Video Asylum

RE: Lots of bluster and innuendo, but your assinine remarks about blatant lying is truly out of the blue.

76.88.121.108

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

In Reply to: RE: Lots of bluster and innuendo, but your assinine remarks about blatant lying is truly out of the blue. posted by Audiophilander on December 30, 2007 at 23:01:58

>> No 'Goober', what it means is that I don't have an agenda that supports one format to the total exclusion or elimination of the other <<

But isn't that exactly what your de facto position is? Doesn't your monetary support exclusively go to the HD DVD format? Don't you attack me and Ole and others who try to point out blu-ray's advantages and domination of the next-gen DVD market?

Er...yes, that is EXACTLY your position. And when you say you don't have agenda it is, in fact, a blatant lie. You may not want to have an agenda. You may have even convinced yourself you don't have an agenda. But you very obviously and overtly DO have an agenda.

>> I don't support either format to the exclusion of the other, <<

Oh no? Where's your blu-ray player, then? How many BDs do you own? Why can't you even acknowledge that HD DVD has woefully less capacity than blu-ray? The answers to these questions prove that you, in fact, DO support HD DVD to the exclusion of blu-ray. The more you say you don't, the more you make a liar of yourself.

>> Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if SONY emailed a request for you to step down as their 'unofficial' on-line spokesperson! <<

Well it should surprise you.

>> Note: If you were a volunteer blogging for a political campaign you would've been given the boot already for jeopardizing the candidate's chances (even though in consideration of your political persuasion it would probably be a Red state rather than Blue!). <<

Yeah, i recognize that my posting style turns a lot of people off, but that's how I express myself. I just can't believe that supposedly intelligent people like you who care about audio quality and optical HD formats would go out and adopt a technology that offers 30 gigs capacity when a more successful format exists offering 50 gigs capacity, knowing that both formats will soon be competing with downloadable HD content. I mean, you must have rocks in your head to make that choice for one or two titles and a cheap Toshiba machine. And then to continually lie and say you support both while you don't, and you can't even acknowledge the critical element of the capacity issue? It's *really* weird, auphl.

>> What I'm in favor of is a dual format solution. <<

Then you haven't learned anything from the DVD-A and SACD situation. Here we had a superior format and an inferior one, creating confusion in the marketplace. The general public didn't know which to adopt, even if they were interested. Different labels and manufacturers aligned with different formats. Yeah, universal machines were out there, but it couldn't bridge the gap. Downloadable music came along and pretty much put an end to both.

If you can't see the very real possibility that could happen to HD video, you're not terribly astute. By advocating your "two format solution", you are essentially advocating intransigence among studios, manufacturers, consumers and, ultimately, death to optical formats.

>> How many times and in what language do you need to be told that capacity doesn't matter if it isn't used? <<

How many times and in what language do you need to be told that capacity does matter and is being used, and that HD audio (esp lossless) and video requires large amounts of gigs.

>> WOW! Talk about conjecture! Page was on board initially, <<

Link? Source?

>> Personally, it's reasonable to assume that the "lossless" drop-outs on the Blu-ray release <<

Are they only on the BD release? Isn't the same content used to produce both the HD DVD and Blu-ray?

>> are sufficient cause to withhold and perhaps reissue if the problem is corrected. However, we have your 'inscrutable' opinion to rely on and provide us with the deep insight that Jimmy Page probably threw a hissy-fit and pulled the plug because he wasn't sufficiently involved! How can anyone possibly think otherwise? <<

I didn't specify Page. I said Page/Plant have a long history of such hissy fits, and it wouldn't surprise me if they were the reason for the cancellation. Note that the HD DVD was yanked too. You read one post on one website and the ensuing circle-jerk thread and you think you know what you're talking about. You don't. While I'll be the first to admit I don't know the reason Warner yanked this title, I offered an alternate possible explanation--not for you to criticize (though you're welcome to waste your time doing so)--but because there could be any of a multitude of reasons for the cancelled release. We just don't know the reason yet. Warner has issued no such statement.
-------------
"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

Follow Ups: