 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.140.47.193
In Reply to: RE: It'll be interesting alright... posted by Jazz Inmate on December 04, 2007 at 09:28:39
Since there are exclusivity deals made with both formats and in A/B comparisons PQ issues are virtually a dead heat, then the only assumption that can be made from the skewed figures presented in those deceptive pie charts is that Disney's Pixar titles sell well (especially during holiday periods; probably to families who have PS3's lurking about in the household) and that there have't been enough exclusive HD titles of interest on the market as of yet to cause a pendulum swing in those numbers after the massive HD player purchases on Black Friday.
Food for thought.
AuPh
Follow Ups:
> > then the only assumption that can be made from the skewed figures presented in those deceptive pie charts < <
So now nielson ratings are "skewed" and "deceptive"? LMAO. How much longer are you gonna run from reality?
> > is that Disney's Pixar titles sell well (especially during holiday periods; probably to families who have PS3's lurking about in the household) and that there have't been enough exclusive HD titles of interest on the market as of yet to cause a pendulum swing in those numbers after the massive HD player purchases on Black Friday. < <
Sir spinsalot, couldn't it be because early adopters have educated themselves about the formats, decided blu-ray is the way to go and are consistently out-adopting HD-DVD and buying BD titles at a clip of 2-to-1 over HD DVD adopters. I mean, that's what the data show. But I can see you're not one to let facts get in the way. You ignore the capacity issues, the audio issues and now the Nielson data. This is clearly not an issue you can face with honesty and sincerity.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
In Auph's case, lossless audio just isn't a priority and I guess he's perfectly satisfied with the video presentation he's getting on HD DVD; maybe he hasn't had much exposure to the later Blu-ray releases with high bit rate AVC encodes on 50G discs. I've found a number of HD DVD releases to have inconsistent PQ with too many "soft" scenes sometimes intermixed with scenes with superb PQ (though I've seen the same thing with the Blu-ray releases on 25G discs). I suspect this is a result of lower average bitrates because of bandwidth/storage limitations; but I can't really point to any proof until we have a number of "re-releases" of the same film using significantly different video encodes/bitrates for comparisons.
HD DVD does have one argument going for it concerning the Blu-Ray sales advantage: Blu-ray has thus far had a big edge in day/date releases of new movies because of the better studio support and the biggest HD media sales have been with day/date new movie releases. This may or may not swing the other way depending on which studios have the biggest blockbusters down the road.
> > > he hasn't had much exposure to the later Blu-ray releases with high bit rate AVC encodes on 50G discs. I've found a number of HD DVD releases to have inconsistent PQ with too many "soft" scenes sometimes intermixed with scenes with superb PQ (though I've seen the same thing with the Blu-ray releases on 25G discs). < < <
You keep saying this, but I really haven't alot of evidence in my BD collection to confirm this. Most in my collection are good, but not exceptional, pretty much comparable to an average HD DVD, which are also good, but not exceptional. Maybe its my collection, due to my taste in movies. Perhaps the BDA is spending all its time and energy on kiddie movies, that I don't watch. I don't see this consistent superiority that you say you do.
Jack
Warner clearly produces HD content for the format with the greater limitations--namely HD-DVD--and then simply ports it over to produce the BD. No attempt is made to revisit the production to capitalize on the greater capacity available with Blu-ray. We then get airheads telling us there is no difference between formats.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > > No attempt is made to revisit the production to capitalize on the greater capacity available with Blu-ray. < < <
I'm guessing that Warner doesn't think its financially feasible.
BTW, Paramount used separate encodes for each format. How'ld that work out? People who compared the two said there was no difference. But then, that doesn't fit the fanboy universe, does it?
Then there's Nature's Journey. Pretty much the same results.
Pan's Labyrinth will have separate encodes.
> > > We then get airheads telling us there is no difference between formats. < < <
Sort of like airheads who judge a format they don't own and aren't familiar with.
