...At this point, we'll even
> take a VC-1 Casablanca, if it's one more step toward Unconditional
> Warner Surrender)
>

You want BD to win, I personally don't care which one does, and I'm not
overly in a rush to see one or the other win.

Until BD gets a profile 1.1 player out there at a sub-$200 pricepoint,
BD doesn't win, the war goes on. And since the BD mfgs can barely get
ANY profile 1.1's out there at any price, that doesn't look it will
happen anytime soon.

And that is the nub of it. It isn't the technology, the capacity of the
disc nor any of the other crapola that all of us early-adopters think
are so important, it is the PRICE!

Lloyd Parsons wrote:

>>Unless companies want to spend money creating two separately different
>>industries--which Warner, for one, DOESN'T--any industry with two
>>different formats is forced to sell to the Lowest Common Denominator.
>>And as long as HD-DVD exists, *that* just happens to be Lowest.
>>And that seems to be the problem with all the Dual-format studios right
>>now...Oops, wait. There's aren't "all the dual studios" anymore, are
>>there? Just Warner.
>>
>>Trust us: When we say we want to wipe HD off the face of the earth,
>>it's not brand loyalty or rah-rah cheerleading for "evil" Sony.
>>It's wondering just how darn long we're going to have to suffer for
>>buying an innately defective product, when all the machinery is readily
>>available to NOT make it defective.
>>
>>(CES'08 Countdown: 9 days...At this point, we'll even
>>take a VC-1 Casablanca, if it's one more step toward Unconditional
>>Warner Surrender)

> You want BD to win, I personally don't care which one does, and I'm not
> overly in a rush to see one or the other win.
>
> Until BD gets a profile 1.1 player out there at a sub-$200 pricepoint,
> BD doesn't win, the war goes on. And since the BD mfgs can barely get
> ANY profile 1.1's out there at any price, that doesn't look it will
> happen anytime soon.

(Um...Is this old chestnut even still *working* after the PS3 2.10 upgrade?
"Uh, yeah, but they're too expensive!"--Whatever, Ebenezer.
But if I read correctly, you asked for, quote, "ANY" 1.1 players "at any
price", and as of December, we've officially got 'em. Live to
serve...Next old trenches-standby to shoot down?)

Derek Janssen (just feel free, any of those ol' '06 memory-lane
favorites--Aw, c'mon, how about one old "Evil Sony overlords" one, just
for nostalgia?)

In article <cqYdj.6030$tK5.3181@trndny03>,
Derek Janssen <> wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> >>Unless companies want to spend money creating two separately different
> >>industries--which Warner, for one, DOESN'T--any industry with two
> >>different formats is forced to sell to the Lowest Common Denominator.
> >>And as long as HD-DVD exists, *that* just happens to be Lowest.
> >>And that seems to be the problem with all the Dual-format studios right
> >>now...Oops, wait. There's aren't "all the dual studios" anymore, are
> >>there? Just Warner.
> >>
> >>Trust us: When we say we want to wipe HD off the face of the earth,
> >>it's not brand loyalty or rah-rah cheerleading for "evil" Sony.
> >>It's wondering just how darn long we're going to have to suffer for
> >>buying an innately defective product, when all the machinery is readily
> >>available to NOT make it defective.
> >>
> >>(CES'08 Countdown: 9 days...At this point, we'll even
> >>take a VC-1 Casablanca, if it's one more step toward Unconditional
> >>Warner Surrender)
>
> > You want BD to win, I personally don't care which one does, and I'm not
> > overly in a rush to see one or the other win.
> >
> > Until BD gets a profile 1.1 player out there at a sub-$200 pricepoint,
> > BD doesn't win, the war goes on. And since the BD mfgs can barely get
> > ANY profile 1.1's out there at any price, that doesn't look it will
> > happen anytime soon.
>
> (Um...Is this old chestnut even still *working* after the PS3 2.10 upgrade?
> "Uh, yeah, but they're too expensive!"--Whatever, Ebenezer.
> But if I read correctly, you asked for, quote, "ANY" 1.1 players "at any
> price", and as of December, we've officially got 'em. Live to
> serve...Next old trenches-standby to shoot down?)
>
> Derek Janssen (just feel free, any of those ol' '06 memory-lane
> favorites--Aw, c'mon, how about one old "Evil Sony overlords" one, just
> for nostalgia?)
>

Read what I said again.

They've got what 1 profile 1.1 standalone and the PS3 or is it 2
standalones that are 1.1.

Regardless, most of the mfgs rushed 2nd gen boxes to market just short
of the do or die date when 1.1 had to be in them. Since then almost no
new boxes.

But let's assume they finally get off their collective asses and produce
at least one model from each mfg that is 1.1 - when will just one of
them be sub-$200? I don't think I can see that far down the road from
where I sit.

"L Alpert" <> wrote in message
news:j5Odj.184$.. .
> Big Daddy wrote:
>> "Leroy" <> wrote in message
>> news:Xkwdj.37761$DP1.5659@pd7urf2no...
>>> He's right.
>>
>> no, he's not.
>>
>>> The data is very close to the top of the disk so they HAD to put an
>>> extra coating on it.
>>
>> Has nothing to do with "rotting". The disks are not "prone" to
>> rotting.
>
> Rotting? Polycarbonate "rotting"? Never heard of this. There can be
> damage due to UV exposure, though if this is a problem for a specific
> device, there can be UV inhibitors used in the base polymer.
>
> The disc itself should outlive the useful life of the technology.

Thats what they said about DVD and CD's and they are rotting all over the
place now.

Bitrot is another name for it. more common on burned Cd's DVD's but still
were not getting the "lifetime" of safe starage like they claimed. more like
6-15 years.

"T.B." <> wrote in message
news:4777dc1f$1$10992$...
> "POD {Ò¿Ó}" wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> HD DVD fans are like Mac users, they feel so insecure about their wrong
>> purchasing choice that they need to take swipes at the opposing
>> technology.
>
> Too funny.
>
> T.B.

Beta Ray fans are the same. All fangirls are the same no matter what they
like.
Remeber everyone claming Apple was going to go broke for..years..now they
are massive and growing with stocks worth $200 a share. Pretty good for a
company that was declared dead a million times I guess Apple/Steve Jobs
owning Pixar helps a bit as well, and that ipod and imac stuff

JR wrote:
> "L Alpert" <> wrote in message
> news:j5Odj.184$.. .
>> Big Daddy wrote:
>>> "Leroy" <> wrote in message
>>> news:Xkwdj.37761$DP1.5659@pd7urf2no...
>>>> He's right.
>>>
>>> no, he's not.
>>>
>>>> The data is very close to the top of the disk so they HAD to put an
>>>> extra coating on it.
>>>
>>> Has nothing to do with "rotting". The disks are not "prone" to
>>> rotting.
>>
>> Rotting? Polycarbonate "rotting"? Never heard of this. There can
>> be damage due to UV exposure, though if this is a problem for a
>> specific device, there can be UV inhibitors used in the base polymer.
>>
>> The disc itself should outlive the useful life of the technology.
>
> Thats what they said about DVD and CD's and they are rotting all over
> the place now.
>
> Bitrot is another name for it. more common on burned Cd's DVD's but
> still were not getting the "lifetime" of safe starage like they
> claimed. more like 6-15 years.

"Bit-rot", is not the same as "rot". The former implies usefulness of the
device that cannot be known until the device is placed in service, the
latter implies a physical condition that can be visualized.

I cannot say that I have seen this phenomenon of bit-rot myself, and I have
discs that are quite old that I still use, a few of them >15 years (I even
have some 5 1/4" floppies that work), though I wouldn't discount the
phenomenon.

2nd tier low cost vendors are very cost conscious, and may use other 2nd or
3rd tier vendors for the raw polymers to manufacture the media, as the resin
is the highest manufacturing cost. A few cents per pound can mean a much
higher gross margin when using millions of pounds, and could be a
contributing factor (I see this in other segments of the polymer industry
all the time).