Which CONSOLE!?

[Duke Togo]

The people around SCEA don't think the PS3 will be seen in the US until the Fall.

[Black Valkyrie]

No surprise like PS2 but what about Japan didn`t they say around March.

[Gaijin]

PS3 will launch Japan first. No worldwide launch thing for Sony. Wise, in a sense..very little software anyways besides the movies.

[Gunbuster]

Question:

At the CES, pioneer (one of the makers of Blu ray) announced their Blu ray player at a retail of $1,800.00, so how is the PS3 going to be the same price as the 360?

And someone mention this before, the blu ray players are a 1X, for games Sony will need a faster Blu ray drive (wouldn't that cost more?) Unless Sony don't care about load times

I mean the point of Blu ray is the storage space, so the textures files will be huge!

Edited January 8, 2006 by Gunbuster

[JB0]

Question:

At the CES, pioneer (one of the makers of Blu ray) announced their Blu ray player at a retail of $1,800.00, so how is the PS3 going to be the same price as the 360? 

Sony can eat a loss for a while.

Also, there's no indicator of how much of a BluRay player is the actual drive, whcih is all PS3 needs.

And someone mention this before, the blu ray players are a 1X, for games Sony will need a faster Blu ray drive (wouldn't that cost more?) Unless Sony don't care about load times

Why is 1x too slow?

Remember, 1x on BluRay isn't the same as 1x on DVD or 1x on CD(both of which are diffrent speeds).

Telling what sort of load times you'll get is fairly difficult without knowing actual data transfer rates.

[Gaijin]

Question:

At the CES, pioneer (one of the makers of Blu ray) announced their Blu ray player at a retail of $1,800.00, so how is the PS3 going to be the same price as the 360? 

And someone mention this before, the blu ray players are a 1X, for games Sony will need a faster Blu ray drive (wouldn't that cost more?) Unless Sony don't care about load times

I mean the point of Blu ray is the storage space, so the textures files will be huge!

358469[/snapback]

The Pioneer is a high end unit, like a $3500 Denon DVD player...not the mass market player.

Like mentioned, the actual drive is much cheaper.

First BD specs were 1X at 36mbps...I believe it's either at 40 or 46 mbps now. DVD is 11 or 12 mbps max or something. While I doubt you'll see a 4X BD ROM drive in the PS3, you might see a 2X. I don't think you'll see too major a difference in load times. One reason is DVD's read at CAV (Constant Angular Velocity)rates and BD uses CLV(constant linear velocity); to make it simple, DVD's read at different speeds depending on where the data is on the disc spinning...BD reads at the same speed no matter what...and DVD drives never hardly ever reach their max outside track speeds unless the disc is stuffed to the brim. Looking at the face numbers you'd think that a 12X DVD drive would out perform a 1X BD one...and it would, but a 2X BD drive would read a disc as fast as a DVD's minimum speed and so forth...

If you have a full DVD disc it reads the outside info at the fastest rate (the inside tracks read at about half the speed).

In other words: numbers are deceiving without knowing or understanding the context behind them. Or: I don't think you'll really notice the difference between the new system's loading speeds.

EDIT: I think the BD ROM speed is still at 36 mbps, not 40.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Gaijin

[yellowlightman]

In other words: numbers are deceiving without knowing or understanding the context behind them.  Or:  I don't think you'll really notice the difference between the new system's loading speeds.

358593[/snapback]

Speaking of which, it would be nice if game designers actually worked to REDUCE loading speed with this new generation. Nothing like playing a game designed for the Gamecube with nearly undetectable load times, and then hopping over to a PS2 game and being forced to sit through ridiculous loading.

[mikeszekely]

Why is 1x too slow?

Remember, 1x on BluRay isn't the same as 1x on DVD or 1x on CD(both of which are diffrent speeds).

Telling what sort of load times you'll get is fairly difficult without knowing actual data transfer rates.

Scroll down to my first post on this page. I gave a nice little rundown already for data transfer rates, and how they affect load times.

[sabretooth]

that's why i stick with nintendo.

loading time is an issue that bugs the crap out of me. it just seems like laziness on the developers side.

[JB0]

First BD specs were 1X at 36mbps...I believe it's either at 40 or 46 mbps now. DVD is 11 or 12 mbps max or something.  While I doubt you'll see a 4X BD ROM drive in the PS3, you might see a 2X.  I don't think you'll see too major a difference in load times.  One reason is DVD's read at CAV (Constant Angular Velocity)rates and BD uses CLV(constant linear velocity); to make it simple, DVD's read at different speeds depending on where the data is on the disc spinning...BD reads at the same speed no matter what...and DVD drives never hardly ever reach their max outside track speeds unless the disc is stuffed to the brim.  Looking at the face numbers you'd think that a 12X DVD drive would out perform a 1X BD one...and it would, but a 2X BD drive would read a disc as fast as a DVD's minimum speed and so forth...

If you have a full DVD disc it reads the outside info at the fastest rate (the inside tracks read at about half the speed). 

In other words: numbers are deceiving without knowing or understanding the context behind them.  Or:  I don't think you'll really notice the difference between the new system's loading speeds.

EDIT: I think the BD ROM speed is still at 36 mbps, not 40.

The CAV/CLV is a bit misleading, too. Aside from you got them reversed(DVD is officially CLV), speed is a variable term here.

CLV is designed so that the data transfer rate is constant. If you view the CD as a single really long ribbon of 1s and 0s, the last bit is just as long as the first.

CAV is designed so that the disk speed is constant. This means that data on the inside goes by faster than data on the outside.

There's interesting side effects of both technologies. In CAV, a track on the outside of a disk reads far faster than one on the inside.

In CLV, all areas of the disk have the same data transfer rate, but your rotational speed varies signifigantly. This is why hard drives are CAV, since you'd lose too much time to disk spin-up/spin-down.

All modern disk designs(CD included) put more sectors in outer revolutions than inner ones, because it's a grotesque waste of space to put the same # of bits in the vastly larger outer tracks area as the tiny inner ones.

Past about 12x, CD-ROM drives reverted from the CLV spec'ed by the original CD standard to CAV, because they couldn't actually spin the disk faster. If you spin a disk at 52x CLV, when you get to the inside of the disk, it'll be spinning fast enough that it literally explodes. Even if the disk is reinforced with kevlar, it still tears apart.

High-speed DVD drives also transitioned from the original CLV spec to CAV.

The PS2 uses a 4X DVD, which was the high end for CLV. It should have a constant data rate.

XBox is being listed as 2-5x DVD, presumably due to the fact that MS has changed DVD-ROM models several times during the XBox' life.

Logically, the XBox drive should read all games at the same rate to avoid compatibility issues, but logic rarely enters into hardware design. If it's reading games at 5x, I think it's reading them in CAV mode for at least part of the disk.

In other words: numbers are deceiving without knowing or understanding the context behind them.  Or:  I don't think you'll really notice the difference between the new system's loading speeds.

358593[/snapback]

Speaking of which, it would be nice if game designers actually worked to REDUCE loading speed with this new generation. Nothing like playing a game designed for the Gamecube with nearly undetectable load times, and then hopping over to a PS2 game and being forced to sit through ridiculous loading.

358604[/snapback]

Some do.

Ikaruga, as an example, is completely full to the brim on the Dreamcast.

BUT it's almost all empty space. There's a huge dummy file to get the data away from the small inner tracks to the large outer ones, which minimizes load time because you can fit more data on the outside, so there's far less seek time. If the data had landed on the hub at the beginning of the disk, teh laser head would do a lot of dancing back and forth as it loaded data.

If I recall, they did the same thing on the 'Cube version.

Even with a full disk, there's ways to exploit the disk layout. If you're creative, you can stick the most commonly accessed data towards the outside, so that there's minimal tracking, and the less frequently used data on the inside since the performance hit for a 1-shot FMV is far less than a set of textures that's loaded every time you go through a door.

Edited January 9, 2006 by JB0

[Gaijin]

The CAV/CLV is a bit misleading, too.  Aside from you got them reversed(DVD is officially CLV), speed is a variable term here.

Most DVD drives today aren't CLV anymore. "Officially" and what is out there now are two different things.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Gaijin

[JB0]

The CAV/CLV is a bit misleading, too.  Aside from you got them reversed(DVD is officially CLV), speed is a variable term here.

Most DVD drives today aren't CLV anymore. "Officially" and what is out there now are two different things.

358655[/snapback]

I thought we were speaking in terms of game consoles. PS2 is CLV, and XBox is PROBABLY the same.

[Gaijin]

The CAV/CLV is a bit misleading, too.  Aside from you got them reversed(DVD is officially CLV), speed is a variable term here.

Most DVD drives today aren't CLV anymore. "Officially" and what is out there now are two different things.

358655[/snapback]

I thought we were speaking in terms of game consoles. PS2 is CLV, and XBox is PROBABLY the same.

358772[/snapback]

I thought the question about the drives were about the new ones(360 and PS3).

Not sure about the Xbox (so many different drives). The whole point about my original post was that drive speed isn't the only thing to determine load times and the BD's 2X would be nearly equivalent in reading as a 12X for about half the disc. But then again, this was just in the numbers race for people interested, where context of other factors don't matter as well.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Gaijin

[Gaijin]

Why is 1x too slow?

Remember, 1x on BluRay isn't the same as 1x on DVD or 1x on CD(both of which are diffrent speeds).

Telling what sort of load times you'll get is fairly difficult without knowing actual data transfer rates.

Scroll down to my first post on this page. I gave a nice little rundown already for data transfer rates, and how they affect load times.

358606[/snapback]

Not sure how I missed that post. You are correct for the most part...however, I doubt you'll see every single title released for PS3 only on BD(haven't been keeping up really so I could be wrong), much as many PS2 and Xbox games came on CD. Most BD Rom drives have also 12-16X DVD read speeds.

[JB0]

The CAV/CLV is a bit misleading, too.  Aside from you got them reversed(DVD is officially CLV), speed is a variable term here.

Most DVD drives today aren't CLV anymore. "Officially" and what is out there now are two different things.

358655[/snapback]

I thought we were speaking in terms of game consoles. PS2 is CLV, and XBox is PROBABLY the same.

358772[/snapback]

I thought the question about the drives were about the new ones(360 and PS3).

So we were... I guess I got lost somewhere...

The whole point about my original post was that drive speed isn't the only thing to determine load times and the BD's 2X would be nearly equivalent in reading as a 12X for about half the disc.  But then again, this was just in the numbers race for people interested, where context of other factors don't matter as well.

M'kay.

I'm still waiting for holographic storage. Drop-in plastic cubes with a terrabyte of space... *drools*

[mikeszekely]

Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is only a single disc.

We need 50GB discs for what now?

[Gaijin]

Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is only a single disc.

We need 50GB discs for what now?

358836[/snapback]

Not Oblivion.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Gaijin

[mikeszekely]

Not Oblivion. laugh.gif

Exactly!

No, wait...

If a game as massive and detailed as Oblivion is can fit on a single DVD, I'm thinking that games that would spill over onto two DVDs would be rare (you'd be suprised how much space you can save by having cutscenes in-engine instead of pre-rendered). So while I'm all for a new HD format for movies, I really think that criticism of the Xbox 360 for not using one of the next-gen formats doesn't hold water.

[mikeszekely]

Blu-Ray players announced.

That's certainly the way to win the format wars! Have players that cost double the competition!

Well, if stand-alone players are going to retail for that much, it really has you wondering about the PS3? Will it be close to that price range? If not, then the PS3 would instantly be the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market and an attractive choice for even non-gamers. However, that assumes that Sony sells the PS3 at a loss, and I don't Pioneer is looking to sell their Blu-Ray players at a loss. Could that drive more manufacturers to make HD-DVD players instead?

As we mentioned, the Blu-ray group has yet to determine whether to allow the players to pass high-definition video via analog component-video outputs in addition to digital HDMI. Hollywood studios are loathe to allow HD via component because they perceive the analog output as a copy-protection loophole that might be exploited by pirates. HD-DVD has already announced that its units would not pass analog HD resolutions, instead downconverting all analog outputs to standard-def. We hope Blu-ray allows HD to pass via component, since it would allow people who own HDTVs that don't have HDMI or DVI/HDCP inputs to enjoy the new format, but we're not optimistic.

I didn't know that, and that totally sucks. HDMI cables are expensive, plus I only have one HDMI input, and I'm using it for my PC!

I wonder how this affects Microsoft's planned HD-DVD attachment for the 360, since the 360 doesn't have an HDMI output?

Frankly, I think it's a pretty stupid reason not to allow HD video over component cables. It's not like a lot of people were using component as a "copy-protection loophole" for DVDs... not when it was so much easier to toss a DVD into a PC with DVD decryption software (and I'd be a little suprised if, once BD-ROM and HD-DVD-ROM drives start showing up in PCs if that isn't the prefered method for pirating those, too).

Edited January 10, 2006 by mikeszekely

[yellowlightman]

Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is only a single disc.

We need 50GB discs for what now?

358836[/snapback]

For shitty games made by companies like Square that still requires hours and hours of pre-rendered video.

[Gaijin]

Not Oblivion. laugh.gif

Exactly!

No, wait...

If a game as massive and detailed as Oblivion is can fit on a single DVD, I'm thinking that games that would spill over onto two DVDs would be rare (you'd be suprised how much space you can save by having cutscenes in-engine instead of pre-rendered). So while I'm all for a new HD format for movies, I really think that criticism of the Xbox 360 for not using one of the next-gen formats doesn't hold water.

358845[/snapback]

Right now, no.

And no I'm not surprised about the cut scenes...I agree totally...but that isn't the only reason developers want the increased storage.

I believe the main earlier argument for DVD was not that we will never need the space, but it was, the cost of the console...360 will be so and so, and PS3 will be loads more expensive. Which is true to a point but the cost diminishes every day. If PS3 launches at $499, it would be cheaper than a 360 with an HD DVD add on. Remember, Sony wants the black box, not a pure gaming system in your living room, same as MS...they are just both doing it differently.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Gaijin

[yellowlightman]

Remember, Sony wants the black box, not a pure gaming system in your living room, same as MS...they are just both doing it differently.

358855[/snapback]

And ultimately, that won't work. The PS2 was supposed to revolutionize home entertainment, and all we got was a shitty DVD player with an underpowered game system. The PSX was supposed to be the next ultimate home entertainment box and it sold horribly. Video game consoles are like cell phones, you can cram a lot of features into one package but ultimately all those features will be sub-par compared to stand alone units.

[Gaijin]

Remember, Sony wants the black box, not a pure gaming system in your living room, same as MS...they are just both doing it differently.

358855[/snapback]

And ultimately, that won't work. The PS2 was supposed to revolutionize home entertainment, and all we got was a shitty DVD player with an underpowered game system. The PSX was supposed to be the next ultimate home entertainment box and it sold horribly. Video game consoles are like cell phones, you can cram a lot of features into one package but ultimately all those features will be sub-par compared to stand alone units.

358877[/snapback]

Agreed...but they are getting closer, and people's expectations of quality electronics are dropping faster than Paris Hilton's IQ...witness the $30 DVD players, $99 DVD recorders at Wal Mart, the massive increase insales of cell phones with cameras and MP3 players and streaming video, and such.

It will happen...not tomorrow, but they are getting closer and most of joe six pack out there thinks it's great.

[JB0]

Blu-Ray players announced.

That's certainly the way to win the format wars!  Have players that cost double the competition!

Well, if stand-alone players are going to retail for that much, it really has you wondering about the PS3?  Will it be close to that price range?  If not, then the PS3 would instantly be the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market and an attractive choice for even non-gamers.  However, that assumes that Sony sells the PS3 at a loss, and I don't Pioneer is looking to sell their Blu-Ray players at a loss.  Could that drive more manufacturers to make HD-DVD players instead?

Keep in mind those are stand-alone players, not bare drives.

Furthermore, they're players targeted at the AV-phile market. That's a market where a CD player can cost 600 and a DVD player can cost 3 grand.

But if HD-DVD can make it to mass-market first, they stand a real chance of winning.

They already have backwards-compatibility out of the box. No extra parts required(BluRay needs a IR laser diode).

They can make hybrid disks with a HD layer AND a regular DVD layer. That gives them the ability to sell a single disk to both markets.

If they can win the wallets of the public early too, they can win.

This depends in part on the PS3's price, as well as it's ability to play BluRay movies.

As of this moment it's yet to prove it has the horsepower to decode H.264, and the fact that Sony showed it running MPEG2 video off a BluRay disk is making me wonder if it can do it, which I had taken as a given until today.

http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2666&p=2

As we mentioned, the Blu-ray group has yet to determine whether to allow the players to pass high-definition video via analog component-video outputs in addition to digital HDMI. Hollywood studios are loathe to allow HD via component because they perceive the analog output as a copy-protection loophole that might be exploited by pirates. HD-DVD has already announced that its units would not pass analog HD resolutions, instead downconverting all analog outputs to standard-def. We hope Blu-ray allows HD to pass via component, since it would allow people who own HDTVs that don't have HDMI or DVI/HDCP inputs to enjoy the new format, but we're not optimistic.

I didn't know that, and that totally sucks. HDMI cables are expensive, plus I only have one HDMI input, and I'm using it for my PC!

I wonder how this affects Microsoft's planned HD-DVD attachment for the 360, since the 360 doesn't have an HDMI output?

2 options.

1. A passthrough cable. Connect the 360 to the HD-DVD, and the HD-DVD to the TV.

2. A new video cable. The 360 may be able to pass digital video and they just haven't released a cable yet.

Frankly, I think it's a pretty stupid reason not to allow HD video over component cables.  It's not like a lot of people were using component as a "copy-protection loophole" for DVDs... not when it was so much easier to toss a DVD into a PC with DVD decryption software (and I'd be a little suprised if, once BD-ROM and HD-DVD-ROM drives start showing up in PCs if that isn't the prefered method for pirating those, too).

Didn't you know? Both formats use an "undefeatable" copy-protection scheme. </sarcasm>

I'd bet there'll be a slew of players that can do it if you enter the secret code on the remote, similar to modern-day Macrovision-dodging DVD players. Especially since there's not a lot of sets out that support the copy-protection protocol even when they DO have HDMI ports.

Anyways, HDMI cables will come down in price. And once they do, you can feed them into your PC and use someone's homebrew software to make perfect 1:1 copies without the encoding and degradation of the analog component cables, as the HDCP copy-protect scheme used on HDMI is already full of known flaws and easily cracked.

Hmm, where have we heard that before?.

Or just drop an external decoder like this one in the line.

The MPAA will LOVE that.

[Gunbuster]

Blu-Ray players announced.

That's certainly the way to win the format wars!  Have players that cost double the competition!

Well, if stand-alone players are going to retail for that much, it really has you wondering about the PS3?  Will it be close to that price range?  If not, then the PS3 would instantly be the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market and an attractive choice for even non-gamers.  However, that assumes that Sony sells the PS3 at a loss, and I don't Pioneer is looking to sell their Blu-Ray players at a loss.  Could that drive more manufacturers to make HD-DVD players instead?

That was exactly my point. I understand that the Pioneer ones are high end, but the other players are still over the 1K mark. And this is just the player, The Ps3 will have the "cell" processor (is it still 7 of them?) and the Nvidia 7000's series GPU. I know Sony will be selling it at a loss, but this seems like too much of a loss. I'm all for it if Sony takes it for us

Edited January 10, 2006 by Gunbuster

[Gaijin]

HD DVD players that have only 50% of the movie studios support won't go anywhere far, regardles of their price. As mentioned, most people are satisfied with DVD (and likely will be until they upgrade their TV), and even a $500 player won't attract avg joe. But if they get one in the form of a game console, they are more likely to purchase HD discs than going out and purchasing a HD player and the discs to go with it(speaking of the average consumer here).

HDMI cables aren't expensive if you know where to look...try one from ebay at $10-$14 a pop and you'll change your tune...they aren't like analog cables...it's a digital signal and I've yet to see a "poor" HDMI cable.

HD DVD was supopsed to launch last year (AACS sorta screwed them in that sense, though Toshiba still had problems with players crashing). They'll launch in a couple months with BD a couple months after that...not the lead they were hoping for which is why I doubt HD DVD has a real chance especially since you'll be unlikely to see any studio support from Fox or Sony unless BD truly crashes and burns...and that would take a couple years. Whereas, Universal is the only studio that hasn't announced BD.

HD DVD camp has about 50% of the studios and let's see...Toshiba, Sanyo and LG making players (no recorders yet announced).

BD has all movie studios save Universal, and ...Sony, Panasonic, Phillips, Pioneer, Samsung, Sharp, LG, Mitsubishi,Zenith, Hitachi, JVC, and Yamaha making players and recorders.

HD DVD has HP....though it also sits with BD, who has Apple and Dell also. Support for HD DVD has been poor in the last few months, with the movie studios that did back HD DVD exclusively change their tune and cut their release schedule. The only big push they got was when one of MS's corporate VP's good ol' Amir convinced HP they need MMC and iHD in BD. Ask me if HP really understood why they did because no one else bought into that.

Sony displays MPEG 2 BD demos because they will release their first BD titles that way at first (no one is sure why since Fox and Warner, and everyone else is using H.264 and VC1). Pretty sure the PS3 will play them fine(at least it better, but then again....). I'll agree with anyone who knows anything that having Sony titles on BD in MPEG2 while still looking good, would pretty much negate the whole higher 25GB storage factors anyways(bastards).

