Both formats have gone beyond the resolution of my eyes (and ears). Where I find this both funny and true, we need to keep in mind that higher resolutions are primarily intended for larger display area, which means the pixels per inch aren't really going up much at all. As televisions are getting commonly larger so is the amount of data required to fill their display area. If a TV is now six times as big as it was fifteen years ago, should there not be six times as much information to display on it?

Given the rather short time between the introduction of DVD and the introduction of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, I wouldn't be surprised if they do kindasorta fail in that they'll be replaced by a new format before either really gets a chance to take over the market. Most of the reason DVD caught on quickly was that it offered a bazillion advantages over VHS. All that the HD formats really have to offer is that a small percentage of the consumers can view movies at a higher resolution than they could with DVD. The rest have to buy a new TV or computer for there to be any advantage, which is going to retard the adoption of both formats.

Agreed, bittorrent is fine when I miss a TV show or am not sure if a movie will be good, but it's not going to be replacing an actual DVD for me. And as I am a sucker and have both an Xbox 360 HD-DVD add-on and a PS3, i'll be sticking to movies in 1920x1080 on my HDTV via HDMI;-) Not to say there aren't HD rips out there, but most are usually at lower res than the original BR/HDDVD and if not are redicuosly huge and you still need a way to get it to your TV (yes, I know you can hook your PC to a TV but that just seems like way too much effort and im damn lazy.). I guess you haven't seen the 720p or 1080p x264 (H.264/AVC - same codec that many of the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray movies are using) rips on private bittorrent trackers or Usenet. A standard two hour movie will fit on a DVD5 at 720p with 6 channel AC3 audio and a bitrate of 4.5-6 mbit/sec.

While this wouldn't look great using xvid, H.264/AVC High profile can create great quality. X264 using Sharktooth's HQ-Slowest profile is very impressive. A 2 hour movie can fit on a DVD9 at 1080p at 7-8 mbit/sec, again with very good quality.

Hell, I've seen some 2 CD sized x264 rips from 1080p sources that blow DVD out of the water. Quicken for mac reviews 2017. Forget about the MPEG-4 ASP codecs like Xvid and Divx. Now that we have H.264/AVC, we can achieve excellent results at 720p and 1080p down to DVD5/9 sizes. You know you might be a geek when you say things like: I guess you haven't seen the 720p or 1080p x264 (H.264/AVC - same codec that many of the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray movies are using) rips on private bittorrent trackers or Usenet. A standard two hour movie will fit on a DVD5 at 720p with 6 channel AC3 audio and a bitrate of 4.5-6 mbit/sec.

Download Toast 14 High-Def/Blu-ray Disc Plug-in 1.0 for Mac from our website for free. This Mac application was originally produced by Roxio. This Mac application was originally produced by Roxio. This Mac download was scanned by our antivirus and was rated as virus free. Toast High-Def/Blu-ray Disc Plug-in 2.0 - Burn HD video to DVD and Blu-ray Disc; for Toast 11, 12, and 14. Download the latest versions of the best Mac apps at safe and trusted MacUpdate Download, install, or update Toast High-Def/Blu-ray Disc Plug-in for Mac from MacUpdate.

While this wouldn't look great using xvid, H.264/AVC High profile can create great quality. X264 using Sharktooth's HQ-Slowest profile is very impressive. A 2 hour movie can fit. Yeah, the article's a crock of shit for many reasons -- possible discrepancies between the players being one of them. I'd argue that reviewer bias would be much more troubling to anyone looking to take these stats seriously.

Especially among audio/video-philes. If you read online or wherever that Format A uses some slightly better technique for audio/video compression than Format B. Chances are, when you're doing a supposedly impartial review between the two formats, you'll prefer to select Format A as the winner. The only way you could have a non-biased study of this sort is if you selected random candidates, had them watch a movie on your hi-def setup without telling them what format it was (or even know yourself), and then ask them to rate the A/V quality (a crude double-blind study). If you're thinking about investing in one of these formats over the other, take this 'study' with a very large grain of salt, especially when the differences are so small. The only thing I'm believing is that HD-DVD *probably* has a bit better extras, not that I care one whit for these junk formats.

The article is a total crock of @#$#. Just looking at the charts shows you that the audio 'difference' is so incredibly tiny that the actual players probably have far more to do with it than the format. I didn't read the article, but I knew it was a crock by the audio 'difference' thing. AFAIK, the audio on both formats is the exact same (and the same as standard DVD as well). DTS (the best) and DD. Now some content is encoded better into DD or DTS at the studio, but the delivery of the digital information. Quality will not decide this format war - the PS3 will.