Exactly my point. Except for a few titles, most new dual format releases have the same video quality scores.
I was commenting on "Current Releases" . The MI movies are not current, niether is happy feet. The 2 current titles i compared were coming to america and trading places. I used a Elite 360 with the addon and a PS3 for blu-ray. My reference TVS are a XBR3 (properly calibrated by a local hometheater company) and a Grand Wega SXRD (Also calibrated). Coming to America was much better on HD-DVD, it is quite noticable. Trading places also looked marginally better, not the quality difference as coming to america, but it is noticable. It could also be the codec used (AVC vs VC-1) . Ill admit, that i can be a little Codec Biased, . When i make my last post, Coming to America and Trading spaces were my new movies from Amazon. I still have yet to recieve the untouchables from Amazon, so i cannot comment. And Highdef digest doesnt disagree with me at all, and have even commented on such releases as coming to america. Also notice im posting in a thread, were blu-ray is being touted as better, when it clearly isnt. And most titles should be the same, companies such as warner have used the exact same encode for each movie, the format meduim will not make the quality better or worse. But, there are many movies on both formats, where the HD-DVD version has been given that extra care and hence looks better. I know im splitting hairs here, but when it coming to me buying either a HD-DVD encoded by paramount vs the BD encoded by Sony, theres no question, im buying the HD-DVD. IMHO.
This release on HD-DVD has the lowest picture quality score I've ever seen in a while on either format - only 1.5 stars: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/weddingdate.html
OK folks there should be no difference in Video or Sound from either format. On paper, as far as movies, they can do the same tricks. The issue is that everything on paper doesn't make it to the real world (and I'm not going to talk about Film to Digital transfers as this a problem with a Film Studios Telecine process and/or practices not any particular format). Toshiba has made the best effort by anticipating what the studios will need to make use of all the new interactive features that are now possible (ie. a minimum high standard for memory and CPU power, Ethernet ports on all players, and support for advanced audio codecs all from the beginning!) Sony is just now understanding what a mistake they had made with there light hardware standards. Sure it made it easy for more manufactures ("supporters") to get behind it but they can only port over better looking DVDs with the same special features. I don't know if y'all remember the whole more space = more special interactive features argument a while back? What does all that mean if it isn't possible to create special interactive features that work on a majority of the players (Blu-Ray). Most Bly-Ray players don't even support BD-J. All HD DVD players support iHD. Blu-Ray just doesn't have the same tricks as HD DVD does in the real world. When BD tries to incorporate interactive features their discs take 3-5 minutes to load (i.e. the Pirates movies from Disney). Examples of movies that are currently unavailable on blu-ray or titles that have interactive features only on the HD DVD release but not on the blu-ray version because of technical difficulties... Matrix: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/matrix_ct.html Batman Begins: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/batmanbegins.html The Departed: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/departed.html 300: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/300.html ect... While the studios have gotten there acts together as far as putting high quality video on Blu-Ray they still short change the Blu-Ray titles in the way of audio. Paramount is the most notorious. For an older to newer comparison... Wolrd Trade Center: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/worldtradecenter.html Black Snake Moan http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/blacksnakemoan.html outside of Paramount... Superman Returns (the largest difference I have seen yet; Dolby Digital vs Dolby TrueHD): http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/supermanreturns.html http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/supermanreturns.html Happy Feet (same deal as above): http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/happyfeet.html http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/happyfeet.html Where they are similar they still don't use advanced codecs. Since most of the blu-ray players don't decoded them it doesn't make since to anyway (i.e. M-PCM instead of Dolby TrueHD, DD instead of DD-Plus, ect..) Only Fox is showing BDs any love when it comes to audio but sadly most (if not all) players still don't decoded DTS-HDMA. On the subject of physical disc strength I can tell you now that BDs are some of the most pathetic discs I've ever worked with. They wear out faster than HD DVDs and many times faster than DVDs. The hard coating doesn't do anything except prolong the inevitable, the disc is is soft and will become unwatchable. HD-DVD currently has the best hardware and software while blu-ray has the best gimmicks and marketing, period. Ced
Hi there I set up and install HD TV's every day and I have set up Blu Ray, HD DVD, Playstation 3 and the Xbox HD. While I will admit that the Blu Ray and the HD DVD player are much better that the Playstation 3 and Xbox HDDVD. I have to say that HDDVD looks better, loads faster, has less issues, is easier to operate and all around just better. Some of the things I have heard in the past are that Blu Ray holds more space. Well I am not 100% sure about this but I have heard that this is not technically true I heard that the disc it self holds about the same amount but the software on blu ray actually compresses the information more so it can end up holding more space. Which this in result needs a player that can decompress it better and put more work on the player causing longer load times and if there is a scratch it affects more data. I have also heard and this I am less sure of that on HD DVD you can use the PIP feature to lets say watch the commentary of the director. On HD DVD it just pops up the pip and overlays it over the video. I heard that Blu Ray actually has 2 version of the movie on the disc 1 with no pip and 1 with pip so the extra space on the disc is actually being used by the second copy of the movie. As for the person who commented on Blu ray being the better name which sounds Better Blu Ray or HDDVD. Blu Ray to me sounds like a format that should hold Disney Movies,edited by ddp. While HDDVD is a format for men it sounds powerful so MY HDDVD will kick all your edited by ddp. blu ray players any day.
