Blu-ray Player.. That'll be $1500 please
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
vaultingSlinky said:
Yes, basically, dual format players will have a lot of duplication within them, including 2 completly seperate read heads. Even without worrying about dual format readers/players, blueray is still more expensive, both for the drives, and for the studios making the discs, but its got some big technical advantages, including 200gig discs vs hddvd's 60gig discs and much faster read times.
it doesnt have much faster reading times. I think they are pretty equal at certain speeds and its only when blu-ray is at 4x its 3% faster then HD-DVD cant remember exact figures but it wont be a lot faster for a while i imagine.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 1,509
- Location
- Behind you!
Given the battle between the two next-gen dvd systems You'd be a fool to buy either.
vaultingSlinky said:Profit wins over expense, i suppose its a case of whether sony are brave enough to really push blu-ray through and spend enough money to make it a standard format. I hope they do, as it can store more (from what ive read HD-DVD just seems like a bodge job of improving dvds! /exaggeration)
You just have to remember when mini-discs were the next big thing (mini what i hear you cry?)
Given that for the Blu-Ray disk to hold 200gb is going to require something like an 8 layer disk I seriously cannot see much use ever being made of them.
A double sided dual layer DVD (DVD16) is more expensive than 2x dual layer DVD's because apparently the yeild is pretty low compared to the other DVD types (and that is for what is effectively a 4 layer disk).
I can't see the yeild/cost of the 200gb disks being such that blu-ray will use them very often if ever (how many DVD 16's do you see?).
Basically the option will be there, but the problems with making them*, and the costs involved will probably mean they won't be popular with the replication facilities or the distributors.
*each additional layer/step increases the chances of a problem arising during replication, and the wasted time and costs of disks that fail QC.
Probably give you a headache from the noise, compared to a modern HDBerserker said:I've still got a 20MB (yup, megabytes) hard disk. Worked last time I turned it off (circa 1994). What are the odds it'd spin up now if I tried to power it on? I'd love to give it a whirl (along with the PC it's in), but I'm somewhat scared of it doing something very nasty to my house.
Snap. I'm pretty sure I've still got a couple of old ST-225s somewhere, and a couple of pseudo 40MB RLL drives from the same era. And that 338MB drive I mentioned was ESDI. I had a choice of ESDI or SCSI and I opted for ESDI. That was clever of me, wasn't it?Berserker said:
Ah, the good (
) old days. 
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Sequoia said:
Was being sarcastic, what was the project?
Dutch Guy said:
I think this is what will decide this format war. The HD-DVD player isn't that unaffordable, it's certainly cheaper than DVD when it first launched. Plus, it does have a better launch line-up of films. There's no 'Visual' benefit by plumping for Blu-ray so I think the cost factor could prove decisive.