Saw 3 extras not on standard DVD? What is this BS? (1 Viewer)

I came across an article on TheDigitalBits and DavisDVD saying that there will be 2 extra featurettes on the Blu-Ray version of SAW 3. That is bullcrap and not fair to us who are still using the standard DVDs. I'd like to get a machine that would accept this format but with over 1500 DVDs in my library I cannot afford to switch over now. Hopefully word will get around and the 2 extra features will be added to the standard version of the DVD. Seems like a marketing ploy to me and not fair. Keep all the features the same on all the versions of this and any other disc. Anyone feel this way? How and who can we contact about this? Maybe start a petition?

I'm sure is is a marketing ploy and they will probably make no bones about it. I wouldn't be surprised to see this happening more and time goes on, but I think that's just part of the game whether we like it or not. As long as the audio and video are the best it can be, I can usually overlook a few extras, but I understand your frustration.

Yeah, this is going to happen more and more. You shouldn't feel so entitled to equal features across all releases. That's like expecting the PSP UMD disc to have everything the Blu-Ray does. They are different formats with different capacity limitations. By the way, you can buy an HD or BD player now and it will play all of your 1500 SD discs.

Thanks for that tidbit of info David. Not that I would run right out and get one just for looking at 2 extra features on some discs but what is the cost and brands available. I thought that you could not play standard DVDs on a machine that supports Blu-Ray. Or am I thinking of HD?

Though I agree that in an ideal world all releases would be exactly the same as we know the A/V is not ideal.

I am sure it is marketing and I am VERY ok with it. It's nice to have incentive to upgrade. What I find really upsetting is for being who buy the more expensive HD version and don't even get the regular extras available on the SD version. It's an "upgrade" therefore we should not have to go backwards to get the good stuff. The way I see it is eventually whether now, next month or 3 years from now we will go to the HD formats and get that disc and enjoy those extras.

Besides there could be other reasons. Maybe the extras are HD features and even downconverted would take up too much space on disc to be included on the SD version.

But my guess is pure incentive for BD and that is A-OK with me

Oh and like David said, both HD-DVD or Blu-Ray Players will play your 1500 SD-DVDs and play them well. I have seen the upconversion capabilities of the HD-A1 first hand and I must say it is impressive.

All the new-format players will play standard DVDs. Blu-Ray does not support the "hybrid" disc available with HD-DVD, which is a normal DVD on one side and HD-DVD on the flip side, but the players are all backward-compatible.

After looking at some players that will support the standard discs it looks like I would need to get an HD TV for it to work. Is this correct? All the HD and BR stuff is new to me so please forgive my ignorance. Sony has a nice unit coming out but for $1,000.00 I don't think so.

Regular DVDs will play just fine on both the new HD DVD players and Blu-ray disc players.

You just can't play an HD DVD in a Blu-ray player or vice versa. Regular DVD is 100% backwards compatible.

Why complain about extra features being included on new formats with far more capacity? If you use the logic that the HD formats should match the content of the DVD, should they also limit the resolution to 480p so you wouldn't be missing out? It's about time they started adding bonus content on Blu-ray discs, if you ask me. Many of them on the market now don't have half of the featues on the DVD.

It's not like the featurettes are going to be some great documentary. They'll be the typical crappy 6 minute EPK junk.

^ Oh I realize that but sometimes I enjoy the special features more than the movie itself. Example: "The Devil's Rejects". I watched the second disc of that set more than the movie!

Are you saying that the Blu-ray format does not support a dual-sided hybrid disc with Blu-ray content on one side and standard DVD content on the other? Or that Blu-ray players cannot read the standard DVD side of a hybrid HD-DVD?

In either case, I believe you're mistaken. If it's the former, I submit this interview with Don Eklund of Sony, who says that "combo discs are supported." If it's the latter, I ask: The DVD side of hybrid disc conforms to the DVD specifications, doesn't it? It should make no difference what is on the other side of the disc.

We all knew this was coming. Certain HD releases have extra commentary-type tracks, if I remember correctly. It's no shock on my end. What is a shock is that someone is trying to rationalize it away by using bitrate and capacity. The movie itself wasn't a massive Gangs of New York-type production. It was an economical 113 minutes in the US. We all know the unrated cut isn't going to add in 30+ minutes of footage, so unless the disc is full with other extras, there's no reason these can't be put on this release.

This is very close to the exclusive content situation we're running into with different retailers. Complete BS, if you ask me.

It's physically possible to glue a DVD side to a BD side, no doubt about that, but Eklund is basically blowing smoke. No such discs exist, and none are likely to be produced, because BD is not endorsed by the DVD Forum (thus putting Sony into hot water if they use the DVD logo on such a disc, even if it does refer to the DVD side). HD-DVD, of course, has no such problem. Obviously, a BD player will play the DVD side of a DVD/HD-DVD combo disc. If you want to watch BD or HD-DVD in high definition, you will need a HDTV, just the same as if you want to watch HD broadcasts in HD, or DVDs up-converted to HD resolution. Naturally, you can also watch them in standard-definiton downconversion, just the same as HD broadcasts, if you don't have a high-defintion display — or, at least, you should be able to (some of the players, reportedly, have design quirks which would limit or prevent this).

Back to a question I asked in a previous post, would I need to get an HDTV to watch ANYTHING on a Blu-Ray machine?

As I said at the bottom of my previous post : no. You can watch standard DVDs in standard definition, and Blu-Ray discs downconverted from high defintion to standard definition, on a standard-definition TV.

Apparently the Samsung player does some strange things, and you're better off all around if you have a HDMI digital video input, but no, you don't need to buy a high-definition TV. I personally think it's a pretty good idea to get one (both broadcast and cable TV are going digital, and many major network shows are transmitted in 1080i), but that's another story.

Well Christopher is right that you don't need and HDTV to watch BD or HD-DVD but why would you want to pay $1000 for a BD player and then $10-$20 extra for the BD version of a movie so that they play and look the same as your regular DVD player on your regular TV?

That would be like putting jet fuel in your honda civic with a filter/converter that turns your jet fuel into something the honda civic's engine can handle. It's possible but why in the world would you do it?

BD and HD DVD are there as a High Resolution solution to match a High Resolution/High Defition TV/monitor/projector.

Some people have purchased big displays but until now the movies were not of the same quality and we have been using "sleight of hand" to get the low resolution stuff like regular TV and DVD to look good on the TVs. 480i needed to be scaled/converted to 720p or 1080i (and quite a few in between) and now even 1080p.

These machines can play discs that actually have content in them that already match (or more closely match) what our TVs can do. If you have a 480i TV (classic tube) then all you need is a 480i signal.

I think I went a little long on that one, but I hope you get my drift.

There's a case to be made, and some members on this forum have made it, for buying HD discs and player(s) without a HD display. Briefly stated, if you're going to buy a HDTV someday, it makes sense to buy the HD signal-sources now, on the assumption that you will want to have these movies in HD at that time. If you're going to buy a copy now, the reasoning is, buy the HD version, because if you buy the SD version you're just going to wind up buying the HD later, an added expence.

Also, if you absolutely must watch something which is only available on the HD version, you'll have to be able to play back that version, won't you?

2 featurettes? Wonder if they'll be on a "bonus" disc at Best Buy or Circuit City?

HD-DVD on a regular TV does look better.
No EE for one, and no compression artifacts either.
Just no extra resolution (sharpness and depth).

Granted, I did not mean to say there was NO reason to get HD now on a SD display.

It has been discussed here that a new transfer would still yield better picture, color decoding is vastly superior than the NTSC specs etc.

However these would be why I would get BD even if I had an SD display. Because I am so darn picky. The OP did not seem to be looking for a way for his movies to better match the full capabilities of his display and my bad if I did not catch it. He did not seem to be wishing that the color separation were improved or that transfers be better.

Then again a few BDs came ported over from the same transfer so you get more res but same issues (scratches, edge enhancement, lack of detail whatever the case was) on the new release.

I the case of getting the HD release and player now and getting the HDTV later I can sort of understand. BUT why buy now when if you wait later for when you actually have the TV, you will likely pay half as much for the player and get a much better player with nearly all bug and issues worked out. Same for software. You will either get the same releases cheaper or get the "double-dip" (and we know the're coming) which will have a better transfer and likely more extras if that's you thing.

Again I did not mean in any way that it would silly of you to do it. I realize now my post sounds that way now and I am sorry. But it was my opinion based on the needs I interpreted. And based on that interpretation it would not be a wise move.