Is blue ray going to be the Beta vs. VHS: a superior technology that loses? -Loving Celebrity Gossip and Sports to the max.
Blu-Ray sales? HD-DVD is looked at as Beta, or the better format that may lose (by some not me). While Blu-Ray is VHS, or the popular format (again not to me but Sony has one hell of a marketing team). Ced
its not gonna surprise me if both formats survive...dual format players are available and even though blu-ray has alot more studio support it doesnt seem like they're selling more discs. I doubt i'll buy either of the formats for a while.
It wouldn't surprise me either. It seems that the all mighty dollar wins again. Movie studios and manufactures are starting to understand that if they ever want to move these formats into the mainstream they need to make it easier for the consumer. LG and Samsung, the biggest Blu-Ray supporters, are both releasing Dual format players (2nd gen for LG). WB has shown off a disc that will have Blu-Ray on one side and HD DVD on the other. They are planning to do all of their movies this way starting this holiday season and encourage other studios to do the same. Denon, one of the most well known high end brands, has just released the first truly exceptional high-def player for any format. It is a Blu-Ray player but the company has stated that they do not support the Blu-Ray format. The only thing they respect is supply and demand. So if their customers start screaming for HD DVD or a Dual format player, they will happily appease them with such solution. At the end of the day you have to put food on the table! Ced
After reading through some of the posts here, some have said either this format or that format has a sharper picture etc. To be blunt, what a load of rubbish! Mods, please excuse my up front words while I explain. We are talking about two types of optical media storage, and what do they hold??... Data! So we are talking about digital video. The ONLY, and I repeat ONLY factors that affect performance with the discs would be things like storage capability, data transfer, durability, life span etc. For things like picture and sound to be affected, the variance must come from other things, like the codecs being used, the decoder chips inside the player, the display being used, the AV receiver decoding the sound etc. etc. There are way too many variables that could affect picture and sound quality. How could it possibly be the discs? They simply hold data.
I'm not about to buy either...beta had better quality, but eveyone that bought a beta deck got screwed just because VHS was better for porn. I'll wait 'till one dies out (by then there should be 100x hd-dvd anyhow).
My son had the Sony PS3 before I got a LG high def 32 in. TV. We were at Circuit city looking at HD Players, then I looked at the Sony Blu-ray, Chicken Little. I was sold , almost..After some research and price comparison, I finally desided to purchase another Playstation for the Family room HDTV. Bang for the buck the playstation seems a no-brainer to me. A high end Blu-ray player, ( at half the price of a compariable one) with game playing, music downloading, pictures, Internet capabilities, storage, and more. Plus when the game and movie makers figure out how to use all that extra space on the Blu-rau disc..well, watch out! Would be interested in you guys take...
Im glad you appreciate HD content but... Have you ever heard of the Xbox 360 and its HD DVD drive that together cost less than a PS3? Ced
I'm curious as to where you're shopping, diabolos... XBox Elite: $450, HD addon: $180, total: $630. PS3, 60GB: $500, 80GB w/ extras: $600. I guess if you meant the Pro system, you drop to $530, which is still more than the comparable "base" PS3. I think if you pair the systems up as closely as possible given the different specs, the price tag is still a bit lower for the PS3, and the PS3 is a single unit that doesn't require an extra box to play HD DVDs. I never really understood that decision, to be honest. It's a complete turnoff to me to spend extra money to play a format that should have been incorporated into the player from the start. And to release the "Elite" model without that functionality seems even sillier, given they had to redesign the thing anyway to deal with the defects present in the first model. I'd say most, including myself, are more than aware of the ability of the XB360 to play HD DVDs, but aren't that thrilled with the implementation.
General consensus seems to say that quality wise, HD and Blu-Ray are equal more or less. However, cost wise they are not. Over the holidays, HD movies were $25, and Blu-ray were $29 - $35. Some HD players were down to $200, Blu-ray $300. If you look at buying 1 movie a month, at the end of the year, you will have spent $48 to $120 more to buy the same 12 movies. And your costs will go up exponentially if you buy more movies. I like the idea of HD on one side and BR on the other; however, again what will be the cost? I was a consumer during the VHS/Beta battle; Beta was not that much better, considering its cost. Bear in mind, my first VHS player cost $1000.00 and the first release of "Star Wars" on VHS was $100.00. 1981 was the year. No matter on which side you stand, the consumer drives the marketplace and if Sony has not learned its lesson from the VHS/Beta war, it is doomed to repeat it. Used to be that Sony was the number 1 rated electronic in the world; they do make a good product, but they are not the only game in town. They have lost market share as their prices have remained high.