Jack
> > I'm guessing that Warner doesn't think its financially feasible. < <
What an odd statement. Why would any company produce the same content twice when it doesn't have to. That's my whole point about HD DVD effectively dumbing down blu-ray production.
> > BTW, Paramount used separate encodes for each format. How'ld that work out? People who compared the two said there was no difference. But then, that doesn't fit the fanboy universe, does it? < <
Well, I've reviewed two Paramount titles and while I had no complaints about the video, both only contained DD 5.1 audio content. Now I know you HD DVD fanboys tend to not care about audio, but I do and I'd like to lossless PCM produced for these BDs. It's obvious that any content produced for HD DVD is simply ported over to Blu-ray with no emphasis on quality and that's not good. To then see you fanboys come along and claim HD DVD is just as good...well, that's getting old really fast.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > > Well, I've reviewed two Paramount titles and while I had no complaints about the video, both only contained DD 5.1 audio content. < < <
Paramount used DIFFERENT VIDEO encodes for BD and HD DVD some of their movies and people could not see a difference.
Try to focus here.
Jack
PS: Actually, HD DVD got better audio from Paramount than BD did for the same titles, but that's a separate issue.
> > Paramount used DIFFERENT VIDEO encodes for BD and HD DVD some of their movies and people could not see a difference. < <
> > Actually, HD DVD got better audio from Paramount than BD did for the same titles, but that's a separate issue. < <
Well, that right there, coupled with Paramount's decision to drop BD altogether, shows you how much the studio cared to deliver optimal BD content. It's hardly a scientific demonstration that BD is the same as HD DVD.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > > Well, that right there, coupled with Paramount's decision to drop BD altogether, shows you how much the studio cared to deliver optimal BD content < < <
Or, they decided BD wasn't worth the extra time and cost to them.
> > > It's hardly a scientific demonstration that BD is the same as HD DVD. < < <
I didn't say it was scientific. You implied if studios used different codecs/transfers for the different formats, BD would look better. I gave examples of that not being the case.
You have still failed to show BD's supposed "superiority" translates as a better picture.
Jack
> > I didn't say it was scientific. < <True, but you are constantly asking for "proof" from me while relying on specious evidence to support your own position.
> > You implied if studios used different codecs/transfers for the different formats, BD would look better. < <
Kind of, but what I said was that HD DVD content is more or less ported over to produce the BD content from studios dabbling in both formats. Or did you think Paramount was going back to the source material, breaking out the film and redigitizing it to produce separate content for both codecs. What makes you think they're different transfers?
> > I gave examples of that not being the case. < <
Not really. It's obviously sourced from the same transfer. You can't point to Paramount as a company that we can rely upon to see the advantages of Blu-ray. Not if you expect to be taken seriously, at any rate.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > > Or did you think Paramount was going back to the source material, breaking out the film and redigitizing it to produce separate content for both codecs. What makes you think they're different transfers? < < <
Let me make it simpler for you:
Same master, different compressions for each format using different codecs, not just ported over from HD DVD. NOTE: Masters are still far superior to either format, so that is not the limiting factor.
> > > You can't point to Paramount as a company that we can rely upon to see the advantages of Blu-ray. < < <
The problem is, you can't point to any company to see the "advantages" of BD even when they do treat the formats different. There just aren't any in practice.
Jack
> > The problem is, you can't point to any company to see the "advantages" of BD even when they do treat the formats different. There just aren't any in practice. < <
Of course there are and I can point to the 7.1 audio and PCM content on BD which would be physically impossible to release on HD DVD. Unfortunately, you refuse to admit these are advantages, but that doesn't mean increased capacity isn't an advantage--just means you can't admit it.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
we've been talking about video.
You wrote, "It's obvious that any content produced for HD DVD is simply ported over to Blu-ray with no emphasis on quality and that's not good."
I corrected you, giving examples.
Then you said, "Or did you think Paramount was going back to the source material, breaking out the film and redigitizing it to produce separate content for both codecs. What makes you think they're different transfers?"
