Buy Star Trek: TOS HD DVD and a Toshiba HD DVD player, get an uber-rare Phaser remote

If you somehow managed to hold off on picking up a Toshiba HD DVD player along with eight free titles, and you eat, sleep, and breathe Star Trek, we've got a feeling your resistance is futile. In an admittedly interesting promotional move, Toshiba has teamed with CBS to offer those who purchase Star Trek: The Original Series HD DVD box set and any Toshiba HD DVD player a "limited edition Star Trek Phaser remote" that will operate Tosh's HD DVD players. Regrettably, there's no mention as to how many of these things will actually be handed out, but if you're even remotely (ahem) interested, we'd be on the ball as soon as the set lands.

[David @ Sep 6th 2007 11:01AM]

Will I have to get a loan to purchase the HD DVD set?

[Liqwid @ Sep 6th 2007 11:13AM]

It's $139 at Amazon.com, right now, from $219.99. I find that to be a very good deal, especially since they're combo discs and they have incredible amounts of extra features. I think it's worth it.

[Kilraven @ Sep 6th 2007 11:24AM]

So I'm going to pay 140 to 220 bucks for a remote that looks like a phaser?

Money well spent!

[Liqwid @ Sep 6th 2007 11:58AM]

No no no. I'm just saying the disc set is a good mark off, over at Amazon, and if you argue with that, you're quite a nitwit. I already have two HD DVD players, so I don't see why I'd need another one for a while.

[Patrick @ Sep 6th 2007 11:03AM]

WTF? Why don't they make one that looks like a giant vagina. It's as close as the nerds who buy this stuff will get to one.

[jonthedog @ Sep 6th 2007 11:30AM]

Ha. Let's see how long the vagina comment stays up. They removed my "an interface that involves little vaginas? I like it." comment from this post:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/26/new-lg-phone-patent-apps-reveal-touchy-feely-future/1#c4666887

[J.Dent @ Sep 6th 2007 2:20PM]

Why would you say that?
I'm a huge star trek nerd and also happily married.

[jivetrky @ Sep 6th 2007 3:20PM]

So then you don't see it, not because you're a ST nerd, but because you're married :)

[Orpheus @ Sep 6th 2007 11:04AM]

Haha remotely... BAM!

[errrduh.... @ Sep 6th 2007 11:10AM]

I love Star Trek TOS. I hate Paramaount for saying "F*ck You" to Blue Ray owners.

[simon.nutsy @ Sep 6th 2007 11:27AM]

They did the right thing.. Blueray is not a good mediem. Its way more exspensive to produce HDdvd offers better sound formats but as for the image... Unless the producer does seporate HD prints of there films the Blueray and HDdvd image is identical. They use the same bit rates the same codecs...

The format war is for the mediem not the content... And the Mediem is way better... Heck even Micheal Bay realised this when swolling a whole lump of pride.

The only thing Blueray has over HDdvd is capacity... But nothing uses that extra space other than archiving.

So think about it... The players are cheaper to make the disks are as cheap as DVDs to produce the content is almost identical. HDDVD really is the better format.

So really Paramount did the right thing by ditching BR.

[crycry @ Sep 6th 2007 11:41AM]

@simon

nothing uses the capacity? How about holding a TV series, would it come in handy for that?

[simon.nutsy @ Sep 6th 2007 11:49AM]

Well if you need thr extra capacity for such things as tv series's then get another disk.

For the price of a BR disk you can get 2 or 3 HD dvd disks...

[Dave @ Sep 6th 2007 2:35PM]

Well, as far as capacity, the other thing is that most Blu-Ray discs are single-layer. Single layer Blu-Ray has a maximum capacity of 25GB--where dual-layer HD-DVD is 30GB. Also, to increase yields (which are low for BD), they try to keep data out of the edges of the disc. Centrifugal force is used to spread the topcoat on Blu-Ray--and it pools at the edges. So single-layer BD is usually less than 25GB. Usually it's around 22GB. The same goes for dual-layer. It's usually closer to 45GB. The yields, even for Sony, are reportedly around 50% for dual-layer BD. The optics for the hardware have to be far more precise--and are made of glass rather than plastic. This is the primary reason for the increased cost of the hardware. And don't get me started on the BD Profile versioning mess. The current level of interactivity for Blu-Ray Profile 1.0 is inarguably inferior to HDi.

Blu-Ray still has a higher maximum bit-rate and higher possible capacity--but I would argue that HD-DVD is the better format...particularly from a studio standpoint.

Of course, I'm sure others would disagree.

[errrduh.... @ Sep 6th 2007 3:28PM]

I really don't care about all of the technical whatevers. I have a PS3 which is absolutely fantastic(no matter what all the detractors say). I'm sure if HD-DVD overtakes Blue Ray, then an add on will be available for the PS3 but in all honesty, I really hope that's not the way it goes. Anybody that tells you they can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p must be half blind.

