Blu-Ray or HD-DVD - Page 2

PlatinumRedux · #11 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by species8472

Codec is the difference. And it makes a huge difference. See my post above... Blu-Ray marketing has fooled you guys...

What? What codec? AVC? VC-1? Both of which are supported on Blu-ray and HD-DVD, the big difference being that Blu-ray can dedicate 40Mb/s alone to the video and 8Mb/s ALONE to the audio and HD-DVD cannot - it's limited to a paltry 30Mb/s SHARED for the audio AND the video. Tell us again who was fooled by what marketing?

Croweyes1121 · #12 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by species8472
Codec is the difference. And it makes a huge difference. See my post above... Blu-Ray marketing has fooled you guys...

Yeah, and there are plenty of titles that use the SAME codec on both formats. Hence, they are identical ports.

Quote:

MPEG4 is better than MPEG2 but still cannot surpass VC-1.

So I suppose "Bruce Almighty" must look better than the remastered "The Fifth Element", then. It must if it's VC-1 and "The Fifth Element" is MPEG-4, right? Wrong. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis of implementation. Saying one codec is "better" than another is grossly simplistic at best. That would be like saying a 320kbps mp3 is always going to sound better than a 128kbps one. All things being equal, you'd be right. But things are not equal, are they? That said, it comes down to subjectivity, too. Personally, I prefer the look of the AVC codec to VC-1. Just a preference. Don't blow something.

Quote:

Blu-Ray should be killing HD-DVD in movie sales with all of those PS3's on the market but that is simply not happening (a fact).

A fact? Blu-Ray discs are outselling HD DVD by 2 to 1 and, in your estimation, it's NOT killing HD DVD in disc sales? This without Fox and without a fraction of the release blitz that Universal has done for HD DVD this year...I don't know what to intelligently say to that.

Quote:

But since PS3 is not counted for hardware sales, HD-DVD is destroying Blu-Ray in home player sales. There are 75,000 Blu-Ray home players vs nearly 170,000+ Toshiba players on the market. Toshiba's price reduction is working very well.

Unless you happen to be Toshiba. Do you have any idea how much of a loss they're taking now? And why haven't any other companies started producing players? Because they don't want to have to compete with that kind of pricing! There's no profit in it. And the fact is, you can't "not count" the PS3 when it IS out there. It's simply flawed logic to say one is winning over another when you IGNORE a HUGE player statistic like the PS3.

Quote:

The majority of PS3's are not being used to watch movies. Yes, many are, but the number is not HUGE.

Ahh...so I guess everyone's buying PS3's to play all those great games that are out for it instead? lol

Quote:

As for Studio support, Warner is a strong supporter of HD-DVD. Paramount has done a decent job as well. Universal will release 1000 titles this holiday for HD-DVD, giving the library a huge boost.

Please provide us a list of Blu-Ray EXCLUSIVE studios compared to HD DVD EXCLUIVE studios. I rest my case. Paramount AND Warner are both also supporting Blu-Ray, just FYI. Also, too bad Universal's titles have really suffered in the quality-control department of late (check out the last several reviews on hidefdigest.com), but I guess that's what happens when you try for quantity over quality.

Quote:

Features - Blu-Ray has NO Interactive features AT ALL. True-HD is not being supported either which is such a shame as TrueHD audio is absolutely awesome.

Funny, both statements are blatantly false. End of story. See Pirates 1 and Pirates 2 and the aforementioned Fifth Element remaster to educate yourself.

Quote:

The Combo disk guarantees forward compatibility meaning those without HD-DVD players can buy a version that can be used in the future when they obtain one. It also allows the disk to be used on multiple players.

And it also creates an unnecessary expense by forcing consumers who are only interested in the HD content to pay extra for the SD content. At least present both sides of the argument.

Quote:

You may want to reconsider why you are supporting a format that has nothing to offer while the other format does the things that really make the offering Next Gen?

Nothing to offer? No, you're not biased at all. I'm biased, but I don't say things like that. HD DVD isn't a crap format. It's just not going to win. Again, just an opinion, man.

Quote:

Casino Royale is 33GB and does not beat the best of HD-DVD.

Nice, ironclad subjectivity there. For anyone interested, here's a more informed opinion:

The Digital Bits presents... The Soapbox

Don't start a thread asking for opinions and then bash people for them. I have a right to support the format I choose as much as you, but I won't question your intelligence in doing so. On the other hand, I will do all I can to correct your inaccuracies. I do think that if you're going to be such an unabashed HD DVD supporter, though, you should change the poll to HD DVD / Idiots and be done with it. Don't hide under the guise of objectivity.

species8472 · #13 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlatinumRedux

What? What codec? AVC? VC-1? Both of which are supported on Blu-ray and HD-DVD, the big difference being that Blu-ray can dedicate 40Mb/s alone to the video and 8Mb/s ALONE to the audio and HD-DVD cannot - it's limited to a paltry 30Mb/s SHARED for the audio AND the video. Tell us again who was fooled by what marketing?

HD-DVD uses VC-1 ONLY. The entire HD-DVD camp was on the same page at launch. There are no MPEG2 or MPEG4 HD-DVD titles. Blu-Ray camp does not use VC-1. As I mentioned earlier, the VC-1 codec is more efficient and does not require a HIGH bitrate to achieve maximum visual quality thus there is no need for 50GB (BTW: 51 HD-DVD disks are ready and were shown at CES) and ridiculously high BITRATES. Blu-Ray (MPEG2 and MPEG4) MUST use a higher bitrate as they have high noise (SNR) - noise is bad, you realize that?. Using the higher bitrate helps to eliminate the noise, something VC-1 does not have to worry about. In fact, Sony tried increasing MPEG2 to 30+ Mbps last year and it still could not match VC-1 so they had no choice but to use MPEG4 (starting in late fall - see my Riddick vs XMEN - XMEN uses MPEG4 AVC). Sony will NOT use VC-1 because Microsoft helped champion the technology. Most of the Blu-Ray camp follows Sony example but WB will release 300 on both formats using VC-1 but Blu-Ray version will not have any "In-Movie Experience or Internet Features". TrueHD is supported on both but the PS3 does not decode and "output" TrueHD and very few Blu-Ray hardware players support the feature since the feature is NOT mandatory. TrueHD gives you an audio track that is bit for bit identical to the original. I suggest doing some REAL comparisons as I do.

Also, check around with those that actually know something and you will see which codec is superior and why HD-DVD is better from a technology standpoint. Ask the Blu-Ray camp why TrueHD and other features were not mandatory at launch? Ask they why they followed Sony and used the 10+ year old MPEG2 codec?. How come no mandatory Ethernet port?

Name one positive thing about Blu-Ray (except 50GB Capacity)?

L8

Croweyes1121 · #14 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote:

HD-DVD uses VC-1 ONLY. Blu-Ray does not use VC-1.

People, PLEASE do a little research! This is totally FALSE. HD DVD has used other codecs than VC-1 and Blu-Ray has used VC1. Jesus...get your facts together and THEN post, people!!!!!!!

mischa316 · #15 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu-Man 1978

Amen, Croweyes! Seriously, there is no contest. And the thing about HD DVD being better quality? Totally untrue. Hell, a lot of the format-neutral titles are EXACTLY THE SAME TRANSFER. But I digress. lol

I have actually done this with 2 HD DVD's & 2 Blu Rays. I rented Lethal Weapon & Aeon Flux for both formats. Did a test on both of them and both looked the same but the Blu Ray on both had the better sound. I had my HD DVD player up to 30 on my tv and it sounded the same as 20 on the Blu Ray!! Once I'm done renting a few other one's I'm going to rent We Were Soldiers for Blu Ray since I already own that one on HD DVD. I didn't have my Blu Ray player at the time when I bought that one. Once I do a test on that one I'll let everyone know what was different and the same with that one!!
Mischa.

species8472 · #16 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Yeah, and there are plenty of titles that use the SAME codec on both formats. Hence, they are identical ports.

So I suppose "Bruce Almighty" must look better than the remastered "The Fifth Element", then. It must if it's VC-1 and "The Fifth Element" is MPEG-4, right? Wrong. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis of implementation. Saying one codec is "better" than another is grossly simplistic at best. That would be like saying a 320kbps mp3 is always going to sound better than a 128kbps one. All things being equal, you'd be right. But things are not equal, are they? That said, it comes down to subjectivity, too. Personally, I prefer the look of the AVC codec to VC-1. Just a preference. Don't blow something.

A fact? Blu-Ray discs are outselling HD DVD by 2 to 1 and, in your estimation, it's NOT killing HD DVD in disc sales? This without Fox and without a fraction of the release blitz that Universal has done for HD DVD this year...I don't know what to intelligently say to that.

Unless you happen to be Toshiba. Do you have any idea how much of a loss they're taking now? And why haven't any other companies started producing players? Because they don't want to have to compete with that kind of pricing! There's no profit in it. And the fact is, you can't "not count" the PS3 when it IS out there. It's simply flawed logic to say one is winning over another when you IGNORE a HUGE player statistic like the PS3.

Ahh...so I guess everyone's buying PS3's to play all those great games that are out for it instead? lol

Please provide us a list of Blu-Ray EXCLUSIVE studios compared to HD DVD EXCLUIVE studios. I rest my case. Paramount AND Warner are both also supporting Blu-Ray, just FYI. Also, too bad Universal's titles have really suffered in the quality-control department of late (check out the last several reviews on hidefdigest.com), but I guess that's what happens when you try for quantity over quality.

Funny, both statements are blatantly false. End of story. See Pirates 1 and Pirates 2 and the aforementioned Fifth Element remaster to educate yourself.

And it also creates an unnecessary expense by forcing consumers who are only interested in the HD content to pay extra for the SD content. At least present both sides of the argument.

Nothing to offer? No, you're not biased at all. I'm biased, but I don't say things like that. HD DVD isn't a crap format. It's just not going to win. Again, just an opinion, man.

Nice, ironclad subjectivity there. For anyone interested, here's a more informed opinion:

The Digital Bits presents... The Soapbox

Don't start a thread asking for opinions and then bash people for them. I have a right to support the format I choose as much as you, but I won't question your intelligence in doing so. On the other hand, I will do all I can to correct your inaccuracies. I do think that if you're going to be such an unabashed HD DVD supporter, though, you should change the poll to HD DVD / Idiots and be done with it. Don't hide under the guise of objectivity.

There are no interactive features in those titles. Interactive features are available during a Movie and not outside the movie. Standard features do not count.

Also, the digital bits story (which I have seen before) is biased and incorrect.

I never said every title looks better. Many VC-1 titles are poor because the studio did a poor job of encoding. Nacho Libre and Scorpion King are good examples of poor VC-1 HD-DVD's. I was compare the best of best. Bruce Almighty and other titles are average at best.

They released Fifth Element "again" because the MPEG2 version from launch receive poor reviews got Blu-Ray off on the wrong foot. Of course the new one looks better. They changed codecs. That end result is expected. I mentioned this days ago.

BTW: I am not bashing you, hardly.. Heated conversations are good. By the way, I did not start this thread.

Yes, Toshiba is taking a loss to gain marketshare. That is no mystery and is typical for hardware that relies on software sales.

Many are used to the look of MPEG4 because it has been used on the PC for a while. The codec is good, do not get me wrong, but it is soft on hues and does not deal with motion as good. Subtle differences can be huge..