Haven't seen any BD players that aren't backwards compatible with DVD. And the hybrid discs from both camps are flippers. They for some reason aren't too popular with the studios (prob since they think they can gain more cash from 2 separate SKU's).

Edited January 10, 2006 by Gaijin

[JB0]

Blu-Ray players announced.

That's certainly the way to win the format wars!  Have players that cost double the competition!

Well, if stand-alone players are going to retail for that much, it really has you wondering about the PS3?  Will it be close to that price range?  If not, then the PS3 would instantly be the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market and an attractive choice for even non-gamers.  However, that assumes that Sony sells the PS3 at a loss, and I don't Pioneer is looking to sell their Blu-Ray players at a loss.  Could that drive more manufacturers to make HD-DVD players instead?

That was exactly my point. I understand that the Pioneer ones are high end, but the other players are still over the 1K mark.

They're ALL marketed as high-end. The PS3 will be THE mass-market BluRay player if it comes in at a game system cost and can actually play BluRay movies.

And this is just the player, The Ps3 will have the "cell" processor (is it still 7 of them?) and the Nvidia 7000's series GPU. I know Sony will be selling it at a loss, but this seems like too much of a loss. I'm all for it if Sony takes it for us 

358890[/snapback]

A fair bit of that's duplication of effort.

The stand-alone players have to have a LOT of horsepower to do that. "Just a player" is a MASSIVE understatement for a device that has to decode 1080p H.264 content in real-time.

How much? Apple says :

For 1920x1080 (1080p) video at 24 frames per second:

* 3.0 Ghz Intel Pentium D (dual-core) or faster processor

* At least 1GB of RAM

* 64MB or greater video card

* Windows 2000 or XP

While this is a multitasking PC situation and not directly comparable, it bears contemplation.

Think about how much less it takes to watch a DVD on your PC(720*480 MPEG2@60FPS). A 600MHz P3 should do it nicely if I recall.

The Cell(it was always 1*) and nVidia graphics chip(custom) presumably have enough power between them to decode an H.264 stream(nVidia's recently made driver changes that allow their GPUs to assist in the H.264 decoding process), though that's yet to be demonstrated.

*There's some confusion about the Cell architecture. There's 1 processor. Only one. It has 7 math coprocessors("vector processing units") attached to it, but it's still just 1 processor.

I think they downgraded the PS3 to 5 active coprocessors due to yield issues. They're still making the 7-coproc chips, but this way 2 of them can have defects without the chip failing. Was easier than redesigning the chip to actually remove 2 VPUs.

[yellowlightman]

They're ALL marketed as high-end. The PS3 will be THE mass-market BluRay player if it comes in at a game system cost and can actually play BluRay movies.

358902[/snapback]

So in that way, it'll be similar to the PS2's position in Japan. Except, unlike DVDs, not everyone (or very many people at all, I suspect) will be wanting Blu-Ray players.

[Gaijin]

So in that way, it'll be similar to the PS2's position in Japan. Except, unlike DVDs, not everyone (or very many people at all, I suspect) will be wanting Blu-Ray players.

358905[/snapback]

But they'll get them.

Unlike HD DVD in which...the average person won't go out and buy an HD DVD player at $500 nor would they at $300, nor $250, nor $199 if they have their $39 DVD player from China that's basically a drive in a plastic box.

But tell them they get a new High Definition disc player in addition to the game console they just bought included that they can use if they get an HDTV? That is the way to win over the public.

I don't think the 2 new formats would ever take off like DVD did, but one has a way of becoming the new format in a way the other wishes it could. Stand alones and add ons for something the average joe won't see as a major step up from DVD? Nope. Trojan horse it into something average Joe is gonna buy anyways? Yep.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Gaijin

[Ladic]

Whats the Diff between HDMI and DVI cables? I know my PC has a DVI port in the Video Card, and my TV also has a DVI port.

[Zentrandude]

So in that way, it'll be similar to the PS2's position in Japan. Except, unlike DVDs, not everyone (or very many people at all, I suspect) will be wanting Blu-Ray players.

358905[/snapback]

But they'll get them.

Unlike HD DVD in which...the average person won't go out and buy an HD DVD player at $500 nor would they at $300, nor $250, nor $199 if they have their $39 DVD player from China that's basically a drive in a plastic box.

But tell them they get a new High Definition disc player in addition to the game console they just bought included that they can use if they get an HDTV? That is the way to win over the public.

I don't think the 2 new formats would ever take off like DVD did, but one has a way of becoming the new format in a way the other wishes it could. Stand alones and add ons for something the average joe won't see as a major step up from DVD? Nope. Trojan horse it into something average Joe is gonna buy anyways? Yep.

358907[/snapback]

wait till 2008 and see what walmart puts out for 20 bucks and we will find the winner.

[myk]

Whats the Diff between HDMI and DVI cables? I know my PC has a DVI port in the Video Card, and my TV also has a DVI port.

358981[/snapback]

I'm guessing here-HDMI and DVI are identical, save for the fact that HDMI carries audio signals, where DVI only carries video. Video cards would only have a DVI port because they handle nothing but video signals. I assume that some televisions only have a DVI port because their audio signals are relegated to some other device...

[Gaijin]

wait till 2008 and see what walmart puts out for 20 bucks and we will find the winner.

359060[/snapback]

Correct, though by that time, the "winner" will already be established.

Whats the Diff between HDMI and DVI cables? I know my PC has a DVI port in the Video Card, and my TV also has a DVI port.

358981[/snapback]

I'm guessing here-HDMI and DVI are identical, save for the fact that HDMI carries audio signals, where DVI only carries video. Video cards would only have a DVI port because they handle nothing but video signals. I assume that some televisions only have a DVI port because their audio signals are relegated to some other device...

359066[/snapback]

Yup, though HDMI can carry up to 12 bit video signals and DVI is maxxed at 8bit. Not that most people know the difference anyways. It's very safe to say that if you buy a new HDTV, make sure it has HDMI instead of DVI...though some people say you can just get an adapter, check any of the AV forums...people everywhere are finding the HDCP handshake screwing them whether it be an upconverting player, or set top HD cable box.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Gaijin

[JB0]

wait till 2008 and see what walmart puts out for 20 bucks and we will find the winner.

359060[/snapback]

Correct, though by that time, the "winner" will already be established.

Whats the Diff between HDMI and DVI cables? I know my PC has a DVI port in the Video Card, and my TV also has a DVI port.

358981[/snapback]

I'm guessing here-HDMI and DVI are identical, save for the fact that HDMI carries audio signals, where DVI only carries video. Video cards would only have a DVI port because they handle nothing but video signals. I assume that some televisions only have a DVI port because their audio signals are relegated to some other device...

359066[/snapback]

Yup, though HDMI can carry up to 12 bit video signals and DVI is maxxed at 8bit. Not that most people know the difference anyways. It's very safe to say that if you buy a new HDTV, make sure it has HDMI instead of DVI...though some people say you can just get an adapter, check any of the AV forums...people everywhere are finding the HDCP handshake screwing them whether it be an upconverting player, or set top HD cable box.

359082[/snapback]

So DVI -> HDMI = guaranteed, but HDMI -> DVI = not necessarily?

I know copy-protection on DVI is a lot spottier than on HDMI. *

Didn't know about the max bittage diffrence.

*I still say get an HDCP-stripping box.

We did it with Macrovision, we can do it now.

[Gaijin]

So DVI -> HDMI = guaranteed, but HDMI -> DVI = not necessarily?

I know copy-protection on DVI is a lot spottier than on HDMI. *

Didn't know about the max bittage diffrence.

*I still say get an HDCP-stripping box.

We did it with Macrovision, we can do it now.

359086[/snapback]

Yup, basically HDMI backwards compatible with DVI, DVI not as forward compatible with HDMI...but the whole HDCP thing is kinda screwy...since most TV's with DVI are "supposed" to be HDCP compliant (unlike PC monitors), it hasn't been the case with all sorts of weird problems when using HDMI to DVI adapters(no picture...green fuzzy picture like Macrovision on crack...colored snow). Depends on the display device or the set top box too...methinks the HDCP standard is like DVD "standards". To be safe, make sure your new TV has HDMI since DVI is vanishing from Consumer electronics with the exception being computer monitors.

No worries about the price of HDMI cables too everybody....the markup on every one in a retail store is so absurdly high, don't ever buy one from there. Unless you buy a 50 ft long one from ebay you would served fine with a cheaper one online. I bought 2 HDMI cables (one 3ft and one 6ft) for $10 a piece awhile back...nice thick shielded ones too. Unlike analog signal cables, as long as they're made even halfway decent you should be fine (at least until some company in Budapest starts cranking them out incorrectly or something).

Edited January 11, 2006 by Gaijin