View Single Post
Old 01-13-08, 09:05 AM   #76
Registered User
Ruined's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,447
Default Re: Party's over folks... Universal is not renewing HD-DVD contract

Originally Posted by Gaco
Obviously I can see that I was wrong regarding MI3 i those pictures are correct and I can only assume that they are. I know a guy that has both HD DVD and Blu-ray players who told me the examples of MI3 and The Prestige, apparently he was wrong about MI3 (The Prestige is still a valid example unless you can prove it otherwise? hidefdigest also gave the BD version a higher audio score).
The Prestige audio & video are slightly better on Blu-Ray, that is correct. But to be honest that is the only title I can think of that is dual format and has better PQ on Blu-Ray. I can think of at least 10 that are dual format and have better video and/or audio on HD DVD. In the case of The Prestige, I believe the encode was simply a rush job and catered more to availability than quality; while the HD DVD didn't have a lossless track it had a ton of DD5.1 tracks of different languages - getting rid of just a couple of those would have allowed for a lossless track. And on the video side, most of the movie is identical, though there are a few shots with slightly more artifacting on HD DVD; it looks like the encoder dropped the ball - must not have been the same guy who does the US Warner encodes. Comparison shots here:

But my general impression still stands. Blu-ray has gradually grown out of it's crappy-MPEG2-encodings-infant-stage an newer releases are similar to HD DVD in video quality.
I agree, though I don't believe it has the ability to be signficantly better in video quality - given the care HD DVD had more than enough space/bandwidth for quality picture.

Take a look at the dual format encode "Nature's Journey." It has over 11mbps higher bitrate on BD than HD DVD, virtually maxing out BD's bandwidth at a constant video bitrate, yet it failed to look any different than the HD DVD version:

These next-gen codecs seem to plateau at around 20mbps.

BD has always had the upper hand in audio quality.
Yes and no. For instance, all of the dual format Paramount releases have higher bitrate audio on HD DVD - and many of the dual format Warner releases have a lossless track on the HD DVD but not the BD. That being said, the bandwidth of HD DVD makes 24bit/48khz lossless soundtracks more difficult but not an impossibility (16bit/48khz lossless has been on HD DVD since launch) - The Bourne Ultimatum, for instance, had reference video, lossless 24bit/48khz sound, and PiP video commentary. The new VC-1 encoder can operate at even lower bitrates without losing video quality and hence those extra bits can now go to audio.

With all that being said, despite many people's claims otherwise, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who can tell the difference blindfolded between 1.5mbps lossy sound and lossless of any sort. Or, someone who could tell the difference between 16bit and 24bit. They are very subtle and often nonexistant.

Blu-ray has been lagging behind in interactive features but is now catching up fast as only 1.1 and 2.0 players were announced at this CES.
True, but the vast majority of those players are very expensive. The cheapest 1.1 standalone is $499 list and it has no nextgen audio decoders builtin (Panasonic BD30). The cheapest 2.0 standalone will be the Panasonic BD50, and it will likely be well over $600. Denon just announced two players over $1000 and they are not both 2.0.

HD DVD's "HD-A30" for the most part fits BD 2.0 specs and it was available for $249 over Christmas. That is a huge price difference, and a reason why many gravitated to HD DVD.

And if you think about the current and future adopters which will make up the far majority of the userbase, not just the early adopters, I still believe Blu-ray has more potential.
Potential for what, though? As time goes on, video becomes easier to compress and takes up less space, not more. The man behind the dials gets better at his job and the encoding hardware/software gets more efficient. Over time the difference between HD DVD/BD would have gotten even smaller, not larger, IMO.

You could just as easily argue that BD has less potential due to the more restrictive DRM, that we will see less interactivity and portability being worked on due to both lack of standards and DRM concerns.

BTW looking back I think I overreacted a bit to Peoples Agent's post. He may prefer HD DVD so much that he'd rather go SD DVD and piracy in the future, that is somehow HD DVD fanboyness but I think I came off as an ass back then, I apologize
I think that it is a bit of an overreaction to go back to SD DVD and piracy, then again the DRM is very overbearing and has the potential for disaster (BD+ Advanced Countermeasure has the ability to directly write to your hard drive and can even install a rootkit if you are using an admin account!) therefore some may be wary to adopt.

I have a BD player now, but I don't believe the quality is any better than HD DVD because it has been proven that it is not. Its simply a matter that HD DVD lost the war, so what can you do.
We're all in it together.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz CPU | Intel G965WH mobo | 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667mhz CAS5 RAM (1066MHz FSB) | BFG GeForce 285 GTX OC 1GB | Dell E228WFP 22" DVI-HDCP LCD Monitor | 1TB Western Digital RE3 SATA2 Main Drive | 500GBx2 Western Digital RE3 SATA2 Scratch Drives in RAID0 | Western Digital RE3 1TB SATA2 Media Drive | External 2TB Western Digital MyBook Backup Drive | Adaptec eSATA 3.0gbps PCI-E interface | Sandisk External 12-in-1 Flash Card Reader | LG GGC-H20L HD DVD/BD reader, DVD writer | LG GGW-H20L HD DVD/BD reader, DVD/BD writer | Microsoft E4000 Ergonomic Keyboard | Logitech Trackman Wheel | Antec P182 ATX Case | Thermaltake ToughPower XT 850w modular PSU | KRK RP-8 Rokit Studio Monitors | Windows Vista Ultimate x64
Ruined is offline   Reply With Quote