Blu-ray has arrived.

No one here has $999 to blow.

9$ of blow.

*edit* AH it's doing it again!!!

Shit, man. I don't even have $9 to blow.

Wrong

http://chud.com/forums/showpost.php?...&postcount=111

Hahaha

I guess someone has to buy all this first, I don't have the income to spend on one of these players, let alone a HD tv on top of it..im just happy with my good ol' DVD player....

So what is Blue Ray compared to HD? What's the quality gap?

$999 is alot of money. I wonder how many they expect to sell at that price.

This thread needs a photo of some fool grinning ear-to-ear, holding one outside of Best Buy.

Supposedly it's non-existent.

I'm disappointed by the thread, though. I was expecting the photo of a slightly creepy guy showing off his blu-ray player outside Best Buy.

By the way, that guy who bought a $500 HD-DVD player and also picked up a $1000 blu-ray player before any movies become available for the thing should be flogged.

You're welcome.

There's something very disturbing about his pants...

Don't think there's been any side-by-side comparisons yet...

Specs:

Blu-ray (single-layer): 25GB
Blu-ray (dual-layer): 50GB
HD-DVD (single-layer): 15GB
HD-DVD (dual-layer): 30GB

So, for recording, that'll be a 5 hour difference (13 hrs vs. 8 for HD-DVD), quite a bit.

http://www.dlmag.com/news/1446/the-2...completed.html

So far, the biggest difference between the two formats (besides capacity) is the video compression codecs that are being used. The first wave of HD-DVDs are using the more efficient VC-1 format (essentially Windows Media 9 HD), while Blu-ray is using the older, less efficient but more proven MPEG 2 (same codec as DVD, but at higher data rates).

Although it's too early to say for sure, some early comparisons between the Toshiba HD-DVD player and Samsung Blu-ray player imply that HD-DVD might have a slight edge in picture quality. This may be because all of the first Blu-ray movies are single layer only (25 GB), so they are being recorded at lower than optimal data rates. Because HD-DVD is being released on dual-layer discs (30 GB) and VC-1 is more efficient, data rate isn't as much of a problem.

The good news for Blu-ray is that dual layer (50 GB) discs should be out by the end of summer, and the Blu-ray players themselves all support playback of VC-1 and H.264 codecs. When/if studios start using them, Blu-ray has the potential to have the best picture quality of either format, especially for really long movies with lots of extras. There's been no announcement of a "triple-layer" disc from HD-DVD, so the current dual-layer (30 GB) capacity is likely to be the maximum that will be available for that format. This means longer or more feature-rich releases may have to be put on two discs.

I'm waiting for the player that will be able to play DVD, HD and Blu-ray.

$999 is for hookers and fat people.

The hookers I get, but you'd pay $999 for a fat person?

Who wouldn't?

they make great soap

HD-DVD holds the advantage right now: Hybrid disks.

You can buy a movie and watch it in hi-def in your living room and in standard-def in your bedroom or on the go.

Is this Betamax part 2?

It certainly sounds like the beginnings. If Blu-Ray goes belly up, this'll be the second time Sony bet on the losing horse. They might be able to salvage the format in some form by continuing to use them as PS3 discs, but if this keeps up Sony is looking at a major embarresment.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

Sounds like both formats shit their pants on launch with HD-DVD being only slightly less offensive. I used to be a real believer in HD.

Sounds like Blu-Ray has a bunch of problems hitting their spec sheet.