[arnesto]

I want to get a PS3 down the road primarily for video games.

What do you guys think about Wi-Fi with the PS3 versus the wired controller.

Maybe I sound a little paranoid, but there isn't much scientific research on Wi-Fi and it's effects on your health.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ex0du5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 50GB Blu-Ray vs 30GB HD-DVD.....that's a no-brainer. Higher disk space means less compression. The new age of high-bitrate video and uncompressed audio will be glorious!

Actually, what it means is many BD discs are 50gb using mpeg2 compression, which is an oxymoron in itself.


Edit:

Those were earlier releases though. I do believe most new BD releases are mpeg4, which is killer.

 

[ex0du5]

^Aurora, all they are doing is adding a third layer, as well as over-burning. Blu-Ray could counter with an extra layer if needed. But I don't think consumers would be too happy if Toshiba made 3-layer movies that would be incompatible with current HD-DVD players.

Also, there is a 100GB Blu-Ray out there, which further increases the gap if you want to argue that way:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12...e.html?RSS=RSS

50GB Blu-Ray and 30GB HD-DVD are the final movie formats. Increased storage capacity will only affect computer storage. Blu-Ray still has 2/3 more storage capacity per layer than HD-DVD, nomatter how you slice it.

-

arnesto, nothing I'd worry about. You will be exposed to Wi-Fi and wireless for the remainder of your life. Might as well start off with the PS3

.

-

And Redo, MPEG2 is just a compression format. Those were early releases. There's nothing stopping them from using different comrpession formats. Most movies now seem to be using MPEG4, and some use VC-1. Plus, uncompressed audio is just awesome

.

 

[ex0du5]

Wait I was wrong....

200GB Blu-Ray discs:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...9282192,00.htm

 

[itsborken]

Have you tried using this as a DVD-A/SACD/HDCD/Redbook source or am I the only one confused as to why a game/AV thread wound up in this forum? Seriously though, nice writeup ex0du5.

For 3x the price, I'd hope it would cream a previous gen Oppo. The transport in an Oppo doesn't support HD formats except for upconverting. Different beasts.

I'm not looking forward to replacing my DVD library. Once I get a Blu-Ray/HD player it is the inevitable outcome.

 

[archosman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSlayerZX /img/forum/go_quote.gif well... according to my suite mate, the one decided the winer of the disk format is actually the **** industry. Since around 60% of the current DVD flowing around the market is actually ****. DVD came out to be the winner because the **** industry decided to use DVD. (there was also some other stuff that compete with DVD, but I seriously forgot what was it called) So, yes, it may sounds said, but the technology tomorrow depends on the decision of the **** industry, and so far, they didn't announce they are going to use HD or BD in the future. So.... who is the winner of the new generation of DVDs is still unknown.

That no longer matters...

 

[falang]

The 360 is looking strong for gaming. Especially with the firmly established xbox live network along with these upcoming games:


Future Xbox 360 games:

360 Exclusives

Halo 3
GTA 4 (with Exclusive episodic content to the 360)
Mass Effect
Too Human
Project Gotham Racing 4
Bioshock (not sure if exclusive)
Gears of War 2
Ninja Gaiden 2

Multi-Platform

Assassin's Creed
Call of Duty 4
Ace Combat
DMC 4
Splinter Cell
Half Life 2 Orange
Resident Evil 5

Current 360 Greatness:

Gears of War
Forza 2
PGR3
Table Tennis

 

[uofmtiger]

I made the choice to pick up a PS3 in January. It is one great machine, but it does need more games. I am looking forward to MGS and DMC on the console.

The reason I picked it over the Xbox360 was because BluRay was built into the unit. I know you can pay an extra $199 or so for an add-on to get HD DVD on the Xbox360. However, including it in the PS3 almost guaranteed the BD some level of success.

The reason I picked it up over a stand alone HD DVD player is that it does so much more and was a small increase in price over the prices of stand-alones back in January. In fact, it was less expensive than the Bluray stand-alone players.

I also liked the idea that the PS3 would continue to get firmware updates. Most stand-alone players are forgotten about after one or two new models come out. This will not be an issue with the PS3.

I liked the idea of interacting with the PSP. With the ability to access movies, music, and photos stored on the PS3 or streamed to the PS3 from a computer, the PSP becomes that much better. Now you can sign into the PS3 with the PSP from any wireless connection.

This is just a small list of reasons. I am not a "gamer", but I will play the occasional game. However, if I was exclusively a gamer and needed a machine, I would get the 360 now and grab the PS3 in a year or so. Of course most console "gamers" already own a 360...

The CD sound quality is great and it gathers info on each CD so you can see song titles, album name, and artist.

