libellule said: LOL, somewhere in UK, http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?p=6424143#post6424143 Well isn't that interesting? I went into Woolworths the other day and what did I see on the shelf? Well take a look... That's right! I asked at the counter what was going on and they said they have it on Blu-ray but they've sold out at the minute. Now isn't that something? And hopefully I'm buying it today. ==> fake ???

A lot of movies are on both formats, depending on the region. Just shows how little this war means, if the sides aren't even as clear cut as it seems. 

As for stever, that quote was from weeks ago, the very quote that was taken out of context. So far, you only seem to be scouring for some detail, and rather than just presenting it objectively, you throw it around proclaiming you've beaten me somehow.

It's not about who's "right" here. It's about what is actually happening. So far, most people just don't know the value of these movies yet. That isn't because of the format war. Both sides have made statements making it clear people have to know about what HD films can do before they hit mainstream.

Right now, whoever supports which side just gives a few thousand sales a week to that side, not the actual home video market. That's pretty much all HD-DVD got when Paramount went exclusive, and that's all Warner would give any side should they do so.

Oh, and I can admit I make mistakes, but a lot of you assume one detail means you "win" the whole argument. That just makes you look desperate. If you have a detail you know I got wrong, I can admit it, but unless my whole argument is based on that, it's not proving me wrong, nor that I don't know anything about the subject.

And my point about this whole format was is still the same as it was*: the mainstream market is how they win, not whoever has the biggest niche.

*Aside from the conspiracy, which I've largely dropped.

The Samsung BD-P1400 is currently $297.95 at Amazon.com.

From Engadget:

First of all, it's nice to see the PS3 isn't holding back blu-ray player price drops, as I thought it would.

Second, the price of movies is still too high for both, and sales still too niche, so merely matching player prices won't really hurt or help either format.

^yeah the movies are still expensive on the HD-DVD and BLU-RAY players

So far, there are just two films I want in hi-def: Goodfellas and Casino. Even if I had an HDTV (preferrably as a PC monitor) and a player, I wouldn't spend $60 just for those two movies.

My most anticipated movies are the LotR: EEs. I'd gladly give up every other movie I own to see those in HD.

 I've never called you out on saying anythign about being mainstream. But we have 2 full pages of you speaking lies about bitrate, Nielsen figures and WB comments.

The thing is, if you want to speak objectively go fo rit, but again you are clearly trumpeting HD DVD throughout this thread and all of th epoints you make to show HD DVD's superiority are lies....Bitrate, Nielsen rankings etc. Thats what im calling you out on.

You wanna sit here and talk about volumes and mass market acceptance lets do it, you wont see me argueing. But when you make excuses for HD DVD and speak like you knwo what youre talking about as reasons why HD DVD is better or BD is pathetic......all of your talking points are untrue.

Stick with your opinion which isnt relient on facts or citations.....or stick with volume tied to opinion......but dont say HD DVD is better or make excuses and use lies to back up your point and argument, thats all. 

BTW, simple math tells us what bitrates run on those discs. This review of the blu-ray release of the remake of the Fly tells us that the film's video is encoded at 24 megabits per second, or 3 megabytes (this includes the resolution and fratmerate, as the per second indicates). Simply multiply that by the film's running time, 95 minutes or 5700 seconds, and we have 17,100 megabytes of video data.

Of course 17GB is not a lot, not even a full layer for blu-ray, but that only counts the video data. The spec page for the film tells us that one disc includes DTS audio in several languages, and all the extra features.

Now if a 2-layer HD-DVD did that, it would likely run the film at 13 megabits per second, or 1.625 megabytes. Times 5200, that's 8.45GB, so that it could include all those features on one disc, except replacing the extra features with a lossless audio track. Yet the point is that the capacity means about half the bitrate is used. With a 3-layer disc, the capacity isn't an issue. That's the simple truth about bitrates, but it doesn't make HD-DVD "better". It just means one technical issue can match blu-ray, the way 1.1 profile does most of the same for blu-ray matching where it's behind HD-DVD, or player prices dropping to where it can match HD-DVD.

Match does not mean better.