We can al debate the technical advantages of each, but that is not what will determine the winner.
true, but if we, that care, don't push for what is better who will? the guy that still thinks VHS looks good enough? mono is good enough?
It is a lot like buying a computer or a higher end piece of equipment. Analyze numbers and based on that decide which is best. Then in the real world you cannot determine any appreciable difference.
no, you can determine a difference. Some BDs have 24/48 lossless no HD DVD have it. Many more BDs have lossless audio then HD DVDs. In Europe some HD DVD titles dropped features like IME and lossless audio to fit the necessary extra languages. On some titles they even went back and re-encoded the video at lower bitrates to fit them. HD DVD specs have already shown that they are not what are needed for a next generation disk.
They do not seem to be using space to improve quality for consumers, so my fear is that the intent is to have excess "real estate" on the disk so they can sell advertisment space!
I am sure some might be used for more trailers. But the rest is a joke. The issue is that MPEG-2 is easier on the studio (time wise) that is why in a shorter time period BD has caught up to HD DVD in titles. Why PCM? because lossless is good, lossy is so last format. The BD disks have not wasted BW or capacity (well WB did waist it on SuperMan Return since they refused to add anything more to the BD). But as time passes they will add more next generation extras be it HD instead of SD, more lossless tracks, the extra languages studios want to add so that they don't need split runs.....
The Combo's were a good idea but...they are not a motivation because of their price. Big mistake if the point was to get the HD-DVD format in the hands of consumers to garner support.
because they cost too much to replicate. Studios are not going HD for the fun of it, it is for the $.