The SACD is fine for two channel over the analog outputs, but you need a receiver with HDMI inputs to get surround sound. I hope they come out with some sort of a 5.1 analog output attachment, but I will probably upgrade to HDMI some time next year when HDMI1.3 is more common in receivers.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ex0du5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yep....I'm so happy Blu-Ray is going to be winning this one (or is most likely too anyways). And I mean, what audio/videophile wouldn't want Blu-Ray to win? 50GB Blu-Ray vs 30GB HD-DVD.....that's a no-brainer. Higher disk space means less compression. The new age of high-bitrate video and uncompressed audio will be glorious! Well, there's also the chance both formats might fail and become niche, but with the overall consumer move to HD, I don't think that's likely. Once people need to buy a set top box and upgrade their sets come 2009, I think many will decide to spend the extra cash and go HD. Oh...and thanks for the link .

Cause HD movies usually look better on the HD DVD & not the BR counterpart. There are quite a few films that are released on both formats, & the BR version isn't better.. The 50GB is useless for movies IMO..But for storage data it's really sweet.. Also there will be triple layer HD DVDs that will store 45Gigs.

Considering the fact that no movie is 30 or 50 gigs you can throw out the higher disk space means less compression idea..

Why spend 300-400 more on a BR player that Visuals are lesser or on par with HD DVD..Doesn't make since to me at this time.. Yada. Yada. Theres more movies for BR

 

[MrFaust]

I got a PS3 as a gift. The controller was only plugged into it long enough to setup the system and configure it for the bluray remote. The only thing I use it for is bluray dvds. And soon playing mkv videos from a hdd.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif Cause HD movies usually look better on the HD DVD & not the BR counterpart. There are quite a few films that are released on both formats, & the BR version isn't better.. The 50GB is useless for movies IMO..But for storage data it's really sweet.. Also there will be triple layer HD DVDs that will store 45Gigs. Considering the fact that no movie is 30 or 50 gigs you can throw out the higher disk space means less compression idea.. Why spend 300-400 more on a BR player that Visuals are lesser or on par with HD DVD..Doesn't make since to me at this time.. Yada. Yada. Theres more movies for BR

Well, technically, 1920x1080i uncompressed full feature films (2 hrs in length) are around 700 terabytes big. The new VC-1 and Mpeg4 codecs can compress them down to as low as 10mbps without any real artifacting depending on the scene. Though at times the scenes need to push 20mbps or higher with the new codecs to avoid artifacting. Mpeg2 is a different story though, often it needs to push double the bitrate to avoid artifacting compared to the newer codecs.


And I've been overly impressed with what I've seen from HD-DVD. Especially titles like King Kong, or Chronicle's of Riddick, breathtaking! King Kong itself is 3hrs long, and there isn't one hint of compression artifacting on 30gb of space. If you ask me, both formats are great, but HD-DVD wins as of now due to current pricing.

 

[donor]

I own neither but it appears to me as though Bluray is winning the battle.

I think their recent deal with Blockbuster was HUGE and really pushed them in front.

Of course this doesn't guarantee Bluray will emerge the victor here, but it is definitely a blow to the HD camp.

 

[ex0du5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif Cause HD movies usually look better on the HD DVD & not the BR counterpart. There are quite a few films that are released on both formats, & the BR version isn't better.. The 50GB is useless for movies IMO..But for storage data it's really sweet.. Also there will be triple layer HD DVDs that will store 45Gigs. Considering the fact that no movie is 30 or 50 gigs you can throw out the higher disk space means less compression idea.. Why spend 300-400 more on a BR player that Visuals are lesser or on par with HD DVD..Doesn't make since to me at this time.. Yada. Yada. Theres more movies for BR

kool bubba, all you need is basic computer knowledge to know that 50GB, using the same codecs, will yield a higher quality than the 30GB counterpart.

The HD-DVDs you mentionned that looked better, were while Blu-Ray was still using the ancient MPEG2 codec. Blu-Ray has now adapted and is using MPEG4 and VC-1, and in every test matches or surpasses it's HD-DVD counterpart. The only reason it only matches it in some cases, is that it's an identical encode for both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.

Higher Bitrates = Higher Quality (using the same codec)
Higher Bitrates = More Space

Blu-Ray has it.

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ex0du5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif kool bubba, all you need is basic computer knowledge to know that 50GB, using the same codecs, will yield a higher quality than the 30GB counterpart...

Can you explain with a little more detail on how raw capacity relates to quality using the same codec? Is there a less-lossy, less compressible function in a codec that is not would not be available with 30GB but does work at 50GB? Thanks

 

[ex0du5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsborken /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can you explain with a little more detail on how raw capacity relates to quality using the same codec? Is there a less-lossy, less compressible function in a codec that is not would not be available with 30GB but does work at 50GB? Thanks

Because you can choose how compressed you want it to be using that codec. A 25MBit/second video will look better than a 15MBit/second video, though the difference will not be apparent everywhere. The less you compress the video, the closer it gets to the source. Hence why the extra 66% of storage space is useful.

It's the same thing as encoding an MP3 at 192kbps rather than 128kbps...the less compressed song will sound closer to the source.

Oh, and if you want to try it....try creating a DivX video at 1.5MBit/s and 2.5MBit/s....you will most definitely see the difference. Mind you, the difference gets to be less and less the higher up you go.