Again, I corrected you.
> > > Unfortunately, you refuse to admit these are advantages, < < <
Just like you refuse to admit that the lack of region coding is an advantage to HD DVD. Different people have different priorities, but then, we've discussed that before and you refuse to admit that too.
Jack
The lack of region coding is something that the studios would need to address in HD DVD. They're not going to simply give up exclusivity in the regions where they have distribution rights. The only reason it's allowed to happen now is because the sales volume is pitifully small. If HD DVD takes off, which seems unlikely at this point, it would definitely get a region encoding spec. I fail to see how you could convince yourself otherwise.
I'm giving up on our conversation about Paramount's releases. There is just too much shoddy info to come to any reasonable conclusion. You say "people" have determined that the content looks the same. What people? You say both versions come from a master that is of superior quality. What makes you so sure? Or as you'd say to me: prove it. Bottom line: Paramount is the last company I would look to for indication about quality content. Its commitment to blu-ray is nonexistent as we've all seen very clearly.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > You have still failed to show BD's supposed "superiority" translates as a better picture. < <
There's no way he can do so. Jazz is using an older 1280x768 plasma, with component video connections. He couldn't see any superiority even if it was latent.
Jazz is just parroting Blu-boy propaganda.
Why am I not surprised?
Jack
Jazz keeps claiming all sorts of superiority for his chosen format of worship, but he has no real personal experience with its competitor, nor does he have any real personal experience with the full capabilities of his format of worship.
It's hilarious!
I've never claimed anything except the facts: that BD has 20 gigs greater capacity than HD DVD and that capacity is critical for high def AV content. That would lead any reasonable person to adopt Blu-ray over HD DVD. Being a reasonable person, I did just that. Why would I then want to waste my time and money on the inferior format?
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > That would lead any reasonable person to adopt Blu-ray over HD DVD. Being a reasonable person, < <You? A reasonable person? What a bunch of nonsense!
A reasonable person doesn't become a fanatical format cheerleader. A reasonable person doesn't try to claim that their choice of consumer technology gives them some sort of moral superiority. A reasonable person actually tries things out, and makes informed judgments, instead of declaring mindless loyalty and attacking anyone who doesn't mindlessly agree.
The thing that makes you so utterly ridiculous, such an absolute laughingstock, is that you are arguing from a position of total ignorance with people who actually own and use both formats. When your "facts" are dismissed, you start weaving fantasies. You remind me very much of a notorious DVD-Audio bigot who declared SACD to be technologically inferior, and an evil corporate plot, and spent several years attacking it and anyone he perceived to be an SACD supporter, despite having absolutely no meaningful personal experience with SACD. He always had a stock set of "facts" at hand, and when those didn't work, he invented fables and wove conspiracy theories too. The parallels are uncanny.
I will give you credit for your tenacity though. Most people who have made a fool of themselves as many times as you would eventually give up - but not you! Way to go, Jazz!
> > A reasonable person doesn't become a fanatical format cheerleader. < <A reasonable person doesn't pretend that capacity is an irrelevant consideration in HD media. Your position is unreasonable and in arguing against my position, you have become a fanatic.
> > A reasonable person doesn't try to claim that their choice of consumer technology gives them some sort of moral superiority. < <
It has nothing to do with morality. Where do you come up with this shit? It has to do with logic. My position is grounded in logic. Yours isn't.
> > A reasonable person actually tries things out, and makes informed judgments, instead of declaring mindless loyalty and attacking anyone who doesn't mindlessly agree. < <
Thanks. You have just made my point and argued against your position. Choosing the format with greater capacity is the informed decision. So is doing research and paying attention to industry insiders like Michael Bay who has this to say: "I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better."
