st0n3r Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Blu-Ray is most definately winning - from a retailer's point of view, I know that next to nobody is buying HD-DVD and that Blu-Ray players are selling far more strongly. I still advise people to wait on purchasing a player, mostly because the Blu-Ray players on the market are still really slow to load up and they glitch a lot. In 6-12 months time things will have improved, but it's worth holding off for now.very true what you said but the main reason Blu-Ray is selling more is due to the PS3Isn't the Xbox 360 HD-DVD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Binge_And_Slash Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Blu-Ray is most definately winning - from a retailer's point of view, I know that next to nobody is buying HD-DVD and that Blu-Ray players are selling far more strongly. I still advise people to wait on purchasing a player, mostly because the Blu-Ray players on the market are still really slow to load up and they glitch a lot. In 6-12 months time things will have improved, but it's worth holding off for now.I only had Casino Royale on Blu-Ray (got it for free, Sony sent me it for buying a PS3 ??) It didn't glitch at all, and the picture was kinda decent.I haven't watched a HD-DVD, but regardless I don't care who wins, I think paying £25/$40 per film is outrageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jack_the_ripper Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Blu-Ray is most definately winning - from a retailer's point of view, I know that next to nobody is buying HD-DVD and that Blu-Ray players are selling far more strongly. I still advise people to wait on purchasing a player, mostly because the Blu-Ray players on the market are still really slow to load up and they glitch a lot. In 6-12 months time things will have improved, but it's worth holding off for now.very true what you said but the main reason Blu-Ray is selling more is due to the PS3Isn't the Xbox 360 HD-DVD?only if you buy the add-on.I was at best buy, and saw them boot up a film on blu-ray... I was standing there for literally 4 minutes (I timed it) just to see the freaking flick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I was at best buy, and saw them boot up a film on blu-ray... I was standing there for literally 4 minutes (I timed it) just to see the freaking flick.That was the point I was making earlier - they're still too slow. Some of the more expensive models we've had in have sped up on the loading time to an almost bearable point, but the technology still isn't quite where it needs to be. Like I said - give it another 6-12 months so they can iron out those kinds of problems and you have a player worth paying for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jack_the_ripper Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I was at best buy, and saw them boot up a film on blu-ray... I was standing there for literally 4 minutes (I timed it) just to see the freaking flick.That was the point I was making earlier - they're still too slow. Some of the more expensive models we've had in have sped up on the loading time to an almost bearable point, but the technology still isn't quite where it needs to be. Like I said - give it another 6-12 months so they can iron out those kinds of problems and you have a player worth paying for.I just don't like the fact that its going at 60fps... it just looks weird, it doesn't look right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I was at best buy, and saw them boot up a film on blu-ray... I was standing there for literally 4 minutes (I timed it) just to see the freaking flick.That was the point I was making earlier - they're still too slow. Some of the more expensive models we've had in have sped up on the loading time to an almost bearable point, but the technology still isn't quite where it needs to be. Like I said - give it another 6-12 months so they can iron out those kinds of problems and you have a player worth paying for.I just don't like the fact that its going at 60fps... it just looks weird, it doesn't look right.Meh, i'm sure you got over the whole fps problem moving from the N64 to the Gamecube dude - it just takes getting used to.EDIT: And anyway, come to think of it - most new players support 24fps playback anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicious Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 blu ray is kicking ass! Apple are even making macs to support blu ray! and some company started selling porn blu rays and apparently they can't keep up with orders. i'm glad the better format is winning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jack_the_ripper Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I was at best buy, and saw them boot up a film on blu-ray... I was standing there for literally 4 minutes (I timed it) just to see the freaking flick.That was the point I was making earlier - they're still too slow. Some of the more expensive models we've had in have sped up on the loading time to an almost bearable point, but the technology still isn't quite where it needs to be. Like I said - give it another 6-12 months so they can iron out those kinds of problems and you have a player worth paying for.I just don't like the fact that its going at 60fps... it just looks weird, it doesn't look right.Meh, i'm sure you got over the whole fps problem moving from the N64 to the Gamecube dude - it just takes getting used to.EDIT: And anyway, come to think of it - most new players support 24fps playback anyway.snes, n64, gamecube, wii are all displayed at 60 fps. (I'm not sure about the NES but yeah.) Films aren't made to play at 60 fps, they are made to play at 24fps. and when you put the flick at 24fps on a blu-ray player, it looks like dvd quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrence Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Blu-Ray is most definately winning - from a retailer's point of view, I know that next to nobody is buying HD-DVD and that Blu-Ray players are selling far more strongly. I still advise people to wait on purchasing a player, mostly because the Blu-Ray players on the market are still really slow to load up and they glitch a lot. In 6-12 months time things will have improved, but it's worth holding off for now.I only had Casino Royale on Blu-Ray (got it for free, Sony sent me it for buying a PS3 ??) It didn't glitch at all, and the picture was kinda decent.I haven't watched a HD-DVD, but regardless I don't care who wins, I think paying £25/$40 per film is outrageous.i think its a rip off aswell, i'm happy with normal dvd's, good enough quality for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bromle Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 snes, n64, gamecube, wii are all displayed at 60 fps. (I'm not sure about the NES but yeah.) Films aren't made to play at 60 fps, they are made to play at 24fps. and when you put the flick at 24fps on a blu-ray player, it looks like dvd quality.Sounds very odd, I have a few blu-ray movies, and they all look normal to me regarding speed fps. Can't say it looks unnormal in any regards, only the better quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jack_the_ripper Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 snes, n64, gamecube, wii are all displayed at 60 fps. (I'm not sure about the NES but yeah.) Films aren't made to play at 60 fps, they are made to play at 24fps. and when you put the flick at 24fps on a blu-ray player, it looks like dvd quality.Sounds very odd, I have a few blu-ray movies, and they all look normal to me regarding speed fps. Can't say it looks unnormal in any regards, only the better quality.I don't know what I was watching, but it was a sony 3d animation flick.. looked like dog shit, also the same with santa clause 3... looked like they were both filmed with camcorders (cause of the frame rate.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bromle Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 snes, n64, gamecube, wii are all displayed at 60 fps. (I'm not sure about the NES but yeah.) Films aren't made to play at 60 fps, they are made to play at 24fps. and when you put the flick at 24fps on a blu-ray player, it looks like dvd quality.Sounds very odd, I have a few blu-ray movies, and they all look normal to me regarding speed fps. Can't say it looks unnormal in any regards, only the better quality.I don't know what I was watching, but it was a sony 3d animation flick.. looked like dog shit, also the same with santa clause 3... looked like they were both filmed with camcorders (cause of the frame rate.)sony animation flick??? Anyway, The Departed, 300, Casino Royal, Kingdom of heaven, Rocky Balboa all seemed fine to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabbath Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Blu-Ray is most definately winning - from a retailer's point of view, I know that next to nobody is buying HD-DVD and that Blu-Ray players are selling far more strongly. I still advise people to wait on purchasing a player, mostly because the Blu-Ray players on the market are still really slow to load up and they glitch a lot. In 6-12 months time things will have improved, but it's worth holding off for now.I only had Casino Royale on Blu-Ray (got it for free, Sony sent me it for buying a PS3 ??) It didn't glitch at all, and the picture was kinda decent.I haven't watched a HD-DVD, but regardless I don't care who wins, I think paying £25/$40 per film is outrageous.i think its a rip off aswell, i'm happy with normal dvd's, good enough quality for meMy thoughts exactly. I got Spider Man 3 on Blu-Ray when I bought my PS3, and it's probably the only one I'll have because I don't want to pay $35 for one movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicious Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 the prices will go down eventually, i remember DVDs being expensive when they first came out over here.lets talk Emulators, do people use them alot? i was considering getting a playstation one emulator so i can play metal gear solid again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDRM Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) the prices will go down eventually, i remember DVDs being expensive when they first came out over here.lets talk Emulators, do people use them alot? i was considering getting a playstation one emulator so i can play metal gear solid againI played some ps1 games on ps3 last night It felt so awesome to play crash bandicoot 1 and tekken 2 Edited January 5, 2008 by JDRM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabbath Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 JDRM! You still havn't accepted my friend request on the PSN. My name is O-Z-Z-Y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spuffy78 Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Alright gotcha thanks.Which demo's would you recommend?What's your online name man?Oh, and for some demos, I suggest downloading Burnout. Also, Resistance: Fall of Man. It's a pretty big demo and it's still fun as Hell to play. Other than that, there aren't many good demos on there right now. Haven't hooked online yet.I do have-CoD4-Madden 07-Transformers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabbath Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) Alright gotcha thanks.Which demo's would you recommend?What's your online name man?Oh, and for some demos, I suggest downloading Burnout. Also, Resistance: Fall of Man. It's a pretty big demo and it's still fun as Hell to play. Other than that, there aren't many good demos on there right now. Haven't hooked online yet.I do have-CoD4-Madden 07-TransformersYou'll love CoD 4 online if you like shooters. Once you get your online set up let me know what your name is. Edited January 5, 2008 by Axls_Shorts_Rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDRM Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 JDRM! You still havn't accepted my friend request on the PSN. My name is O-Z-Z-Y.oh sorry dude, i havent been online for ages! Having some trouble with wifi.Should be sorted out within a couple of weeks though. Just enough time for you to practise for an arse whooping at motorstorm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabbath Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 JDRM! You still havn't accepted my friend request on the PSN. My name is O-Z-Z-Y.oh sorry dude, i havent been online for ages! Having some trouble with wifi.Should be sorted out within a couple of weeks though. Just enough time for you to practise for an arse whooping at motorstorm! You gotta get CoD 4 man! We can't play anything online if you don't. Unless we play Burnout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicious Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 i'm pissed off with Call of Duty! they're servers keep messing up and have been throughout christmas! they are getting around to fixing it but i'll be back at school on monday and won't have time for playing anything for a long time. i've gotten a tutorial on how to install nintendo emulators onto linux on a PS3 so i'll do it as soon as i update the hard drive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I was at best buy, and saw them boot up a film on blu-ray... I was standing there for literally 4 minutes (I timed it) just to see the freaking flick.That was the point I was making earlier - they're still too slow. Some of the more expensive models we've had in have sped up on the loading time to an almost bearable point, but the technology still isn't quite where it needs to be. Like I said - give it another 6-12 months so they can iron out those kinds of problems and you have a player worth paying for.I just don't like the fact that its going at 60fps... it just looks weird, it doesn't look right.Meh, i'm sure you got over the whole fps problem moving from the N64 to the Gamecube dude - it just takes getting used to.EDIT: And anyway, come to think of it - most new players support 24fps playback anyway.snes, n64, gamecube, wii are all displayed at 60 fps.Pretty sure games like Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64 never ran that fast dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jack_the_ripper Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I was at best buy, and saw them boot up a film on blu-ray... I was standing there for literally 4 minutes (I timed it) just to see the freaking flick.That was the point I was making earlier - they're still too slow. Some of the more expensive models we've had in have sped up on the loading time to an almost bearable point, but the technology still isn't quite where it needs to be. Like I said - give it another 6-12 months so they can iron out those kinds of problems and you have a player worth paying for.I just don't like the fact that its going at 60fps... it just looks weird, it doesn't look right.Meh, i'm sure you got over the whole fps problem moving from the N64 to the Gamecube dude - it just takes getting used to.EDIT: And anyway, come to think of it - most new players support 24fps playback anyway.snes, n64, gamecube, wii are all displayed at 60 fps.Pretty sure games like Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64 never ran that fast dude.they were 60 fps, its been the industry standard since like 92... its why atari failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I was at best buy, and saw them boot up a film on blu-ray... I was standing there for literally 4 minutes (I timed it) just to see the freaking flick.That was the point I was making earlier - they're still too slow. Some of the more expensive models we've had in have sped up on the loading time to an almost bearable point, but the technology still isn't quite where it needs to be. Like I said - give it another 6-12 months so they can iron out those kinds of problems and you have a player worth paying for.I just don't like the fact that its going at 60fps... it just looks weird, it doesn't look right.Meh, i'm sure you got over the whole fps problem moving from the N64 to the Gamecube dude - it just takes getting used to.EDIT: And anyway, come to think of it - most new players support 24fps playback anyway.snes, n64, gamecube, wii are all displayed at 60 fps.Pretty sure games like Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64 never ran that fast dude.they were 60 fps, its been the industry standard since like 92... its why atari failed.I did some reading - they were rendered at 60fps and technically they ran at that speed - but the actual speed of most of them was more like 15-20.And anyway... seems like you're talking fields-per-second and i'm talking frames-per-second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sandman Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I was at best buy, and saw them boot up a film on blu-ray... I was standing there for literally 4 minutes (I timed it) just to see the freaking flick.That was the point I was making earlier - they're still too slow. Some of the more expensive models we've had in have sped up on the loading time to an almost bearable point, but the technology still isn't quite where it needs to be. Like I said - give it another 6-12 months so they can iron out those kinds of problems and you have a player worth paying for.I just don't like the fact that its going at 60fps... it just looks weird, it doesn't look right.Meh, i'm sure you got over the whole fps problem moving from the N64 to the Gamecube dude - it just takes getting used to.EDIT: And anyway, come to think of it - most new players support 24fps playback anyway.snes, n64, gamecube, wii are all displayed at 60 fps.Pretty sure games like Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64 never ran that fast dude.they were 60 fps, its been the industry standard since like 92... its why atari failed.I did some reading - they were rendered at 60fps and technically they ran at that speed - but the actual speed of most of them was more like 15-20.Most normal screens don't handle more than about 72 iirc, so ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts