" ' We believe that HD DVD... [offers] consumers the highest quality viewing experience at the most affordable price,' said Thomas Lesinski, president, Paramount Pictures, Worldwide Home Entertainment." Since when were they concerned about our pocketbooks?
Yup....we're right back to the days of VHS vs Beta again. But Sony learned, and has a leg up. This fat lady hasn't sung yet, but Blu-Ray is pretty well poised to be the standard since it's got the majority of support on the delivery side, and has more open opportunity, and the consumer won't know the difference in the end other than they are getting more movie quality/length/feature for their $$. But...it does cost more.
Agreed on the flat format or at least compatibility...but it ain't ego that's driving it, it's the access and rights to a product/format that will be part of literally billions of $$ in revenue. I'd probably fight pretty hard for that big "B" in front of the numbers too. :-)
Sad thing is, in the end, Blu-Ray is by far the better answer. Harder to upgrade authoring to, and more costly in the short run. But it offers so much more, and will enjoy a much longer life span than HD-DVD.
Article in yesterday WSJ (11/29/04) says Sony has major consumer electronics firms lined up behind them. Also says many are hedging their bets, planning on developing products for both formats, and letting the market decide the winner.
HD-DVD can hold a longer movie on a disc, even though it technically holds MUCH less data.
Don't know enough about the two different ways to compress data being used, but the HD-DVD people claim that their final output is better than Blu-Ray, even though Blu-Ray holds more data.
Things are moving too fast to track. Around September, Blu-Ray added Microsofts VC-1 codec to the list that it supports; this is the same codec supported by HD-DVD. If prior to this point the comparison was done based on different codecs supported, then that could explain the difference in movie length between the 2 formats.