> > The thing that makes you so utterly ridiculous, such an absolute laughingstock, is that you are arguing from a position of total ignorance with people who actually own and use both formats. < <
I hope you're capable of self-analysis after reading comments by Bay and others and that you can properly identify yourself as ridiculous and a laughinstock. Or do you think Jack G and avsforum brainwash victims are more knowledgeable than industry insiders who actually deal with film on a daily basis?
> > When your "facts" are dismissed, you start weaving fantasies. < <
That sounds cute, racer, but the backbone of my position this entire time has been that BD provides 20 gigs more capacity than HD DVD, and that is a fact, and it cannot be dismissed. Are you really incapable of getting your head around that concept? It sure seems like you can't.
> > You remind me very much of a notorious DVD-Audio bigot who declared SACD to be technologically inferior, and an evil corporate plot, and spent several years attacking it and anyone he perceived to be an SACD supporter, despite having absolutely no meaningful personal experience with SACD. < <
I adopted SACD early and never adopted DVD-A, so if I remind you of a DVD-A bigot, you're confused. The fact is that YOU adopted DVD-A.
> > He always had a stock set of "facts" at hand, and when those didn't work, he invented fables and wove conspiracy theories too. The parallels are uncanny. < <
If you want to be an idiot and pretend I don't know what I'm talking about, that's your prerogative. But you might want to listen to insiders like Michael Bay: "What you don't understand is corporate politics. Microsoft wants both formats to fail so they can be heroes and make the world move to digital downloads. That is the dirty secret no one is talking about. That is why Microsoft is handing out $100 million dollar checks to studios just embrace the HD DVD and not the leading, and superior Blu Ray. They want confusion in the market until they perfect the digital downloads. Time will tell and you will see the truth."
Just go ahead and cover your ears while shouting "la la la la", racer. That's all you're really good for anymore.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > A reasonable person doesn't pretend that capacity is an irrelevant consideration in HD media. Your position is unreasonable and in arguing against my position, you have become a fanatic. < <
A reasonable person doesn't create a strawman and keep attacking it even after the strawman has been exposed. Jazz, no matter how many times you attempt to ascribe this "position" to me, you'll still be wrong. If you keep setting up a strawman and knocking him down, despite the fact that he clearly is a strawman, you make it appear that you have severe mental and emotional issues, and problems with reality.
> > It has nothing to do with morality. Where do you come up with this shit? It has to do with logic. My position is grounded in logic. Yours isn't. < <
Jazz, again this is what makes you look like you have severe issues. I came up with this "shit" from your posts! You have repeatedly stated that you believe Blu-ray is the only way, and that anyone who doesn't see things your way is not only foolish and wrong, they are impeding progress and aiding a corporation that is anti-consumer. There's nothing logical about that position. It is the position of a severely disturbed person.
> > I hope you're capable of self-analysis after reading comments by Bay < <
Jazz, I don't give a sh@t what some Hollywood director thinks about consumer technology. He doesn't live in my house, and he doesn't use my gear, and he doesn't dictate what movies I watch, so I really don't care about his opinion. I do realize that you care very much, because fan-boys desperately crave outside validation of their fanaticism. Congratulations on finding some.
> > You have just made my point and argued against your position. Choosing the format with greater capacity is the informed decision. < <
> > Jack G and avsforum brainwash victims < <
I wonder how you think I could have possibly argued against my own position, when it's obvious to everyone (except you) that you don't have a clue what my position is. Jazz, I don't go by what Jack G says, nor do I spend any time at avsforum. I own and use both formats. So how can anything you continually scream about me be true? The answer is that it can't - but you obviously need a nemesis to battle in your twisted little fantasy world.
> > the backbone of my position this entire time has been that BD provides 20 gigs more capacity than HD DVD, and that is a fact, and it cannot be dismissed. < <
Jazz - no one disagrees that BD can provide more capacity. No one. No one disagrees that the added capacity is a fact. No one dismisses this. No one. It's really sad that you have deluded yourself into believing that anyone does disagree. You've developed an entire universe of outrage around a completely bogus supposition. That's what I mean about "weaving fantasies." This has been explained to you several times, but you dismiss the explanations, and stick to your delusions.
