Originally Posted by AlphaWolf_HK
Mmmm...not necessarily. I can see where HD-DVD has an advantage, namely they are a bit more strict as far as quality control goes in that they set higher minimum standards than the Blu-Ray camp has set.
Blu-Ray indeed has the physical capability of going further than HD-DVD does, by quite a long shot. However, both content producers and hardware manufacturers are allowed to be a lot more lazy when it comes to making blu-ray products.
Just as an example, manufacturers are allowed to make blu-ray players that don't support dolby truehd at all, and content producers are allowed to make discs that don't include truehd tracks. HD-DVD on the other hand, all discs are required to have a truehd soundtrack, and all device manufacturers are required to include truehd playback support.
Again, that is just an example, as there are many other bits and pieces specifying color accuracy, encoding quality and other technical bits that I for the most part have little understanding of, where HD-DVD sets a higher minimum standard than blu-ray from what I have heard.
But remember that in spite of that, it is still physically possible for blu-ray content to go further than HD-DVD, just not required.
Personally I have little to no interest in investing in either format right now.
EDIT: Oh, I see you were being sarcastic
Well, what I said still stands. I really don't favor either format, so you effectively have my objective opinion anyways.
A lot of incorrect or exaggerated information in here.
1) Stricter quality? Tell that to the owners of the HD-A1 (Here's a hint, I own one) that could never watch a movie without an audio/video sync problem cropping up. A poll on AVSFORUM pegged the number of users who suffered from this at 50%. Say what you like about Blu-ray, its players are rock solid stable when compared to that. The A2 and XA2 had numerous problems, including incompatibilities and bass management issues (still do). Go do a search for the movies Hollywoodland or Children of Men, error message, and XA2 on AVSFORUM and tell me what you find.
Ha, stable indeed. My PS3 has been far superior to either the XA2 I bought in Feb or the A1 I bought last April a week before the official launch of HD DVD.
2) One could say the same about HD DVD and lossless audio. Blu-ray has lossless audio (LPCM, Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD MA) on most of its discs. HD DVD has lossless audio on some of its releases (every one of which is WB (excepting Universal's only foray into lossless: End of Days), Dolby TrueHD with dialogue normalization which degrades sound quality). DD+ is just DD with the ability to go as high as 1.5 mbits, not that it actually has to. All WB discs come out with 640k tracks just like their 640k Blu-ray releases. At the same bitrates, DD and DD+ are identical. Laziness is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find the PS3 upgrading to 1080p24, excellent DVD upconversion, SACD playback capability, and having Dolby TrueHD in addition to LPCM (uncompressed audio) makes it far more capable than the toshiba HD-XA2 that has been promising to add 1080p24 for six months and still promises to take a few months more to add it. Yes, that same feature Sony added in the time it took Toshiba to fix disc incompatibilities with its player. Ironic, given that Toshiba is the only manufacturer of HD DVD players available today. Yes, even the 360 add-on was developed by toshiba.
3) Dolby TrueHD. I can't tell if you're lying and hoping no one will notice or if you're just that ignorant. Dolby TrueHD is required on every HD DVD player, true enough. Dolby TrueHD 2.0 is required to be decoded on every HD DVD player. Yes, that's right. Not 5.1. Not surround. Just Dolby TrueHD stereo. That's part of the spec. Why do you think all those DD+ tracks aren't Dolby TrueHD tracks? Because WB and Paramount and Universal (the only major companies even supporting HD DVD) know that at any moment a player could come out that doesn't support but TrueHD 2.0 and then SUDDENLY their discs would be stereo-only. Thus, they have to support for now and all time because Toshiba was too shortsighted to require a truly lossless 5.1 format be universally compatible with its players. Meanwhile, Blu-ray supported LPCM from day 1 at 5.1. HD DVD couldn't afford to do the same because it simplyd oesn't have the space. And about discs... well, it's been said above and it bears repeating. No, the HD DVD discs do not require TrueHD. That's just wrong (or it's a lie). Anyone with even one Paramount HD DVD would know better. Don't own the format you're espousing, eh?
4) It's all where you put your focus. If you think watching a PiP is cool and whizz-bang for that all of once you watch it, then yes HD DVD is superior (for now). If you think lossless audio and higher bit-rate encoded discs with all the same codec choices as the competition (but again at higher rates improving quality for us with large screens and projectors) are more important than extra advanced features you'll use once, then guess what? Blu-ray's superior. Were some of the early discs ...early? Sure. Blu-ray launched 5 months too early. By the time of their real launch (whent he PS3 came out), their titles had matured, their encoding processes had matured, and their encoders had matured to the point they are at today. Where Disney/BVHE and Sony are releasing some of the best high def movies today and many of the same WB encodes that were being lauded as cutting edge are now dismissed for having low-bitrates that are totally unnecessary on discs with the appropriate amount of space.
Take a look at Crank, Apocalypto, POTC 1 or 2, and see it for yourself. Blu-ray's surpassed HD DVD's quality. Anyone with both knows this is true and anyone who tells you otherwise has an agenda. And that's the truth.