HDDVD & BD cost "the same" for this movie. Please change your post.
Why is it that whenever you make an error in your post and you're corrected, it's like you're always hesitant to make the change? And why is it that all your "errors" always have a pro BD slant? In this case you suggest that BD costs less...which is a straight up lie.
Cool. I'm not suggesting there is a conspiracy theory. Ok, now that I (and many others) have pointed it out and sent word about it, why not post it? You're right, it's not a big deal, but throw us a bone so we can get off your case.
Here: read this CNBC article that cites the KMART exclusivity deal if you're looking for some kind of "report" on it.
EngadgetHD: This is by far the most STUPID post I've ever read on this website. What the hell do you mean by "weaker" player? What do you mean by "Will Bluray respond, we hope so".
It's not so much that you're saying these things. The issue is that if BD came out with a $100 player, you will NOT be cheering HDDVD to do the same, no matter what features the BD player had.
You people disgust me, honestly. Just come out and admit that you prefer bluray, and that you are ANTI HDDVD. Then, admit that news like this upsets you. Atleast then, you'll have some credibility; rather than lying to us and yourselves.
Finally, why have you not reported that Sears/Kmart has gone HDDVD exclusive? This is getting to the point of being "Old News", yet not a word. However, when SONY buys an "ENDCAP" at Target, you jump all over it and report that as "TARGET HAS GONE BLURAY EXCLUSIVE".
What do you mean the only advantage HDDVD has is price? What about interactive features? What about ethernet ports STANDARD on all systems? What about extra content via PiP etc. When you say "price", you MUST also indicate that you are getting the same IDENTICAL picture and IDENTICAL sound from HDDVD that you could possibly get from BD at less than HALF the cost.
All your pluses to Bluray are theoretical bullet points at best. Where has Bluray's higher capacity proven to be an advantage? Where has HDDVD's smaller capacity hurt it? Under what conditions has Bluray's band width helped it? Modern video codecs DO NOT NEED this extra bandwidth, so it is a moot point.
Also, what the heck do you mean by "de-interlacing hurts the picture" ? Almost ALL Bluray and HDDVD players have to first de-interlace the picture before re-interlacing it to 1080P. Quit talking out your @$$.
Do yourself a favor. Go out to Circuit City and ask someone to hookup an HDDVD player to any TV, 1080i, 1080P, 720P or whatever. Then ask them to hookup a BD player on the same TV with the same or similar movie. You WILL NOT see a difference. You WILL NOT hear a difference either. Based on that, why on earth will you want to go out and spend $500 and get the same thing?
Dude, that was Michael Bay's earlier quote before he saw 300 on HDDVD and recanted. His current stance as far as we're concerned is that HDDVD is "pretty sweet", and that he expected Transformers on HDDVD to look great.
I'm an HDDVD owner and supporter, but I don't think Transformers will do much for HDDVD. Reason; the movie wasn't that good. I'd like to imagine HDDVD owners are very discerning. Now if it was on Bluray, I'm sure it'll do very well. The PS3 demographic will gobble up anything (Spiderman 3 & Fantastic 4 anyone?).
"With all the new multitouch capable monitors coming out, which one is the best? With the release of Windows 7 I really want a touchscreen monitor for my desktop. I'm looking to get a Full HD monitor that supports multitouch and can still look great during gaming and movies. Which one has the best specs for the price?"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
