The transporter 3 If were

The transporter 3

If were discussing why theres a format war in the first place Sony is definitely the reason. This logic is so askew, I dont know where to begin, but Ill give it a whirl. Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer and others of the BDA who support Blu-ray exclusively are all a part of the DVD Forum, but chose to create what you call a coup in the form of the BDA when Toshiba and Intel decided to change the way votes were counted within the DVD Forum to pass off their own format when all the Blu-ray supporters were noticely absent-which was supposed to count as a the transporter 3 for no. So, to imply that Toshibas AOD disc ended up winning the DVD Forums vote because it met producers desire for HD disc is misleading in every way. Besides, if it met all producers desire for HD disc then why did so many CE manufacturers, IT companies, and other software companies defect to the BDA in the first place? Doesnt make sense when you look at this in a realistic and logical fashion. Also, Sony isnt to blame for this format war as you so try to weakly conclude. There is equal blame to go around both on the HD DVD side as well as the Blu-ray side which is comprised of much more than just Sony-a point I will continue to repeat when you attempt to paint Blu-ray as a one pony show. Both formats easily hold 4 hours of movies with audio. This covers %95 of all movie distribution yet I was consistently being told that 50GB is going to give me better quality than 30GB. ll give more time but the quality depends on the bitrate. Easily hold 4 hours, for HD DVD heh? From my understanding, a good portion of HD DVD titles are already very, very close in maxing out in their space using the most the transporter 3 codec, and we havent even seen the epic titles come out that will be over 3 hours just for the video. I just waiting for, well, theyll just have to come out on multiple discs excuse youll probably deliver. At least with Blu-ray, 50GB disce will be here in the fall, and this ought not be an issue. Sony initially wanted Blu-Ray to be MPEG2 only and after some cajoling they added VC-1 and AVC. Toshiba had always planned to use the new codecs because MPEG2 wouldnt give them the quality nor time they needed on 30GB discs. MPEG2 would have negated any real difference in disc capacity because MPEG2 like to play above 25Mbps. Blu-ray always kept the door open in terms of what codecs being used and/or other features like MMC. Any statements to the transporter 3 contrary or simply supposition by you. Besides, your entire point here is moot, seeing in how Blu-ray does support MPEG4/H. 264/AVC or VC-1 or MPEG It is up to the studios as to what codec will be used, so stop trying to discredit and isolate Sony for anything and everything Blu-ray, especially for points that have no bearing on what is being currently supported from the format. Cost If were not talking about subsidized hardware/software its clear that HD DVD is the more inexpensive format to make. The HD DVD disc structure is the same as DVD. The OPU has a very close Numerical Aperture so that backwards compatability with DVD was assured. This made sense to me the lens assembly can be much cheaper and the discs can be manufactured on retrofitted pressing lines or a new line can be added that can do HD DVD and DVD A nice perservation of legacy support and hardware. Preservation of legacy support and hardware is on Blu-ray side as well supports DVDCD so I dont see your point here. As far as cost goes, I and a lot of others dont care if manufacturers incur extra cost as long as disc are the same price to the end consumer, which they are and which is the important thing.