Blu Ray Vs. Hd Dvd!

[BlackHitachi]

I know this is the war zone but i am not trying to start a war here!
I read another post and decided to repost here and see what other think about it!

Anyway it shows some comparison of BLU RAY AND HD DVD!! I was shocked at some results!! Be honest and give you opinion!!

Just click on the link!:up

Choose HD DVD over Blu-ray!

Who needs HD extras? Not HD DVD users. (see Harry Potter: OotP, HD extras on Blu-ray, no space for it on HD DVD)

Who needs lossless audio? Not HD DVD users. (62% of Blu-ray discs have lossless audio, only 21% of HD DVD releases can fit it on the disc)

Who needs transfers that actually resemble the master? DNR the heck out of them to fit them in 30GB! (see Face/Off | BD vs HD | Image 1 )

But, but, but, Profile 1.1...is coming to the top selling Blu-ray player tomorrow. Literally. 12/18/07 update your firmware for the PS3.

(see Face/Off | BD vs HD | Image 1 )

 

[diogen]

I was shocked at some results!!

You were? I hope you feel better now...
Next time you are ready to be shocked again, watch the first Fifth Element on BD.
But have somebody nearby. You might need help to recover from that shock...

Diogen.

 

[SatinKzo]

I can't make any judgements as my laptop display sucks. (it's an old laptop), but I do notice some blurring in the beard on HD-DVD and some jaggies on the shirt stripes when seeing the BD version

 

[teamerickson]

George was wrong on two issues yesterday. So, is this correct or blueball FUD?

 

[BlackHitachi]

You were? I hope you feel better now...
Next time you are ready to be shocked again, watch the first Fifth Element on BD.
But have somebody nearby. You might need help to recover from that shock...

Diogen.

Yea? That's was very helpful!

I have already seen that the FIRST that is, I guess that was the reason i did not buy into Blu RAY at the time and went HD DVD first.

ANYWAY!! The post was actually looking at the picture quality's on both BLU RAY and HD DVD! One poster seems to understand what i was talking about at least!:up

 

[BlackHitachi]

George was wrong on two issues yesterday. So, is this correct or blueball FUD?

Don't know see for yourself!! (see Face/Off | BD vs HD | Image 1 )

There is more then that there also!

 

[SatinKzo]

Went down to the desktop PC with a nice monitor.

I stand by my earlier observation of the blurring in HD-DVD, but BD almost looks like someone took the photoshop sharpen tool just a tad too far. I see lots of jaggies... Shirt stripes, ear, neck and wrist.
BD almost looks so sharpened that it is artificially seperating skin tones to the point it looks fake. Look next to his eye, in the temple region, his skin looks very digitized, or under the eyes, the "bag" areas are very grainy.

HD-DVD skin tones look nicer IMO, but if they could come to a compromise between the 2 pics I think I personally would be happier. I think both suck in different and obvious ways.

 

[loves2watch]

There is NO difference in PQ, none.

 

[BlackHitachi]

Went down to the desktop PC with a nice monitor.

I stand by my earlier observation of the blurring in HD-DVD, but BD almost looks like someone took the photoshop sharpen tool just a tad too far. I see lots of jaggies... Shirt stripes, ear, neck and wrist.
BD almost looks so sharpened that it is artificially seperating skin tones to the point it looks fake.

HD-DVD skin tones look nicer IMO, but if they could come to a compromise between the 2 pics I think I personally would be happiers. I think both suck in different and obvious ways.

YES!!:up Thank you for posting what you see and not being some Blu Smurf of Red Nimrod!!!:up:up:up

 

[BlackHitachi]

There is NO difference in PQ, none.

Did you look at all the pictures by any chance?

 

[SatinKzo]

There is NO difference in PQ, none.

You are kidding right? I wear glasses and the difference is obvious to me. Unfortunately, both pics have very obvious flaws IMO.

Heck my wife just took a look and pretty much re-iterated what I said. For her to notice it then something is obviously viewable and discernable

Are all dual releases this obvious, no I do not think so.

 

[BlackHitachi]

So many Views and no Comments?

 

[berck]

The HD-DVD looks better. Unfortunately, they don't tell you the data rate of the two samples. It looks like the AVC is a bit data starved in that example. Other examples on the website show much closer. Both VC-1 and AVC are great codecs with the right compress rate.

Hard to tell a difference between these...

Prestige
Coming to America

I noticed on the Prestige shot the 200% increase was done on the image I showed. In the regular image, VC-1 shows some obvious blocking in the fore head, and AVC a bit less obivous around the right eye. With the 200% comparison, they focused in on the right eye. Seems they are trying to portrey VC-1 as the winner. It would look different if they didn't cutout the blocking in the fore head.

Now, with [http://hd-discs.mbmg.de/flagsofourfathers_bd-vs-hd/06.html]Flag of Our Fathers[/url], its pretty close too, but most of the view look slightly better with VC-1, even though AVC has a much higher bit rate

 

[berck]

The HD-DVD looks better. Unfortunately, they don't tell you the data rate of the two samples. It looks like the AVC is a bit data starved in that example. Other examples on the website show it much closer. Both VC-1 and AVC are great codecs with the right compress rate.

Hard to tell a difference between these...

Prestige
Coming to America

I noticed on the Prestige shot the 200% increase was done on the image I showed. In the regular image, VC-1 shows some obvious blocking in the fore head, and AVC a bit less obvious around the right eye. With the 200% comparison, they focused in on the right eye. Seems they are trying to portray VC-1 as the winner. It would look different if they didn't cutout the blocking in the fore head.

Now, with Flag of Our Fathers, its pretty close too, but most of the views look slightly better with VC-1, even though AVC has a much higher bit rate

 

[SatinKzo]

berck, nice example links there. Those are more inline with my experience with dual releases. VERY little difference if both were done right. It also shows that face off was done poorly for both releases IMO, although I do agree slightly that HD-DVD looks better only because the BD looks that much worse in this release.

 

[BlackHitachi]

berck, Thank you very much for you insight. I tend to agree for the most part.:up I do how ever think that some mpeg 2 shots show much more details. Wrinkles are clearer and i can see the whisker clearly! Wile the vc1 in those shots seemed Blurry! The links still amaze me that both have so many flaws in them! Don't get me wrong i LOVE both HD formats when done right!!:up Wile the two link you have provided shows exactly what i see also vc1 seem better the avc. Anyway thank you for a very insightful post!!

 

[berck]

Funny you say that, to me VC-1 seems a bit blurry at times, or soft maybe the best answer. I see it in some of those examples too. In your first example, VC-1 is clearly superior, but the bit rate isn't shown, so its hard to say if its a far comparison. I felt that in the Prestige and Coming to America that AVC was superior, but its real close. To me, the hat in Coming to America is the tipoff.

Flag of our fathers either looked the same, or VC-1 looked better depending on the shots. Not all had to do with the contours, but some was color related. It surprised me some because it said that AVC had a much higher data rate over VC-1, where that wasn't the case with the first two links I provided.

MPEG2 is a another great codec with high enough data rate. VC-1 and AVC are superior at lower data rates.

Apologies about the double post. The site was stalling when I first tried to post, and I never thought it made it. I actually hit the button three times. Looks like two of them made it.

 

[tonyp56]

OK, here ya go;

This is why I lean more towards HD-DVD than Blu-Ray...

You ready?

I hate, ok, I loathe Sony Corporation. I know I know, Microsoft supports HD-DVD, but I actually like Microsoft, I'd take 10 Microsoft's over 1 stinking Sony Corp...

So why do I hate them? For me, I hate big brands, things like Levi jeans, Nikes, etc... You know, all those brand names that sale you something for $100, when it took $10 to make it? Or an item, that the only reason it is going for $100, is because some kid in New York likes em (along with millions of others)?

Sony is the biggest one here. I bought into the crap of "It is Sony (Nike, Levi, etc.) so it is better than any other brand!" for to many times. I started noticing, "hey, this 'cheap' brand is just as good as that name brand, so why would I want to pay $100 more for that?" Sony TV's, surround sound systems, DVD players, VCR's, Walkman, portable CD players, etc. are almost always more expensive than other brands, and I simply never saw the value in that. Have I ever owned any Sony products? Yes, and from my experience, I do not find them to be any better than any other brand (OK, perhaps it is hard to not beat RCA or some TV from Korea or China, but those products cost hundreds less, so does Sony really beat em?)

To me, Microsoft, is a lot like Sony, however, for some reason I trust them more than Sony (didn't say I trust them, just that I trust them more). In a perfect world, I'd rather use Open Office instead of MS Office, but the fact remains, MS Office is an easier and better program to use. Open Office might be free, but MS Office actually makes it worth the $ you pay for it, IMO. Sony products on the other hand, have nothing over other brands (again, except the really, really cheap ones) and makes paying $10 more not worth it, just so you can say you have a Sony. (or Nike's or Levi's, etc...)

Now, who is the biggest component of Blu-Ray? Sony... If you said 100% of PS3's are used for Blu-Ray, or you said 20% are used for Blu-Ray, that still leaves a very small proportion left for the other "backers" of Blu-Ray. Not to mention Sony Pictures.

That is why for me, I support HD-DVD. Now does that mean I'm closed minded and wouldn't ever see the other side? No, if you gave me a PS3, I'd use it until it blew up to play games and Blu-Ray movies. However, I will not buy any Sony products, if Blu-Ray wins, and no one gave me a Sony PS3 or standalone, I would buy a Panasonic Blu-Ray player, but wouldn't touch Sony's.

 

[diogen]

VC-1 got a major upgrade with Shrek III encoding as mentioned here
http://www.satelliteguys.us/hd-dvd-forum/114542-shrek-3-using-new-vc-1-encoder.html

An even bigger upgrade is planned for the beginning of 2008.
Speculation mounts that it might be the long awaited "dynamux" - dynamic allocation of bandwidth between the audio and video streams. This might require some changes in the workflow since now audio and video encoding is done by different crews...

Diogen.

 

[IcEWoLF]

OK, here ya go;

This is why I lean more towards HD-DVD than Blu-Ray...

You ready?

I hate, ok, I loathe Sony Corporation. I know I know, Microsoft supports HD-DVD, but I actually like Microsoft, I'd take 10 Microsoft's over 1 stinking Sony Corp...

So why do I hate them? For me, I hate big brands, things like Levi jeans, Nikes, etc... You know, all those brand names that sale you something for $100, when it took $10 to make it? Or an item, that the only reason it is going for $100, is because some kid in New York likes em (along with millions of others)?

Sony is the biggest one here. I bought into the crap of "It is Sony (Nike, Levi, etc.) so it is better than any other brand!" for to many times. I started noticing, "hey, this 'cheap' brand is just as good as that name brand, so why would I want to pay $100 more for that?" Sony TV's, surround sound systems, DVD players, VCR's, Walkman, portable CD players, etc. are almost always more expensive than other brands, and I simply never saw the value in that. Have I ever owned any Sony products? Yes, and from my experience, I do not find them to be any better than any other brand (OK, perhaps it is hard to not beat RCA or some TV from Korea or China, but those products cost hundreds less, so does Sony really beat em?)

To me, Microsoft, is a lot like Sony, however, for some reason I trust them more than Sony (didn't say I trust them, just that I trust them more). In a perfect world, I'd rather use Open Office instead of MS Office, but the fact remains, MS Office is an easier and better program to use. Open Office might be free, but MS Office actually makes it worth the $ you pay for it, IMO. Sony products on the other hand, have nothing over other brands (again, except the really, really cheap ones) and makes paying $10 more not worth it, just so you can say you have a Sony. (or Nike's or Levi's, etc...)

Now, who is the biggest component of Blu-Ray? Sony... If you said 100% of PS3's are used for Blu-Ray, or you said 20% are used for Blu-Ray, that still leaves a very small proportion left for the other "backers" of Blu-Ray. Not to mention Sony Pictures.

That is why for me, I support HD-DVD. Now does that mean I'm closed minded and wouldn't ever see the other side? No, if you gave me a PS3, I'd use it until it blew up to play games and Blu-Ray movies. However, I will not buy any Sony products, if Blu-Ray wins, and no one gave me a Sony PS3 or standalone, I would buy a Panasonic Blu-Ray player, but wouldn't touch Sony's.

Trust them more?
That is why there are more broken 360's than PS3's?
Just because M$ has more broken/defective units I don't go out there and call them a crappy company, trust me, they have done a great job with the XBOX 360 and Live.
Just because you had bad experience with Sony, it doesn't mean the rest of us have problems with their products, and just because you had bad experience with a product from them it doesn't make them a bad company.
Face it, this is how the world always been, you have to pay more for branded* Items. Sometimes there is a difference between branded and un-branded items, and sometimes there isn't.

Its like buying a Vizio TV and actually comparing it with a Pioneer TV.