> > I adopted SACD early and never adopted DVD-A, so if I remind you of a DVD-A bigot, you're confused. < <
Again, you read, but you do not comprehend. The point is, Jazz, that like you he is a single-minded cheerleader and devoted fan-boy for his format of worship.
> > The fact is that YOU adopted DVD-A. < <
Absolutely I did. There was hi-rez music that I wanted to listen to available only in that format, so I did what any REASONABLE person did - I "adopted" it. Just as I adopted SACD, and HD DVD, and Blu-ray. Unlike you, I am more interested in the content than the format. That's the approach reasonable people take. Lunatics and fanatics get caught up in the hype around a format.
> > If you want to be an idiot and pretend I don't know what I'm talking about, that's your prerogative. < <
Jazz, I don't have to pretend about anything. Your countless raving, foaming-at-the-mouth posts are self-incriminating evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.
Get help Jazz, before your illness causes you to harm yourself or others.
No, you are not more interested in content than format. If you were, you would not adopt every format out there simply because there are a handful of titles of interest to you.
The only way to ensure significant HD content is released on optical is for consumers and the industry to get behind one format--preferably the best one (which you seem woefully unprepared to evaluate).
Take a close look at what happened to SACD and DVD-A. There is a lesson you could learn from that, but you ignore it.
Save your silly "get help" and "i'm worried about you" lines. It makes you appear dopey.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > No, you are not more interested in content than format. If you were, you would not adopt every format out there simply because there are a handful of titles of interest to you. < <
It astonishes me that you wrote this in apparent seriousness. I've seen you contradict yourself in the same sentence before, but this one is truly a landmark. Unfreakingbelievable!
CD and DVD have more content than all other digital combined. If content was your main issue, you would never go beyond CD and DVD. So there is more to it than that. The fact that you can't acknowledge exactly your reasons for being an "equal opportunity adopter" is not terribly surprising. Do consider my point about SACD and DVD-A, though I know how strong the temptation is for you to ignore it.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
.
HD DVD is superior to what you can see with your system. In fact, both formats may be wasted on your system.
Talk about a waste of time and money...
Jack
> > HD DVD is superior to what you can see with your system. In fact, both formats may be wasted on your system. < <A silly statement unless you know how far from my screen I sit and factor in that and other considerations. I do get a better picture with blu-ray and HD broadcasts on the 6-yr old Pioneer than my buddy gets with his new 1080p Fujitsu. In fact he's planning to buy my plasma when I upgrade to the new Kuro model.
> > Talk about a waste of time and money. < <
I think not. My plasma was one of the best investments I've ever made, for sheer enjoyment factor for the past six years. No, it doesn't have the best resolution available anymore (for years it did), but other parameters, including contrast ratio, are still competitive or better than many other plasmas on the market. The new kuros do blow it away, though. I'll pull the trigger on one within the next few months.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
Talk about an err-head! At least folks now have a better grasp of your high-minded approach to this forum, but that said, m'thinks you've sucked on that poor Blue nitrous balloon's capacity a gigabite too long dude! :O)> > > "No attempt is made to revisit the production to capitalize on the greater capacity available with Blu-ray." < < <
You assume that any effort would be made by studios to use all of the disc's capacity if the only format was Blu-ray, but you have no evidence of that. Heck, if the studios did that how could they double and triple-dip later on with SuperGigabite releases! ;^D
Constructive suggestion: Please Jazz, troll somewhere else little buddy, before you actually fish the Blu-ray capacity out of this overworked pond and the quaint allure of your cheer-leader's bait goes completely stale!
Cheers,
AuPh
> > You assume that any effort would be made by studios to use all of the disc's capacity if the only format was Blu-ray, but you have no evidence of that. < <
So what you're trying to tell me is that if Warner wasn't developing its HD content for HD DVD, it would still develop its HD content for HD DVD...and put it on blu-ray. I doubt it.
> > Heck, if the studios did that how could they double and triple-dip later on with SuperGigabite releases! < <
Your sarcasm belies your ignorance.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Go Blue boy! Rah! Rah! ;0) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Congrats, ZS Auph. You are now officially more annoying and emptyheaded than kekl. How proud you must feel.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > > "So now nielson ratings are 'skewed' and 'deceptive'?" < < <They always have been. Demographics and marketing play a role in every structured poll (actual numbers may be skewed toward target audiences rather than actual sales or popularity), and BTW, it's Nielsen ratings. ;0)
> > > "Sir spinsalot, couldn't it be because early adopters have educated themselves about the formats, decided blu-ray is the way to go and are consistently out-adopting HD-DVD and buying BD titles at a clip of 2-to-1 over HD DVD adopters." < < <
Sure and the tooth fairy could leave you another mortgage payment under your pillow if you'll just place your dentures there overnight. ;^D
> > > "I mean, that's what the data show." < < <
Really? Have you ever considered that it might just be YOUR interpretation of the data provided?
> > > "You ignore the capacity issues, the audio issues and now the Nielson data." < < <
Wrong again, m'bucko. I don't ignore any of the issues, I just address them pragmatically, in respect to their overall importance on a personal level.
> > > "This is clearly not an issue you can face with honesty and sincerity." < < <
Here again you try to question my honesty when you're the dude carrying pom-poms and moving from rally to rally like a distressed schoolgirl hoping to be anointed 'pom' queen. Rah! Rah! :o)
AuPh
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
;^D
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
So, Jazz finally admits it's all about how much money one pays rather than the evaluated PQ!> > > "...it's just as good" < < <
Maybe it is, especially if one can't see that much difference between the formats.
> > > "I hate to break it to you, but YOU are the one buying the cheap crap..." < < <
Keep breaking stuff like that to me, it just helps to make my case and leave folks with the impression that you are biased, intolerant and disrespectful of other folks opinions and gear.
Cheers,
AuPh
> > Keep breaking stuff like that to me, it just helps to make my case and leave folks with the impression that you are biased, intolerant and disrespectful of other folks opinions and gear. < <
That's pretty funny considering I just replied to a thread where racer and Jack were attacking my system and you've been dishing out ZS Kekl style character assassination attempts for the past two weeks. Dish it out and ya gotta be prepared to take it, ZS AUPH.
And don't forget: YOU admitted that cost was a major (I say THE major) consideration in your decision to go HD DVD. It certainly wasn't important issues like capacity or audio--that's obvious.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > I just replied to a thread where racer and Jack were attacking my system < <
So - mentioning the technical specifications of your television is "attacking" it?
Could you please explain the tortured thought process that caused you to come up with that notion? Thanks.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
...but then I realize that it's mostly bull! ;0)
AuPh
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
... as easily as you're seduced by blue fan-boy propaganda, it's probably between your buns.
Just teasin', natch! ;O)
Cheers,
AuPh
...that YOU are a major fibber; it's sad that you feel the need to distort with every post.> > > "...you raise the specter of mtrycrafts and then wonder why I'm telling you that you get what you pay for" < < <
I raise the specter of mtrycrafts because you have developed a similar modus operandi: one of frequent obnoxious posts, posturing, cheer-leading, and distortions based on the religious support of one technology or agenda.
> > > "That's pretty funny considering I just replied to a thread where racer and Jack were attacking my system and you've been dishing out ZS Kekl style character assassination attempts for the past two weeks. Dish it out and ya gotta be prepared to take it, ZS AUPH." < < <
Oh yeah, Jazz pleas the "poor me" defense after a parade of posts where he dished out loads of derogatory comments in the direction of folks who failed to support his Blu-ray agenda. Your chutzpah is so outrageous that it would embarrass the black pot and might even leave the abused kettle slack jawed. ;0)
BTW, the ZS KEKL reference isn't character assassination; in your case it's type-casting. He's merely the yin to your yang; the A side to your B side; the heads to your tails! You're both cheer-leaders albeit from opposite poles, or maybe I should say polarizations, but as incredible as it may seem, I think that you're even more of a fan-boy than he!
