People... codec efficiency is not linear. MPEG-4 is more efficient ("looks better") at a lower bit rate, where as MPEG-2 is better at a higher rate. VC-1 is another animal, which is an even higher efficency than MPEG-4, so it's suitable for a 15 GB HD DVD.
In a Blu-ray supporter, but it was a mistake to release this early. I believe the poorly reviewed movies are single-layer, and MPEG-2, which equals poor quality, unfortunately. However, once 50 GB discs are used, it's over Johnny. HD DVD won't be able to stand up to the quality Blu-ray can offer.
I said it before. HD DVD rushed Blu-ray to the market, and its just not ready. Technology takes time to develop, but the market doesn't care. HD DVD is at the top of its game right now, unless the mystical 3-layer actually works out (guess which format already has finished designing a working 200 GB disc...) but Blu-ray is going to improve upon its currently lackluster quality.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Kevin M. @ Jun 23rd 2006 2:11PM
People... codec efficiency is not linear. MPEG-4 is more efficient ("looks better") at a lower bit rate, where as MPEG-2 is better at a higher rate. VC-1 is another animal, which is an even higher efficency than MPEG-4, so it's suitable for a 15 GB HD DVD.
In a Blu-ray supporter, but it was a mistake to release this early. I believe the poorly reviewed movies are single-layer, and MPEG-2, which equals poor quality, unfortunately. However, once 50 GB discs are used, it's over Johnny. HD DVD won't be able to stand up to the quality Blu-ray can offer.
I said it before. HD DVD rushed Blu-ray to the market, and its just not ready. Technology takes time to develop, but the market doesn't care. HD DVD is at the top of its game right now, unless the mystical 3-layer actually works out (guess which format already has finished designing a working 200 GB disc...) but Blu-ray is going to improve upon its currently lackluster quality.