Blu-ray player released today - bit-tech.net Forums

Garside · 17th Oct 2006, 17:25

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10...eleased_today/

M4RTIN · 17th Oct 2006, 17:30

sony havent heard of optimization then? i dont care that the ps3 is next gen theres no way its bettr than a pc and to take up 25gb is just stupidity. developers can make games that look better on the 360 with only 9gb so why the need for 50gb. im shocked really

on another note ill be getting a 360hd player when they come out, i am hoping the cheaper hd-dvd setup will prevail.

ps what price were blu-ray films? as i expect hd ones to be the same

riggs · 17th Oct 2006, 17:34

I know it's a new technology and all that, but I'd rather spend a grand on something else (new PC perhaps?).

Are Sony forcing standalone BR manufacturers to sell their products at a high price, in order to make the PS3 look more attractive? Surely there's not £1000's worth of electronics inside that case?! Or are the connections gold-plated, with diamond heatsinks on all the MOSFET's?

Veles · 17th Oct 2006, 17:45

I think it's just developers can use 25Gb of space, so why bother with compression when the space is already there? Not really a big surprise to me, but that doesn't mean those games wouldn't fit on a DVD9

TheSaladMan · 17th Oct 2006, 17:51

Considering the MPEG2 codec that's used on Blu-Rays is what? 10 years old now? I wouldn't expect the quality to be that great.

HD-DVD with h.264 = sexy!

P.S. since when is the common abbreviation for "For The Win" a swear word?

Warrior_Rocker · 17th Oct 2006, 18:13

Is sony Fsking serious? They are close to using up the 25gb already. Oh please....

Honestly I cant see how they can be that wasteful.

Tyinsar · 17th Oct 2006, 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article

...Sony games are already filling up the 25 GB sized discs...

Though, tbh, I'd actually prefer content with less compression so this might not be all bad.

DXR_13KE · 17th Oct 2006, 18:25

Quote:

Do discs excite you?

nope.

i will wait until all the bugs are ironed out, i will buy it when it gets as cheap as when i started buying dvds.

crayfish · 17th Oct 2006, 18:34

***

So it is!

sandys · 17th Oct 2006, 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by M4RTIN

ps what price were blu-ray films? as i expect hd ones to be the same

You can see whats being offered on HD DVD and BR by going to play.com. BR looks cheaper typically though most films are cack.

M4RTIN · 17th Oct 2006, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandys

You can see whats being offered on HD DVD and BR by going to play.com. BR looks cheaper typically though most films are cack.

actually a lot cheaper than i expecterd the discs to be. not a great choice tho. should hopefully be a big push at xmas tho

phantomxc · 17th Oct 2006, 18:52

If you guys want to be impressed, pick up an HD-DVD player and a few of the good movies

You won't look back.

Icecoldbagey · 17th Oct 2006, 18:55

HD-DVD please. I just saw on the ITV news someone who works in currys. 'The war has already been won, blu ray is the better format' Yeah, right.

Ice

M4RTIN · 17th Oct 2006, 18:56

if someone in currys said blu-ray is best then the winner must surely be hd-dvd. people who work in electrical shops no nothing

DXR_13KE · 17th Oct 2006, 19:24

VHS vs BetaMAX........

Fophillips · 17th Oct 2006, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSaladMan

HD-DVD with h.264 = sexy!

A normal DVD with h.264 is sexy enough, I personally don't see the point in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD

Quote:

P.S. since when is the common abbreviation for "For The Win" a swear word?

**** the world

EQC · 17th Oct 2006, 20:45

What's with this "25GB for a game is wasteful" talk so many people are making? Hate Sony all you want...I kindof do too...but at least come up with an argument with some meaning behind it instead of just finding a complaint in every sound-byte you hear from a Sony employee.

The fact that a game takes up more space isn't always an indication of being 'wasteful.' What the heck do you even think is being 'wasted?' If the game costs the same amount whether its on DVD for the 360, or BluRay for PS3, they're not wasting your money. If it's just that they're 'not optimizing' or 'not compressing,' then they're SAVING time, if anything. So the only thing they might be 'wasting' is Gigabytes??!! Last I heard, GB's aren't a limited resource.

