|
Just so you're aware (although I don't know how you've managed to miss it during your entire online experience) snake-oil is what naysayers like mtrycraft accuse audiophiles of pushing. So congrats. You are proving yourself even more like mtrycraft with each successive post. >> Never said price wasn't a factor, but it was N-E-V-E-R my first consideration. << Obviously it was. You went for the cheaper product. Another mtrycraft-ism. >> I don't give a rat's patootie what you think, << Obviously you do. >> but for those who haven't kept pace with this ongoing debate it's always been films of interest which come first and foremost, at least with me. << You have shown great interest in the spidey and pirates trilogies. So obviously the "films of interest" yarn is not accurate either. >> As for capacity and audio, the issues of capacity and lossless audio will be resolved just like they were with standard format DVD. << That sure seems eye-poppingly inaccurate, too. >> Fine, I'm glad that you enjoy Blu-ray, and I've never criticized you for your choice. << Another inaccuracy! Man, ZS AUPHL, you're going for broke. >> My issue with your attitude is that you leave no room for others choosing HD-DVD for the reasons that the select that format, << I leave plenty of room. It's just that none of you have been able to cite reasons for your choices without filling the room with complete nonsense. When you can't even admit that capacity is an important issue in HD media, most of the logic is drained out of your position. You dispense with the rest by admitting that you don't care about audio! And the weird thing is that you seem proud of that. >> The bottom line: You either accuse folks of being foolish because they don't share your capacity concerns, << How can you even evaluate the formats without acknowledging capacity as a critical issue? Of course you're foolish to ignore it. >> I'm not going to call you a liar, but you've condemned yourself by your own words. Please don't bring advocacy down to your fan-boy level, because advocacy implies intelligent, rational discourse and acceptance of the possibility that things may not be as black and white as you'd like them to be. << There's no grey area here. Blu-ray has a 50-gig capacity. HD DVD has a 30-gig capacity. High def A/V files are big. Lossless high def A/V files are bigger still. Capacity is therefore an important concern. These are facts. >> I've stated many times that I don't have a dog in this hunt << ANOTHER inaccuracy! You're financially and emotionally invested in HD DVD and your posting history proves it. If you don't like being called a liar, the best thing you can do is stop lying. >> BTW, I've read Bay's comments linked from that site, and you should read some of the responses. Rodney Dangerfield would've felt respected after reading those posts. << Well, what about your response? Are you just going to ignore what a filmmaker says about the formats? Obviously, Bay knows what film looks like. He knows what HD DVD looks like and what blu-ray looks like. Are you going to ignore these facts and join the idiots who are insulting him, even though they lack the experience or requisite viewing to discount his observations? Use your head for a moment. What's Bay's motivation? He has financial incentive to say good things about HD DVD. His blockbuster film is out on HD DVD and he is signed to a studio not releasing BDs at the moment. So what's his motivation to say Blu-ray is better? The only reason I can think of is because that's what he has observed. If you don't have a better explanation or observations from other industry insiders that counter Bay's, you may want to consider the distinct possibility that capacity does play a role in quality when it comes to HD. ------------- "I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
|