> > I raise the specter of mtrycrafts because you have developed a similar modus operandi: one of frequent obnoxious posts, posturing, cheer-leading, and distortions based on the religious support of one technology or agenda. < <
Apparently, your confusion has spread from HD media to other areas. mtrycrafts was the guy who became notorious for claiming all cables sound the same and $100 CD players have the same audio as $5000 CD players. Since your position is that two HD media with vastly different capacities are qualitatively equivalent, YOU are essentially mtrycraft in this argument.
> > Oh yeah, Jazz pleas the "poor me" defense after a parade of posts where he dished out loads of derogatory comments in the direction of folks who failed to support his Blu-ray agenda. < <
I don't care if you support blu-ray or not. I do care if you pretend capacity and audio are not important characteristics and try to lie about price being your most important concern after you pretty much already admitted it.
> > the ZS KEKL reference isn't character assassination; in your case it's type-casting. He's merely the yin to your yang; the A side to your B side; the heads to your tails! < <
Not even remotely. ZS isn't a detail oriented person, and though you seem to have that capacity it hit the snooze button when you wanted to wake up and choose an HD format.
> > You're both cheer-leaders albeit from opposite poles, or maybe should I say polarizations, but as incredible as it may seem, I think that you're even more of a fan-boy than he! < <
That's because you're irrational. I've already told you, if HD DVD had greater capacity, that's the format I would have adopted. It's a logical position, whereas your decision to adopt HD DVD can't be explained by logic. You're the format fanboy and I'm merely an advocate for choosing greater capacity, as are directors like Michael Bay and Stephen Spielberg who care about they way their films are produced for their fans. That's why there is no way you can win this argument. Maybe you haven't read Bay's latest comments:
"Does anyone out here want to challenge what I feel suits my films better in terms of look. I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better. But that said - I don't a care about this format war because I have both formats in my screening room - I'm just filling you in on what people deep in the film industry feel ultimately is going on"
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
... as mtrycrafts, it's about HOW you sell it. Face it dude, you and he have similar styles and you both push your biases relentlessly.> > > "I don't care if you support blu-ray or not." < < <
Folks, get out of the way of his nose, that snorter should be growing like a Chia-pet.
> > > "I do care if you pretend capacity and audio are not important characteristics and try to lie about price being your most important concern after you pretty much already admitted it." < < <
Never said price wasn't a factor, but it was N-E-V-E-R my first consideration. I don't give a rat's patootie what you think, 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.
As for capacity and audio, the issues of capacity and lossless audio will be resolved just like they were with standard format DVD. The fact that Blu-ray has greater capacity isn't important as far as viewing movies in high definition unless there are observable differences between the two formats with Blu-ray appearing noticeably better or the space is utilized for enhanced content of interest to consumers.
> > > "...ZS isn't a detail oriented person..." < < <
True, but like you he's a single-minded cheer-leader and devoted fan-boy for his format of choice.
> > > "I've already told you, if HD DVD had greater capacity, that's the format I would have adopted." < < <
Fine, I'm glad that you enjoy Blu-ray, and I've never criticized you for your choice. My issue with your attitude is that you leave no room for others choosing HD-DVD for the reasons that we select that format, not to mention the fact that some of us get tired of looking at those blue pom-poms all day long! ;O)
The bottom line: You either accuse folks of being foolish because they don't share your capacity concerns, or accuse them of being cheap because they consider price and value or you call them liars when they tell you that their favorite movies are offered only on HD-DVD, and that there aren't enough films of interest being released on Blu-ray.
> > > "...whereas your decision to adopt HD DVD can't be explained by logic. You're the format fanboy and I'm merely an advocate for choosing greater capacity..." < < <
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.
I've stated many times that I don't have a dog in this hunt and discuss both formats fairly even though HD-DVD is the only format in our home currently, but you've been waving your tattered chartreuse pom-poms with prissy abandon for months around here (before this format war is over I'll wager that you'll have ratcheted things up to flaunting a feather boa! -grin).
Note: While price wasn't a major factor with my selecting HD-DVD, the discrepancy in price between HD-DVD & Blu-ray hardware could be a factor when it comes to return on investment (bang for buck), but I am still considering a dual format player at some point if it handles both formats efficiently enough.
> > > "...Michael Bay and Stephen Spielberg..." < < <
LOL! Need I say more? OK, I will! Karnac the Magnificent question: "Who directs movies as deep as a kiddie pool and as flawless as paste jewelry?"
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. ;^D
Cheers,
AuPh
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)
> > > "...snake-oil is what naysayers like mtrycraft accuse audiophiles of pushing." < < <
Snake oil is snake oil; mtrycrafts didn't originate the concept, he just exploited it as you have exploited misconceptions of Blu-ray's superiority based on one factor which has thus far been proven negligible.
> > > "Obviously it was. You went for the cheaper product. Another mtrycraft-ism." < < <
You are full of Shinola or rather what you think is Shinola. If you choose to ignore the facts as I've stated them then that's your own problem.
> > > "Obviously you do." < < <
Nope, I just care about correcting inaccuracies that mislead other folks. You took my comment out of context. I guess you lack the 'capacity' for telling the truth. ;0)
> > > "You have shown great interest in the spidey and pirates trilogies. So obviously the "films of interest" yarn is not accurate either." < < <
More baloney; I only mentioned those titles in passing and then only in the context of possible dual format releases. Other films were of greater interest to me and those I listed earlier.
Well, I could go on correcting your deceptions, but why waste my time and that of others on this forum.
Regards,
AuPh
> > More baloney; I only mentioned those titles in passing and then only in the context of possible dual format releases. Other films were of greater interest to me and those I listed earlier. < <
More lies. You gushed about them repeatedly on the film forum. Do I need to dig up your posts to remind you?
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
... but what has that to do with placing either series at the top of my HD-DVD want list? There are other films which hold as great or greater interest for a film collector such as myself. Certainly you will find at least as strong reviews from your's truly associated with John Carpenter's The Thing (if you bother to look), which I consider closer to John W. Campbell's original story (written under his nom de plume Don A. Stuart) than the 50's cold war version. Furthermore, I've always held the highest regard for classics such as Forbidden Planet and Casablanca.Before calling someone a "liar" maybe you should get all of your ducks in a row and your own prevarications organized! ;^D
> > > "Do I need to dig up your posts to remind you?" < < <
Please do, but while you're at it maybe you should also dig up all of the positive comments I've made in respect to John Carpenter's The Thing for comparisons sake (since The Thing is one of the HD titles not available on Blu-ray).
Ciao,
AuPh
Few are breaking 100,000. Some in the tens of thousands, most in the thousands. Its the new releases that are doing better, older catalog titles aren't doing so hot. Oddly, the biggest reason studios are in HD, is to resell their older titles to us. They are already making lots of money off of new releases on DVD, but older stuff sold on HD is like free money to them. I wonder if the strategy of aiming at the gamer crowd is going to backfire on them, and cause them to rethink things.
Jack
What about all the Universal releases ? HD DVD claims almost as many (or more?) titles as Blu-ray.
Perhaps a better gauge will be what kind of software sales will there be 1Q 2008 after all the BOGOS, free disks w/player, holiday, etc sales are over with. Which probably means Warner's won't do anything drastic until 2Q 2008 at the earliest. I suspect they are maintaining a keen eye on Blu-ray standalone player pricing/sales, even though the PS3 still seems to be biggest reason Blu-ray continues to dominate software sales.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
