So, can somebody who knows this stuff tell me if the better format won?
Yes.
They were nearly identical in performance, but Blu-Ray has a slight edge IMHO since it has somewhat higher capacity, and the writer technology was more widespread, i.e., it’s easier to get a Blu-Ray recorder than an HD-DVD recorder, in fact I’ve never seen an HD-DVD recorder.
I'm not going to say which one is better, since I couldn't tell, but I can tell you that some of my friends who had HD-DVD switched to Blue Ray (which means then basically burned money) said blue ray was better.
The folks I know who have had both, say blue ray is better, I can't personally see a difference.
I say no. Reason:
You do not need a HD or Blu-Ray DVD to get a great picture. A typical DVD player with an upconvert 1080i or 1080p and a monitor with the appropriate 1080i or 1080p gets you the same picture as a Blu-Ray or HD DVD.
So we all lose because we get to pay more money for movies when the current DVD’s work just fine.
It did - for a change.
Blu-ray is amazing, but only if you have a ultra, or full HD set (1080p), which cost about $3000 on up. Then there is the Blu-ray player which costs between $400 and $500, not to mention the additional cost of the DVDs.
If have anything less than the ultra high definition tv, there is not much difference between HD and Blu-Ray. Now, you have to realize that you do not receive even regular high def. over your cable or satellite, so other than watching dvds, there is not much purpose in buying an ultra high definition set. If you are a big movie fan, or play a lot of video games, it might be worth it, but for us, I’ll just depend on the DVR and regular high definition.
The two formats perform about identically in displaying HD, but Blu-Ray, when used for data, has greater capacity.