[Dave @ Sep 6th 2007 5:03PM]

@errrduh....

HD-DVD is 1080p. Movies are encoded at 1080p--and even the 360 add-on will let you do 1080p.

[errrduh.... @ Sep 6th 2007 6:23PM]

My mistake. Ultimately it boils down to the fact that I am personally very happy with Blue Ray and my PS3 and since I already have made an investment, really hope it shakes out in the end.

[Dave @ Sep 6th 2007 7:29PM]

Gotcha, errrduh....

I hope it works out in the end for you, too. Although, I'm conflicted because it's probably not going to work out so great for one of us. Hopefully, the winning format will be so damn cheap it won't sting too bad for the owner of the losing format.

[Dave @ Sep 6th 2007 11:21AM]

Ya know, I *just bought* my Tosh HD-DVD player TWO FREAKIN' DAYS AGO. But oh well, the boxed set does seem like a great deal anyway. I guess I'll just have to live without the remote control, and the laughter at my expense that it would surely have brought.

[AndrewNeo @ Sep 6th 2007 11:34AM]

*cough*returnit*cough*

[Dave @ Sep 6th 2007 12:11PM]

Good idea AndrewNeo, especially since I also couldn't find anything on Amazon about those three free discs. Anyone else know where that promo is located?

[thefrener @ Sep 6th 2007 2:50PM]

this is the first post about this format war that makes sense.everyone else is being blinded by capacity not what matters most reliability and ease of use.if its easier and cheaper to produce hd-dvd than it is for blue-ray which one do you think a consumer should be rooting for?argue as a consumer not to support the manufacturer.your post dave makes a lot of sense considering that for the extra cost of blu-ray and the fact that anyone who spends a lot of time in front of the tv does not have perfect vision anymore will not see any difference between the two,the cheaper more reliable format is the best,hd-dvd.

[Dave @ Sep 6th 2007 11:23AM]

Gimmie gimmie gimmie

[L. Cyphre @ Sep 6th 2007 11:25AM]

*orders one*

[Bad Beaver @ Sep 6th 2007 11:27AM]

Right on folks, buy more crap. That's an order.

[Prezzie @ Sep 6th 2007 11:35AM]

I'm a huge Star Trek fan...but alas...I'm a Blu-Ray man

[MacGuru @ Sep 6th 2007 12:11PM]

I'm a blu ray man too. Paramount will realize soon enough that hd dvd will stay on the shelves and release the blu ray version. Target already has 4 times more bluray and they're going fast. HD DVD staying on the shelves.

[jd @ Sep 6th 2007 11:57AM]

oh noes...

put tos on blue ray! not hd-dvd. CBS is so illogical!

[Theodore Lotz @ Sep 6th 2007 12:08PM]

Are the discs included the original 60s run or the new (unedited) remastered versions?

[Dave @ Sep 6th 2007 12:14PM]

New and updated.

[Dave @ Sep 6th 2007 12:15PM]

Check out the video info:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-X5c7c3yzE

[Dave @ Sep 6th 2007 12:16PM]

Here's the video info:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-X5c7c3yzE

[WTangoFoxtrot @ Sep 6th 2007 1:13PM]

nice ! was thinking of just getting the box set alone for my 360 player instead, wish i could still get the remote...

[Generic @ Sep 6th 2007 1:41PM]

on-screen Phaser, er!?

[Magallanes @ Sep 6th 2007 2:03PM]

Soon, you can see William Shatner singing in high definition.

[jivetrky @ Sep 6th 2007 3:21PM]

Ahhh F me and my inability to reply to the proper comment.

[jivetrky @ Sep 6th 2007 3:18PM]

So then you don't see it, not because you're a ST nerd, but because you're married :)

[david @ Sep 6th 2007 5:49PM]

the only reason I clicked on the comments was because I KNEW some people would be making fun of the trekkies (trekkers??) but you know what ,... that is to easy.

if you are reading engadget that means you are a geek already and nothing is more pathetic than watching a geek pick on a nerd.

the hierarchy ain't that far geeks, so shut up.
-kingrottenboy
sorry I had to put us all in our place.

[richard @ Sep 7th 2007 5:42AM]

Somebody on here said that hd-dvd has more capacity than blu-ray. That's going against every professional article written on the formats. Check out blu-ray on wikipedia for a chart that shows that not only does blu-ray have more capacity, but the audio is at 24bits while hd-dvd audio tops out at 18. The data transfer rate is markedly greater on blu-ray.
Here is a link that shows that Sony has created an 8 layer 200gb disc. Hd-dvd is theoretically capable of handling 51gb. http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,117867-page,1/article.html
It's a shame when you know that you are backing the heavy underdog and have to resort to distorting and even making up facts to attempt to get others to back your poor decision.