Did you complain when games moved from single floppy disk to multiple floppies to CD to DVD? Nooooo...as soon as you saw the games, you saw not only better picture, but more detailed games in terms of how big the game world was and how much you could do in it. You haven't seen PS3 games yet AFAIK...so you can't really say with any certainty that they look better on the 360 (unless your 'certainty' comes by way of the blinders you wear because you love the 360 so much and can't find any good in it's competitor?). There's more to a game's Gigabytes than just the looks anyway, so even if some games do look better on the 360, there just might be some other purpose to the 15 extra GB's on a PS3 disk.

supermonkey · 17th Oct 2006, 21:19

So if I understand correctly, even if I spend $1000 on a new machine to play my new Blu-Ray movies, I won't notice any marked improvements on my standard definition television coupled with my 12-year-old stereo receiver?

No thanks. I'll stick with DVD for now. I'd be willing to bet that most people can't honestly tell the difference anyway.

-monkey

zero0ne · 17th Oct 2006, 21:30

Forgot where i read this, but doesnt the PS3 (blu-ray in particular) take something like 2x the time to grab the same amount of info as does the current 360 DVD does? (it was either that or the blu ray took 2x as long compared to HD-DVD) either way, if you compress less, and use more space, they are just increasing load times... esp if they arent compressing anything because "there is no need with 25GB" blah blah crap...

say you have Game X on 360, and PS3, on the 360 it takes up the full 9GB, compressed and all, and the 360 needs to access a GB of that compressed info, while PS3s version is uncompressed completely, and is using say 18 GB, so now ps3 needs to access the same info, but its now a 2GB chunk because of no compression (assuming an even compression % throughout, not bloody likely though) so that just doubled access time again, now its at 1:4. Of course this isn't including processing time to uncompress it on the 360.

[/rant]

Aankhen · 17th Oct 2006, 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by zero0ne

Forgot where i read this, but doesnt the PS3 (blu-ray in particular) take something like 2x the time to grab the same amount of info as does the current 360 DVD does? (it was either that or the blu ray took 2x as long compared to HD-DVD) either way, if you compress less, and use more space, they are just increasing load times... esp if they arent compressing anything because "there is no need with 25GB" blah blah crap...

According to Wikipedia's HD-DVD article, the format has a maximum transfer rate of 36.155 Mbit/s (the same as "3X DVD", and three times as fast a regular DVD). On the other hand, Blu-Ray's maximum transfer rate is given as 54 Mbit/s in the corresponding article. Early drives have a 2x rating, i.e. 2 x 36 Mbit/s = 72 Mbit/s.

Also, the point of uncompressed textures is to achieve a higher level of quality, AFAIK.

17th Oct 2006, 17:25	#1
Garside Supermodder Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London Posts: 395	Blu-ray player released today http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10...eleased_today/

17th Oct 2006, 17:34	#3
riggs ^_^ Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Lincs. Posts: 1,643	I know it's a new technology and all that, but I'd rather spend a grand on something else (new PC perhaps?). Are Sony forcing standalone BR manufacturers to sell their products at a high price, in order to make the PS3 look more attractive? Surely there's not £1000's worth of electronics inside that case?! Or are the connections gold-plated, with diamond heatsinks on all the MOSFET's? __________________ Hell hath no fury like a hippo with a machine gun PSN ID: buster2006

17th Oct 2006, 17:51	#5
TheSaladMan Multimodder Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bournemouth, Uk Posts: 135	Considering the MPEG2 codec that's used on Blu-Rays is what? 10 years old now? I wouldn't expect the quality to be that great. HD-DVD with h.264 = sexy! P.S. since when is the common abbreviation for "For The Win" a swear word? __________________ Hello there!

17th Oct 2006, 18:13	#6
Warrior_Rocker Holder of the sacred iron Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Tallahassee, FL Posts: 923	Is sony Fsking serious? They are close to using up the 25gb already. Oh please.... Honestly I cant see how they can be that wasteful. __________________ ..:: Recent Projects ::.. Picture Frame PC / Adding VGA to lcd / Razr Charge Cable Internal USB WiFi / Zune TV Output / Project XodusAMP Integrated AC Inverter / Project IDEpod / Project iPod HDD Reader

17th Oct 2006, 18:52	#12
phantomxc Multimodder Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 219	If you guys want to be impressed, pick up an HD-DVD player and a few of the good movies You won't look back. __________________ ?AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Venice?Sapphire X800 XT PE ?Abit AV8?1 gig 3200 giel?160 GB Western Digital 7200 ? FRIED EVERYTHING... 3DMark05 = 6306? "Last week, Japanese scientists placed explosive detanators at the bottom of lake Loch Ness, to blow Nessie out of the water..." Napolean Dynamite

17th Oct 2006, 17:30	#2
M4RTIN Ultramodder Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK Posts: 1,257	sony havent heard of optimization then? i dont care that the ps3 is next gen theres no way its bettr than a pc and to take up 25gb is just stupidity. developers can make games that look better on the 360 with only 9gb so why the need for 50gb. im shocked really on another note ill be getting a 360hd player when they come out, i am hoping the cheaper hd-dvd setup will prevail. ps what price were blu-ray films? as i expect hd ones to be the same

17th Oct 2006, 18:34	#9
crayfish Amazing scenes! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: UK Posts: 597	*** So it is!

17th Oct 2006, 18:55	#13
Icecoldbagey Mountain Dew!!! Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Durham Posts: 1,406	HD-DVD please. I just saw on the ITV news someone who works in currys. 'The war has already been won, blu ray is the better format' Yeah, right. Ice __________________ Lets break out the shotguns, we're going to town!

17th Oct 2006, 18:56	#14
M4RTIN Ultramodder Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK Posts: 1,257	if someone in currys said blu-ray is best then the winner must surely be hd-dvd. people who work in electrical shops no nothing

17th Oct 2006, 19:24	#15
DXR_13KE Madeira's banana is the best!!! Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madeira ; Portugal Posts: 6,473	VHS vs BetaMAX........ __________________ *Renegade X - 0.40 Release!* <---- CLICK!

17th Oct 2006, 20:45	#17
EQC Multimodder Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: CA Posts: 220	What's with this "25GB for a game is wasteful" talk so many people are making? Hate Sony all you want...I kindof do too...but at least come up with an argument with some meaning behind it instead of just finding a complaint in every sound-byte you hear from a Sony employee. The fact that a game takes up more space isn't always an indication of being 'wasteful.' What the heck do you even think is being 'wasted?' If the game costs the same amount whether its on DVD for the 360, or BluRay for PS3, they're not wasting your money. If it's just that they're 'not optimizing' or 'not compressing,' then they're SAVING time, if anything. So the only thing they might be 'wasting' is Gigabytes??!! Last I heard, GB's aren't a limited resource. Did you complain when games moved from single floppy disk to multiple floppies to CD to DVD? Nooooo...as soon as you saw the games, you saw not only better picture, but more detailed games in terms of how big the game world was and how much you could do in it. You haven't seen PS3 games yet AFAIK...so you can't really say with any certainty that they look better on the 360 (unless your 'certainty' comes by way of the blinders you wear because you love the 360 so much and can't find any good in it's competitor?). There's more to a game's Gigabytes than just the looks anyway, so even if some games do look better on the 360, there just might be some other purpose to the 15 extra GB's on a PS3 disk.

17th Oct 2006, 21:19	#18
supermonkey Space Monkey Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 2,710	So if I understand correctly, even if I spend $1000 on a new machine to play my new Blu-Ray movies, I won't notice any marked improvements on my standard definition television coupled with my 12-year-old stereo receiver? No thanks. I'll stick with DVD for now. I'd be willing to bet that most people can't honestly tell the difference anyway. -monkey __________________ But of bliss and of glad life there is little to be said, before it ends; as works fair and wonderful, while still they endure for eyes to see, are their own record, and only when they are in peril or broken for ever do they pass into song. -J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion

17th Oct 2006, 21:30	#19
zero0ne Multimodder Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 112	Forgot where i read this, but doesnt the PS3 (blu-ray in particular) take something like 2x the time to grab the same amount of info as does the current 360 DVD does? (it was either that or the blu ray took 2x as long compared to HD-DVD) either way, if you compress less, and use more space, they are just increasing load times... esp if they arent compressing anything because "there is no need with 25GB" blah blah crap... say you have Game X on 360, and PS3, on the 360 it takes up the full 9GB, compressed and all, and the 360 needs to access a GB of that compressed info, while PS3s version is uncompressed completely, and is using say 18 GB, so now ps3 needs to access the same info, but its now a 2GB chunk because of no compression (assuming an even compression % throughout, not bloody likely though) so that just doubled access time again, now its at 1:4. Of course this isn't including processing time to uncompress it on the 360. [/rant]