L8

species8472 · #17 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischa316

I have actually done this with 2 HD DVD's & 2 Blu Rays. I rented Lethal Weapon & Aeon Flux for both formats. Did a test on both of them and both looked the same but the Blu Ray on both had the better sound. I had my HD DVD player up to 30 on my tv and it sounded the same as 20 on the Blu Ray!! Once I'm done renting a few other one's I'm going to rent We Were Soldiers for Blu Ray since I already own that one on HD DVD. I didn't have my Blu Ray player at the time when I bought that one. Once I do a test on that one I'll let everyone know what was different and the same with that one!!
Mischa.

Aeon Flux HD-DVD WAS horrible and Lethal Weapon is a remaster because it is old. Sorry, but are not good comparison. Try Beer Fest or Departed on both formats. I have them. There is a difference.

species8472 · #18 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

People, PLEASE do a little research! This is totally FALSE. HD DVD has used other codecs than VC-1 and Blu-Ray has used VC1. Jesus...get your facts together and THEN post, people!!!!!!!

Name one HD-DVD title that used something other than VC-1 for the main feature? Extras are generally in MPEG2 on HD-DVD.

I cannot recall a single one.. Disks can always be check using PowerDVD (which displays codecs) and also with the studio (which I do often). I have over 40 HD-DVD's and have rented the majority of the rest. They are all encoded in VC-1.

mischa316 · #19 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by species8472

Aeon Flux HD-DVD WAS horrible and Lethal Weapon is a remaster because it is old. Sorry, but are not good comparison. Try Beer Fest or Departed on both formats. I have them. There is a difference.

I"ll try that in a few weeks after I get back from my Vacation. Actually I perfer the Blu Ray over my HD player since I have an A1 god it is slow as hell. I could have my ps3 on and the movie loaded before the tray even comes out on my HD player!! The only 3 I'm going to have on HD that are dual format is 300, We Were Soldiers & Enter the Dragon. We Were Soldiers & Enter the Dragon I had on my HD since the PS3 was not out yet.

Mischa.

Croweyes1121 · #20 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007, 08:04 PM

species8472: Please head over to hidefdigest.com and read some HD DVD reviews. They list the codec right underneath the disc art. There are plenty of HD DVDs that do not use VC-1. As I said, do some research. Just because you "don't recall" any that didn't use it, doesn't mean some don't.

Quote:

There are no interactive features in those titles. Interactive features are available during a Movie and not outside the movie. Standard features do not count.

Well, you didn't say that. You said they had no interactive features at all. You didn't say they had no interactive features accessible during the film. Those are two different things. I don't consider a feature to be non-interactive just because the movie isn't playing while I use it. Interactivity is the interface with the feature itself, not it's ability to be accessed while watching the film.

Quote:

the digital bits story (which I have seen before) is biased and incorrect

Based on what? You're biased too, just the other direction. Does that make you incorrect?

Quote:

I never said every title looks better. Many VC-1 titles are poor because the studio did a poor job of encoding. Nacho Libre and Scorpion King are good examples of poor VC-1 HD-DVD's. I was compare the best of best. Bruce Almighty and other titles are average at best.

Fair enough. But don't make a blanket statement, then, that HD DVD is better because it uses VC-1 and VC-1 is better. Since BOTH formats use that codec depending on which title (and BOTH formats also DON'T use that codec depending on which title), one has nothing to do with the other.

Quote:

They released Fifth Element "again" because the MPEG2 version from launch receive poor reviews got Blu-Ray off on the wrong foot. Of course the new one looks better. They changed codecs. That end result is expected. I mentioned this days ago.

I never said the old one looked good. Or that the remaster's superiority was a surprise. I just used it as an example of how MPEG-4 can, in some cases, look better than VC-1, depending which two titles are being compared.

Quote:

Subtle differences can be huge..

Agreed. For the record, I have never had a high-end computer monitor, so I have nothing to compare my MPEG-4 HD experience with. I'm basing my preference for it over VC-1 based exclusively on the HD software I have watched on my HDTV.

View Poll Results: Which format do you prefer?
Blu-Ray	15	44.12%
HD-DVD	16	47.06%
Both	2	5.88%
Neither	1	2.94%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode