logo Sign In

How much longer will the format war last?

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
I've been wanting to upgrade to a new video system (either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD), but not until there is a clear winner between the competitors. For those of you "in the know," I have a couple questions:

1.) Is either format suffering on the market? If so, how bad?
2.) How exactly will we know when it's over? I read that Beta tapes were produced well into the late 80s/early 90s, long after their share of the market was negligible..
Author
Time
Post link
Blu-Ray is outselling HD-DVD by something like 6-1. It has about 75% of the marketshare. HD-DVD is not expected to last beyond 2008, and it will rapidly decline throughout the year if you haven't noticed the massive decline its already taken.

http://www.digitalbits.com/articles/miscgfx2/nvshddata020308.jpg

This is the sales data for the current week. Its pretty much characteristic of the last six months or so. By summer, I'm sure Blu-Ray will have something closer to 85%, with close to 100% by Christmas when HD-DVD makes its last hurrah (Wal Mart already has HD-DVD players in its clearance section).
Author
Time
Post link
DAMN. I was rooting for the Blu-Ray anyway because of the overall higher technical specs (even though they rarely see use), but I had no idea it was kicking ass like this. I was afraid the technically inferior product was going to win out like it did in VHS vs. Beta, but apparently not. Yay, consumers! I wonder what a Blu-Ray player will cost come Christmas-time.
Author
Time
Post link
VHS was technically inferior to Beta? I never knew this. Could you please explain further. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious.
deleted, I think I went too far.
Author
Time
Post link
I spoke too soon. Initially, Betamax was the superior product. It held 250 lines of horizontal revolution (as opposed to the 240 lines of VHS), as well as less video noise and crosstalk. However, with the release of VHS HQ, all these advantages were leveled out, to the point where the formats were essentially identical in technical regards. Again, you are NOT talking to an expert. If someone can correct any major errors I might have made, feel free. Of course, from a technical standpoint, LaserDisc kicked both their asses.
Author
Time
Post link
Beta had short runtimes though. VHS' main selling point, aside from being cheaper, was that a tape could last for four hours or more, while I think Beta had a 2 hour limit. So while resolution-wise it was slightly inferior, there were practical considerations that made VHS, in some way, a better choice.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Johnboy3434
LaserDisc kicked both their asses.
yeah, I've always wondered why laserdisc didn't catch on better.

deleted, I think I went too far.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
Originally posted by: Johnboy3434
LaserDisc kicked both their asses.
yeah, I've always wondered why laserdisc didn't catch on better.


Maybe because it was 1) an analog format, 2) unwieldy, and 3) to high priced. Most people don't want something that big that can be fairly easily scratched and then there goes your whole movie. And that doesn't even take into consideration the enormous cost of a movie when compared to its VHS counterpart. Laserdisc was essentially just an oversized CD so they could fit a movie on an optical format.

Laserdisc only kicked ass in terms of video degradation (no head, no degradation). In terms of everything else, laserdisc sucked. Thankfully the industry finally came up with a better solution.

And in case you haven't heard Johnboy, Warner is no longer releasing movies on HD-DVD as of June of this year (they're going Blu-ray exclusive), hence why Blu-ray sales have screamed ahead of HD-DVD. Get yourself a PS3. They seem to be quite good Blu-ray players and you'll have yourself a nextgen console at the same time for a very low price.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
In response to the thread's title:

Oh, the horror of it all.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
In response to the thread's title:

Oh, the horror of it all.


Err... Is that supposed to be a war joke or something? If it's an insult, then it would be more insulting if I could understand it.
Author
Time
Post link
Of course it isn't suppose to be an insult Johnboy, Tiptup was just making a joke about the word war. At first glace the title seems kind of dramatic.

The reason laserdisc didn't take off better is that it was an unnecessary change for the average viewer. For most people the cheap and practical VHS that fit into their VCR, which could record things off of TV, seemed to be perfectly good quality. If you play a laserdisc on a small screen TV with your TV's speakers, there isn't a whole lot of difference. Laserdisc was more of a niche market. DVD was the first practical replacement that appealed to the average consumer. A lot of people have never even heard of laserdisc, and many who have don't have any clue what it is. I hope it is a long time before Blu-Ray gets replaced, DVD certianly seemed to become obsolete a lot sooner than I would have expected. Don't want to upgrade my movie collection every ten years. I bought my first DVD player in 2001, by 2007 I had already stopped buying DVDs altogether. Of course it is only because of the rising of HD that made us need a new format. Hopefully this time it will stick.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
I bought DVDs up until this year, but that was more by accident than anything else. Before that, I rarely bought a movie on VHS unless I could find it in Widescreen. Since widescreen was a rarity, I didn't have very many. All of the DVDs I have bought are widescreen unless the title just isn't available that way.

Now that Warner has announced Blu-ray exclusivity, I'm just saving money for a PS3. I figure I'll have enough saved by the time Paramount and Universal cave as well.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Netflix just went Blu-ray exclusive today! I suspect Paramount and Uni will go dual or Blu-ray exclusive sometime this summer. HD-DVD is pretty close to its last gasp. BTW the PS3 is hands down the best BR player out now so save your pennies.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Johnboy3434
Err... Is that supposed to be a war joke or something? If it's an insult, then it would be more insulting if I could understand it.


Hehe, neither, actually. As C3PX explained, I simply read the thread's title in my mind with a very weary, extremely-dramatic voice. The subsequent reply was simply for anyone else who may have accidentally read it that way as well.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
1) an analog format,


but all of the formats at the time were analog, so this really wouldn't have made a difference.

deleted, I think I went too far.
Author
Time
Post link
Best Buy are backing Blu-Ray:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7240434.stm

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
Originally posted by: lordjedi
1) an analog format,


but all of the formats at the time were analog, so this really wouldn't have made a difference.

Ofcourse it would. Why pay more for another analog format if it's more of the same?
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
[quote]Laserdisc only kicked ass in terms of video degradation (no head, no degradation). In terms of everything else, laserdisc sucked. [/quote]
Random access and no rewinding were kind of nice as well...

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Laserdisc only kicked ass in terms of video degradation (no head, no degradation). In terms of everything else, laserdisc sucked.

Random access and no rewinding were kind of nice as well...


So were uncompressed PCM, full bitrate Dolby Digital, and full bitrate DTS. A laserdisc's two-channel PCM Dolby Pro Logic mix put through a modern Dolby Pro Logic IIx decoder actually sounds better than most of the Dolby Digital tracks I've heard on DVD. And Saving Private Ryan DTS on LD...WOW.

Thankfully, Blu-ray marks the return of true high-end home theater audio. Missed those days.
Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
Post link
I agree. As bulky, and silly as Laserdiscs were, I was sad to see them go. Yeah, you had to flip them, but the audio was great (I flip my records every day, and I'll keep buying them until I die). DVD's are compressed all to hell. I'll still buy them for regular movies, but for "big" movies, I'm going HD.

This whole "war" was ridiculous. I'm glad it's over, and I can finally jump into the HD arena. I've had an HD projector, waiting at home, just itching to be hooked up to an HD player. Bring it on!

FE<3OT

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
Originally posted by: lordjedi
1) an analog format,


but all of the formats at the time were analog, so this really wouldn't have made a difference.

Ofcourse it would. Why pay more for another analog format if it's more of the same?


oh my God. (sigh) no, I won't do it . . . Can someone with skills in logic please explain Arnie's logical fallacy to him? I don't have the patience.

deleted, I think I went too far.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
Originally posted by: lordjedi
1) an analog format,


but all of the formats at the time were analog, so this really wouldn't have made a difference.

Ofcourse it would. Why pay more for another analog format if it's more of the same?


oh my God. (sigh) no, I won't do it . . . Can someone with skills in logic please explain Arnie's logical fallacy to him? I don't have the patience.


How is it a logical fallacy? For most people, it provided almost no improvement over what they already had. In those days, most people did not have audio receivers. So the only benefit was chapter skip and instant rewind. This was probably easily outweighed by the shear size of the disc. Most people don't want something that big around. If they did, they'd essentially be replacing a collection of small tapes with a collection of large discs that took up more space. People don't usually like to do that.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Sweeney599


oh my God. (sigh) no, I won't do it . . . Can someone with skills in logic please explain Arnie's logical fallacy to him? I don't have the patience.


Okay seriously, what the hell is your deal? Is your sole purpose on this board to pick fights with people?

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Originally posted by: Sweeney599
Originally posted by: lordjedi
1) an analog format,


but all of the formats at the time were analog, so this really wouldn't have made a difference.

Ofcourse it would. Why pay more for another analog format if it's more of the same?


oh my God. (sigh) no, I won't do it . . . Can someone with skills in logic please explain Arnie's logical fallacy to him? I don't have the patience.

Politics thread wore you down?

What I meant was in terms of picture quality LD didn't stick out much unless you bought a really expensive LD player. Had the format been digital with a higher resolution it might have caught on better.
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
I always thought that the main reason laserdisc didn't do too well was that it was priced so high in comparision to VHS that only the audio/videophiles really went for it, because of the better quality, even if it wasn't too much. In Japan, were laserdisc was priced much cheaper than in the US, it was much more popular. Laserdisc target the elite high-end market, not the mass-market.