Recent Comments:
Walk Hard's BD-Live features get tested on Sony's PS3 {Engadget HD}
Apr 3rd 2008 11:30AM Yes, I'm looking forward to Blu Ray having a feature set that matches what HD DVD had back in June of 2006--for half the price. Blu Ray is a great format if next
gen. features aren't important.
Samsung's DB-UP5000 HD DVD / Blu-ray player: $799, shipping mid-to-late December {Engadget HD}
Dec 6th 2007 8:28PM Another positive for this combo player is that it has
7.1 analog outputs with internal decoding of most advanced audio formats and DTS MA coming in late January via firmware supposedly.
My Fosgate FAP-T1+ processor doesn't have HDMI inputs
and need a player that decodes lossless audio codecs internally, like all HD DVD players do and I don't want to buy an analog 8 channel switcher to deal with
a second player.
The concerns I have are lack of speaker distance delay management and potential bugs for both formats.
Michael Bay's format war conspiracy theory: it's a Microsoft fix {Engadget HD}
Dec 5th 2007 9:23PM M. Bay's site has a response in the forum that says,
"Blu Ray just suits my movies better". Uh, okay, that's real technical. I guess he means the higher
potential bit rate, which proves he knows little about modern codecs like H.264(AVC) or VC-1, or
maybe he means his movies aren't suited for interactive features? Transformers on HD DVD has a
very rich interactive feature set and 80,000 disc
owners have gone online via their HD DVD web enabled players(something that ALL HD DVD players
offer).
He has every right to choose which format he prefers for his movies, but is it asking too much
for some technical basis for his preference?
Nielsen VideoScan High-Def market share for week ending November 18th, 2007 {Engadget HD}
Nov 27th 2007 1:39AM Devil's Advocate,
In what technical ways do Cars or Fantastic Four or
the other titles you mention "outdo" HD DVD titles?
Could you cite one example of the same movie, same
transfer, same codec for both BD and HD DVD where
BD is superior in image quality?
Professional reviewers, HT magazines like Widescreen Review have not found BD titles to outdo the highest rated HD DVD titles.
Last time I looked, Widescreen review had more "5"
rated(best) HD DVD titles for image quality than
BD titles.
If you take the same movie, same transfer, same codec, same bit rate, you will not see a difference
in picture quality between the two formats.
Throwing more megabits per second at a BD transfer
using VC-1 or H.264 AVC codecs is unlikely to yield
a visibly better image. These new codecs are optimized for low transfer rates.
Widescreen review has an interview with the CTO of
Paramount(formerly of Warners), and while we all know that Paramount was paid off to go HD DVD exclusive, the interview offered a lot of good technical points about the differences in formats.
Poll: Where do you stand in the format war? {Engadget HD}
Nov 14th 2007 8:50PM HDpurist,
Bit rates are meaningless unless you provide the codec being used. VC-1 and AVC(H.264) are designed to use HALF the bit rate of MPEG2.
Over the air digital HD TV transmission typically
has a bit rate of 18Mbit/s for MPEG2. We know that
HD images normally fall apart with any fast motion,
highly detailed images, but to put that into perspective, VC-1 and AVC could provide the same or
better quality at 9Mbit/s. There is a reason why
the DirecTV HD locals and new HD networks are using
MPEG4(AVC/H.264) codecs--equal or better quality at
much lower bit rates vs. MPEG2.
By the way, when you look at just raw video stream,
the max. bit rate for each format is actually 40Mbit/s for Blu Ray and 30Mbit/s for HD DVD. Just
because Blu Ray can support the higher bit rate doesn't mean that all titles are encoded at that
rate.
Sony's own new professional video acquisition format, XDCAM HD, using a blue laser optical disc,
has a bit rate of 35Mbit/s. This is for original image acquisition from a $25K native 1080/60i or 24p camcorder, not a home video player and using
MPEG2!
I have been watching HD DVD on a 1080p DLP front
projector with a 100" wide 2:35:1 screen for a year and have NEVER seen noticeable compression artifacts.
I am a video director of photography and owner of a
broadcast video equipment rental facility, so I'm
picky about image quality and digital artifacts.
The belief that a higher bit rate automatically means better image quality is only applicable for
MPEG2, not the new codecs that HD DVD has always
used and Blu Ray started using recently. There's
more to image quality than theoretical specs.
If there was truly a real life image quality advantage with Blu Ray, wouldn't professional reviewers have noticed by now? They certainly noticed the early Blu Ray MPEG2 releases that were
sub-standard compared to HD DVD titles.
Poll: Where do you stand in the format war? {Engadget HD}
Nov 14th 2007 1:16AM HDpurist,
You're posts are nothing if not entertaining.
Yes, Blu Ray has more storage capacity and most Blu
Ray titles use just one layer or waste bandwidth with MPEG2 and/or LPCM audio. Unless movies routinely become four hours long, this is a non-issue in real life.
Encoding? What, MPEG2 is superior to VC-1 and AVC?
Then why does Blu Ray use the latter two more often, like HD DVD did from the beginning?
Transfer rates? I don't know what this is? Do you
mean bit rate? Only MPEG2 benefits from high bit
rates. VC-1 and AVC(MPEG4) is designed for low bit
rates, throwing a higher bit rate at these CODECs
will yield no discernible increase in quality.
More studios does not mean superior titles. I like
the HD DVD exclusive titles better, this is totally
subjective.
Yes, Blu Ray has room to expand in the future and
leave all those Profile 1.0 players and owners behind. Sony loves moving the goal posts. Soon
there will be a Blu Ray player that has interactive
functions, persistent memory, onboard audio decoding of lossless codecs and internet connectivity, the features that HD DVD has had since gen. 1. If HD DVD will be outdated, what does that make a Profile 1.0 $1000.00 Blu Ray player that doesn't even play CD's?
If you were really an "HD Purist", you would see the merits of both HD optical formats and the titles they each offer, instead, you are just another blind Blu Ray fanboy. But I enjoy your posts anyway.
Poll: Where do you stand in the format war? {Engadget HD}
Nov 13th 2007 6:31PM Terry,
Regarding number 6, I have found HD DVD to be fragile. Too many Netflix rentals have been problematic, including a combo disc of Evan Almighty
that would not play on the HD DVD side or SD
side in my Toshiba A1. The SD side did play on a ten year old 1st gen. Sony 7000 DVD player.
Upon closer inspection, the two sides of the disc
were delaminating! So I would have to say the disc
must have been left on the dashboard of somebody's
car or something.
But I've had stutters and freeze ups of several Netflix rented HD DVD's and I consider this to be
unacceptable compared to not having any SD DVD issues from Netflix. I am hoping Blu Ray will be
better, but don't know.
Poll: Where do you stand in the format war? {Engadget HD}
Nov 13th 2007 4:51PM Regarding higher bit rate, using a higher bit rate for a low bit rate optimized codec like VC-1 or AVC,
won't yield a noticeably higher quality image.
It makes sense to have a higher bit rate for MPEG 2,
but not the newer codecs. The color space stays the
same, 4:2:0 for both formats.
Poll: Where do you stand in the format war? {Engadget HD}
Nov 13th 2007 1:30PM Kenbat,
Only 1% of all Netflix subscribers are signed up for
HD DVD or Blu Ray, with the majority receiving HD DVD.
Poll: Where do you stand in the format war? {Engadget HD}
Nov 13th 2007 12:41PM crunchywyte,
Yes, Warners uses VC-1 on both formats for technical and financial efficiency. If Blu Ray has so much capacity, and MPEG 2 is so good(certainly old), why is Blu Ray using AVC? The reason Blu Ray likes multi-channel PCM is because so many Blu Ray players don't have onboard decoding of lossless audio formats, unlike HD DVD, which even first gen. players have.
I do not believe HD DVD picture quality is superior, just as I don't believe Blu Ray picture
quality is superior. If a difference is seen between the same movie, same transfer, same codec,
especially a low bit rate optimized codec, you will
NOT see a difference unless there is a design weakness in the player.
By the way, the encoding of a computer generated
movie like Cars is so easy for a codec, no film
grain to deal with, very clean edges, etc.
The 1080i vs. 1080p difference is a non-issue on most displays, unless the display has a sub-standard deinterlacer.
I've got a Samsung BD-UP5000 combo player on order,
not because I think Blu Ray is superior, but because I want access to some Blu Ray exclusive titles. I haven't bought a Blu Ray player up to this point because I refused to get stuck with an overpriced Profile 1.0 player.
Even Panasonics new "Final Profile" player won't decode ANY lossless audio formats--my Toshiba A1
has been doing that for a year and a half.
