Excalibur soul eater song english

Excalibur soul eater song english

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 advanced 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 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. I wont blather on and bore people. The crux of the matter is really seperating the wheat from the chaff. The questions to ask ourselves is does the benefits of Blu-Ray outweigh the increase in price? I looked at what was happening and I decided that it did not. What increase in price? Discs cost the same. Price of hardware is currently not, but that will change in 3 months. Soooo, are you telling me because Toshiba came out with a 499 subsidized player a couple of months before Sony releases their 499 subsidized player with much more capability in an early adoption market, this warrants allegiance to a format that has less benefits? What you assume about price in regards to Blu-ray hardware is that it will always be higher than HD DVD, which is just untrue. Your argument has merit only in the short-term, but considering we are in an early adoption market as it pertains to everything HD, and that the economies of scale are in Blu-rays favor, and that the majority of Hollywood is in Blu-rays favor, the next coming months will provide ample time for HD DVDs slaghter to come to fruition still. Well Doc Holliday how are you doing lunger? Tombstone reference How the votes were counted is inconsequential of Blu-Ray was never submitted /wiki/HDDVDHistory. Had Toshiba lost the vote Blu-Ray still would not have been the blessed format. It was never there for vote. As for space. Im constantly suprised to see that there is no correlation between size and overall quality in HD DVD. Serenity is one of the smaller films. ATL is a single layer HD DVD layere Combo disc and folks over on AVS are raving about the quality.