Sony Develops Computing Board, powered by the Cell

[zmatt]

yeah as long as they make a folding client that uses it, it would pwn at folding.

 

[Brinson]

yeah HD movies can fit on DVD's you just wont get the full 1080p+DTS-HD,Uncompressed PCM audio, Dolby True HD and all of the other features, not to mention that DVD's can only hold~20minutes of HD video per disc since they use MPEG-2 codec

Which is why I said if they used a better codec. Mpeg-2 is ****. Way too big. If they used DIVX they could fit a full 1080 HD movie onto 4.7gbs easy.

Instead, they make no attempt to be efficient in storing data, and just up the price to us to buy new bluray and HD-DVD ****.

You don't NEED more than 4.7gb to fit a 1080HD movie. You just need to because they make the files frickin huge with no concern for size.

 

[zmatt]

DivX is not the HD codec. You dont get it. Mpeg2 is the official DVD codec all dvd movies you buy use them. DivX is a 3rd party pc codec that is used for locally stored videos. HD discs like HD DVD and Blu-ray use H.264 aka Mpeg 4 part 10. This is the codec they use you wont find a retail high def movie in any other format.

Now the physical discs are jsut a stroage medium like a hard drive of cds so you can put anything on them, but when it comes to movies thats what you get. And they use H.264 for many reasons. Essentially its far superior to DivX or WMA or AVI.

H.264/MPEG-4 AVC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

further down the page there is a chart comparing features in popular coecs that H.264 supprots and that none of them 100% support.

 

[Brinson]

DivX is not the HD codec. You dont get it. Mpeg2 is the official DVD codec all dvd movies you buy use them.

It is you who do not get it...

They choose to use Mpeg-2. They could use DIVX. There ARE DVD players that play divx files burned to DVD.

DivX is a 3rd party pc codec that is used for locally stored videos. HD discs like HD DVD and Blu-ray use H.264 aka Mpeg 4 part 10. This is the codec they use you wont find a retail high def movie in any other format.

EXACTLY...because they CHOOSE to use that codec, even though its bad, with no regard for filesize.

Now the physical discs are jsut a stroage medium like a hard drive of cds so you can put anything on them, but when it comes to movies thats what you get. And they use H.264 for many reasons. Essentially its far superior to DivX or WMA or AVI.

Superior to some. Most people would not be able to tell the difference.

 

[Pdawg]

Yeah my DVD player plays divx format with no problem. Heck, my dad has an older zenith dvd player and my brother went online, found some sort of code, and "hacked" that player to use the format also.

 

[TheEnd187]

also newer BD's are using VC-1 codec instead of MPEG-2, why, because VC-1 allows for higher bitrate thus more quality, also with Blu-ray it isnt just the HD video that is on the BD it's also UNcompressed HD audio,which could be uncompressed PCM,DD+,Or Dolby True HD.

 

[KingAustin]

You really wanna compare the 360 to the PS3? Current video game selection aside-
-Xbox 360 with 20gig hard drive- $400
-Wireless Adapt-$100
-Xbox Live One Year- $50
-HD-DVD add-on-$200
There's a $750 sub-par PS3. Not to mention smaller hard drive, non-rechargable controllers, non-upgradable hard drive unless you want to buy multiple 20's or buy a 120gig for almost $200, and it still uses standard DVD 9's, Halo 3 ships on 2 game DVD's because it can't fit on one DVD.

Sure, you could put it that way, OR you could use some logic and some know how and not spend that much. I have my 360 running through my monitor, so it's right by my computer. I have a wireless adapter for my computer, and I have my 360 setup to run through my computer's wireless connection, bam, saved $100 for the 360 wireless adapter, but also my friend uses the original xbox wireless adapter ($20 or so) which works for the 360 too. While I have my 360 going through my computer, I now have access to all 650 gigs of data, rendering the 20gig harddrive useless. Obviously I don't play my videos or music through my 360 since I'm already at my computer, but for the sake of argument let's say I do(and I could in the future if I buy a tv), that's more than the ps3.

As for the non-rechargeable controller, for a measly $14(or less) you could buy one shipped to you on ebay, or you could buy a pack of them in case you want some charged and then you can switch them out later on. Also, I would rather have rumble than the 6 axis motion.

You can't disregard game selection when comparing consoles. The 360 library has so many more games than ps3, and companies are leaving the "sony exclusive" boat and transferring titles to other platforms, so it appears the 360 will always have more games on this generation console. The ps3 has backwards compatibility issues too by the way, so we can throw that argument aside.

Xbox live is very fun to use and can completely change how you look at a game. If I get bored with Tiger woods 07, forza 2, or [insert any other game I own], I can jump online and play with a friend or some random dude and have a fun chat while doing it. Someone could make $50 in a day working a full shift at minimum wage, so for a whole year's worth, that's a good deal. Also there are ways to get xbox live for free a month at a time

I don't hate the PS3 or anything, but the xbox 360 is clearly a better choice because of price, wide selection of accessories(game wheel for example), game selection, and nice features.

 

[zmatt]

It is you who do not get it...

They choose to use Mpeg-2. They could use DIVX. There ARE DVD players that play divx files burned to DVD.



EXACTLY...because they CHOOSE to use that codec, even though its bad, with no regard for filesize.



Superior to some. Most people would not be able to tell the difference.

They had to choose Mpeg. DivX doesn't have the DRM or licensing of Mpeg so the MPAA would never go for it. And yes dvd players can do DivX, anything ca ndo DivX. But im telling you DivX isn't as high quality.

And did you read anything about H.264? It has many features that your DivX doesn't have that makes a huge difference on tvs, maybe not on a laptop sitting on a bus, but in a home theater it matters. people want the up most video and audio quality in their home theaters and some pixelated junk that looks like it is from Youtube wont cut it. It must justify the $3K they just spent on that HD TV along with the $1K they spent on the player.

 

[Brinson]

Haha, I don't think the average person spend $4k on their TV Center, and I think movie companies should be aiming their sales at the average consumer, not the people who spend the most money,

And, by the way, I've played my HD divx videos on an HD TV and it looked quite nice.

And as for the mpaa, they can go **** themselves. If I made a movie (I'm an amateur film maker) and sold it on Divx, they couldn't do ****. Its about the movie companies, the mpaa has no power, really.

 

[Apokalipse]

Haha, I don't think the average person spend $4k on their TV Center, and I think movie companies should be aiming their sales at the average consumer, not the people who spend the most money

but isn't the whole idea to make more money? (to them, anyway)