So, which side are you on?

[teamerickson]

How can the HD DVD PQ be better when the majority of the common titles (Warner) are bit for bit identical VC1 encodes?

But Paramount seems to be using different codecs for the same movies. The majority of Blue titiles still use mpeg2 or mpeg4 and the VC1 appears to be better. Why not use the better codec? It's funny that big bad Blue-Ray will NEVER have a better picture, they can only hope to match the picture quality of HD DVD. If Sony is so much better why can't they make it look better then HD DVD? I guess Blue-ray exist to persuade the consumer to donate more money to a product that can only hope to match the quality of a similar product at half the price.

 

[CochiseGuy]

So, which side are you on?

Why, the Dark Side, of course!

What will HD-DVD fanboys say when then new 50gb Fifth Element comes out smoking? You know Sony is going to redo that title and it is going to kick but!

Would that be the Super-Dooper Bit Blur-ay?

It would be terrific if Sony put the same emphasis on quality with their software as they do with their hardware. My Sony 57" rear projection 1080i display and aging Sony A/V receiver with 5.1 analogy inputs are great compliments to my XA1 HD DVD player.

Unfortunately, Sony clearly doesn't place the same emphasis on quality in their software. When Sony's first Blu-ray releases - The Fifth Element and House of Flying Artifacts (Daggers) - were almost universaly panned for poor quality there was much debate that mpeg2 on BR 25GB single layer just couldn't cut the mustard for high def. Now I read reviews on HighDefDigest that give Fox's recent release of "Men of Honor" on mpeg2 BR 25GB single layer 4 1/2 stars for video quality, with comments susch as "lose-ups in particular can be phenomenal -- you can turn counting the pores on the actor's skin into a drinking game." BUT, even a recent release by Sony in mpeg2 25GB - The Tailor of Panama - receives reviewer comments such as "Right out of the gate, it looks a bit spotty. The transfer often appears noticeably soft, sometimes varying in sharpness within the same scene. The print also wavers a bit in contrast, and darker scenes often flatten out in the mid-range. That can leave the image washed-out and two-dimensional. "

In fairness, HighDef Digest gave a recent Sony mpeg2 25GB release - The Covenent - its first 5 star rating for a BR release. However, a new release, they note "I suspect this is a true digital-to-digital telecine given how utterly pristine and glossy the image appear". Apparently Sony has better luck encoding digital copies of new movies than they do scanning film. Based on the BR review, I decided to Netflix the standard DVD. I knew I was in trouble when the main menu made me chose between full or wide screen; cheap old Sony squeezed both film version onto a single standard DVD. The resulting PQ was such crap I couldn't watch it.

If Blu-ray "wins", which I highly doubt, it will be because of Sony's highly subsidized PS3 flooding the market - not because of Sony's software releases.

 

[CochiseGuy]

P.S. - Based on the number of posts in the new "War Zone" forum compared to the Blu-ray / HD DVD only forums, it appears most of us prefer to argue over support.

Guess we need something to keep us occupied until the '08 politics go into full swing . . . .

 

[navychop]

"...It would be terrific if Sony put the same emphasis on quality with their software as they do with their hardware. ..."

Boy, I hope not. My Sony VCRs, camcorder and DVD players are/were all poor (or worse). Only my Sony 27" Trinitron is very good (except for the non functioning buttons that went out a couple years or so after purchase- no repair parts), and the Sony DVR is good (only bought that because it was dirt cheap on close out). I'm strongly disinclined to ever buy Sony again because of my experience with their hardware. And, of course, their root kit.

All the same, I expect Sony is likely to win this one, due to capacity, future capacity, BD+/watermarking, and studio support. I've seen posts here that BDs are more scratch resistant, and if that is true, that will be a big factor. It's looking grim for HD-DVD for this summer, with all the big titles coming out for Blu-ray. Just not as much, and not so many blockbusters, out of the HD-DVD camp for this summer. And with Universal being the sole "HD-DVD-only" studio, and their relatively weak catalog, all Sony has to do is keep their studios faithful.

Is the pot calling the kettle black regarding the "subsidized" PS3 vs the "subsidized" Toshiba HD-DVD players? Game machines are commonly sold below cost in the early days- the money is made from selling games. And the PS3 will recoup from movies as well as games.

And I don't buy that "cheaper" argument. It's weak. Those extra costs spread over tens of millions of players and hundreds of millions of titles and over many years will mean the cost difference to the consumer will be tiny.

I'm glad HD-DVD is here. And I'm glad they dropped their original, bad, idea to use red lasers instead of the blue laser. That's made them a competitor and no doubt made Sony produce a better product.

And if HD-DVD wins, I won't shed a tear- I'll just be happy to safely buy a product that isn't likely to disappear any time soon. Remember that dumb RCA capacitance video disk with a head that actually touched the disk? Or even a good product, like laser discs?

I once believed we all lost when they did not settle upon a single high definition disk. After seeing Sony fumble their introduction of Blu-ray, I now believe the competition has made for better products than we would have had otherwise. The delay in a victor, if there ever is one, is more than offset by the faster progress made in quality due to this competition.

 

[GeorgeLV]

But Paramount seems to be using different codecs for the same movies. The majority of Blue titiles still use mpeg2 or mpeg4 and the VC1 appears to be better. Why not use the better codec? It's funny that big bad Blue-Ray will NEVER have a better picture, they can only hope to match the picture quality of HD DVD. If Sony is so much better why can't they make it look better then HD DVD? I guess Blue-ray exist to persuade the consumer to donate more money to a product that can only hope to match the quality of a similar product at half the price.

It's funny you mentioned Paramount as an example of VC1 being the superior codec right as they are making the switch to AVC (mpeg 4) for their HD DVD releases (Babel).

It's hilarious that you put VC1 up on a pedestal that Blu-ray somehow can't match, when there are VC1 encodes on Blu-ray at bitrates substantially higher than the maximum HD DVD transfer rate. (e.g. Casanova)

Of course facts can't get in the way of the argument, so if 30 is greater than 50, I'll gladly trade you $30 for $50.

 

[GeorgeLV]

If Blu-ray "wins", which I highly doubt, it will be because of Sony's highly subsidized PS3 flooding the market - not because of Sony's software releases.

According to NPD data, the entirely non-subsidized stand-alone Blu-ray players alone are even in sales with the heavily subsidized Toshiba HD DVD players.

 

[teamerickson]

It's funny you mentioned Paramount as an example of VC1 being the superior codec right as they are making the switch to AVC (mpeg 4) for their HD DVD releases (Babel).

It's hilarious that you put VC1 up on a pedestal that Blu-ray somehow can't match, when there are VC1 encodes on Blu-ray at bitrates substantially higher than the maximum HD DVD transfer rate. (e.g. Casanova)

Of course facts can't get in the way of the argument, so if 30 is greater than 50, I'll gladly trade you $30 for $50.

Is Paramount going to mpeg4 exclusively? Are you an insider?

Why can't they make a better picture than HD DVD with a higher bit rate? It must be because of the inferior codec.

 

[GeorgeLV]

Why can't they make a better picture than HD DVD with a higher bit rate? It must be because of the inferior codec.

This is like an Abbott & Costello bit...

VC1 is the superior codec on when on HD DVD, but when it's on Blu-ray at higher bitrates than HD DVD can support it's the inferior codec.

 

[teamerickson]

This is like an Abbott & Costello bit...

VC1 is the superior codec on when on HD DVD, but when it's on Blu-ray at higher bitrates than HD DVD can support it's the inferior codec.

You are very good at avoiding the question.

VC1 vs. VC1 why isn't the higher bit rate Blue-ray better. You claim $50 is better than $30. Maybe you are refering to the dual layer 30 being better than the dual layer 50.

 

[GeorgeLV]

You are very good at avoiding the question.

VC1 vs. VC1 why isn't the higher bit rate Blue-ray better.

It is. HD DVD has that pesky little problem of Disney, Fox, Sony, MGM, and Lionsgate titles not existing in their format.

 

[jorge28le]

thank you

But Paramount seems to be using different codecs for the same movies. The majority of Blue titiles still use mpeg2 or mpeg4 and the VC1 appears to be better. Why not use the better codec? It's funny that big bad Blue-Ray will NEVER have a better picture, they can only hope to match the picture quality of HD DVD. If Sony is so much better why can't they make it look better then HD DVD? I guess Blue-ray exist to persuade the consumer to donate more money to a product that can only hope to match the quality of a similar product at half the price.

for making him understand i didnt want to get all techy but some people just have to understand that hd dvd piq is way better than blue ray just because u see best buy and circuit city really pushing blue ray just to make money doesnt mean its better:up

 

[hpman247]

"...It would be terrific if Sony put the same emphasis on quality with their software as they do with their hardware. ..."

Boy, I hope not. My Sony VCRs, camcorder and DVD players are/were all poor (or worse). Only my Sony 27" Trinitron is very good (except for the non functioning buttons that went out a couple years or so after purchase- no repair parts), and the Sony DVR is good (only bought that because it was dirt cheap on close out). I'm strongly disinclined to ever buy Sony again because of my experience with their hardware. And, of course, their root kit.

All the same, I expect Sony is likely to win this one, due to capacity, future capacity, BD+/watermarking, and studio support. I've seen posts here that BDs are more scratch resistant, and if that is true, that will be a big factor. It's looking grim for HD-DVD for this summer, with all the big titles coming out for Blu-ray. Just not as much, and not so many blockbusters, out of the HD-DVD camp for this summer. And with Universal being the sole "HD-DVD-only" studio, and their relatively weak catalog, all Sony has to do is keep their studios faithful.

Is the pot calling the kettle black regarding the "subsidized" PS3 vs the "subsidized" Toshiba HD-DVD players? Game machines are commonly sold below cost in the early days- the money is made from selling games. And the PS3 will recoup from movies as well as games.

And I don't buy that "cheaper" argument. It's weak. Those extra costs spread over tens of millions of players and hundreds of millions of titles and over many years will mean the cost difference to the consumer will be tiny.

I'm glad HD-DVD is here. And I'm glad they dropped their original, bad, idea to use red lasers instead of the blue laser. That's made them a competitor and no doubt made Sony produce a better product.

And if HD-DVD wins, I won't shed a tear- I'll just be happy to safely buy a product that isn't likely to disappear any time soon. Remember that dumb RCA capacitance video disk with a head that actually touched the disk? Or even a good product, like laser discs?

I once believed we all lost when they did not settle upon a single high definition disk. After seeing Sony fumble their introduction of Blu-ray, I now believe the competition has made for better products than we would have had otherwise. The delay in a victor, if there ever is one, is more than offset by the faster progress made in quality due to this competition.

I don't know why, but when i saw this post i thought "navychop" read"vurbano" on a very quick glance, and i almost sh*t myself haha.

 

[hpman247]

for making him understand i didnt want to get all techy but some people just have to understand that hd dvd piq is way better than blue ray just because u see best buy and circuit city really pushing blue ray just to make money doesnt mean its better:up

ok...that was a seriously marvelous, informing, spectacular, post.

 

[vurbano]

Why, the Dark Side, of course!




Would that be the Super-Dooper Bit Blur-ay?

It would be terrific if Sony put the same emphasis on quality with their software as they do with their hardware. My Sony 57" rear projection 1080i display and aging Sony A/V receiver with 5.1 analogy inputs are great compliments to my XA1 HD DVD player.

Unfortunately, Sony clearly doesn't place the same emphasis on quality in their software. When Sony's first Blu-ray releases - The Fifth Element and House of Flying Artifacts (Daggers) - were almost universaly panned for poor quality there was much debate that mpeg2 on BR 25GB single layer just couldn't cut the mustard for high def. Now I read reviews on HighDefDigest that give Fox's recent release of "Men of Honor" on mpeg2 BR 25GB single layer 4 1/2 stars for video quality, with comments susch as "lose-ups in particular can be phenomenal -- you can turn counting the pores on the actor's skin into a drinking game." BUT, even a recent release by Sony in mpeg2 25GB - The Tailor of Panama - receives reviewer comments such as "Right out of the gate, it looks a bit spotty. The transfer often appears noticeably soft, sometimes varying in sharpness within the same scene. The print also wavers a bit in contrast, and darker scenes often flatten out in the mid-range. That can leave the image washed-out and two-dimensional. "

In fairness, HighDef Digest gave a recent Sony mpeg2 25GB release - The Covenent - its first 5 star rating for a BR release. However, a new release, they note "I suspect this is a true digital-to-digital telecine given how utterly pristine and glossy the image appear". Apparently Sony has better luck encoding digital copies of new movies than they do scanning film. Based on the BR review, I decided to Netflix the standard DVD. I knew I was in trouble when the main menu made me chose between full or wide screen; cheap old Sony squeezed both film version onto a single standard DVD. The resulting PQ was such crap I couldn't watch it.

If Blu-ray "wins", which I highly doubt, it will be because of Sony's highly subsidized PS3 flooding the market - not because of Sony's software releases.

Did Sony release "holy crap in a can"? I.e Robocrap as well?

 

[vurbano]

And I don't buy that "cheaper" argument. It's weak. Those extra costs spread over tens of millions of players and hundreds of millions of titles and over many years will mean the cost difference to the consumer will be tiny.

I think your premise is based on two things that wont happen for a very, very longg time. If it takes BD that long they will lose.

 

[CochiseGuy]

Did Sony release "holy crap in a can"? I.e Robocrap as well?

I was going to add in my anti-Sony software rant that the only Sony software titles I own are Superbit DVD versions of 5th Element & Starship Troopers. Both very decent quality, and two of my favorite movies.

Another fave is Robocop. My DVD version is nearly as good, but it's not Superbit as it's an MGM release. So, probably headed for Blur-ay. At least Fox releases of MGM titles on BD seem to be alot better quality than Sony's, from the reviews I read.

 

[navychop]

...some people just have to understand that hd dvd piq is way better than blue ray...

Your opinion? Professional reviewers state that PQ today is the same for the two formats. No doubt some individual releases may be of higher or lower PQ- in EACH format. Sony blew it by allowing some early releases with poor PQ, but those days are gone. Whether you emotionally wish to accept it or not, PQ is about the same overall between the two formats.

... just because u see best buy and circuit city really pushing blue ray just to make money doesnt mean its better:up

Ah- conspiracy theory? Any actual facts to show that they make more money selling one format more than the other?


Maybe one format will win, maybe both will survive- or maybe both will remain bit players. Right now, Blu-ray is outselling HD-DVD and the gap is growing:
"(LATE UPDATE - 1/31/07 - 4:30 PM PDT)

The first official retail tracking data from Nielsen VideoScan seems to show Blu-ray Disc outselling HD-DVD in unit software sales by a more than 2 to 1 margin, and the gap is widening. According to data reported in Home Media Retailing (you'll find it on page one of the digital edition available on their website) for the week ending 1/7/07, Year-to-Date tracking indicated that for every 47.14 HD-DVDs sold there were 100 Blu-ray Disc titles sold. Just a week later, ending 1/14/07, the same YTD tracking indicated just 38.36 HD-DVDs sold for every 100 Blu-ray Discs sold. What's more, tracking by Nielsen VideoScan since the inception of both formats appears to indicate that Blu-ray Disc is quickly erasing the sales lead HD-DVD enjoyed as a result of launching months earlier in 2006. On 1/7, HD-DVD's lead was 100 discs for every 85.05 Blu-ray Discs sold, while just a week later on 1/14, that lead had been reduced to 100 HD-DVDs for every 92.40 Blu-ray Discs sold."

Above is from thedigitalbits.

As has been posted in these forums, the number of Blu-ray discs scheduled for release for this year is greater than the number of expected HD-DVD releases. And there are more blockbusters coming out on Blu-ray than HD-DVD. And as also reported in these forums, the number of Blu-ray dedicated players sold exceeds the number of HD-DVD dedicated players sold- never mind any cost difference.

Sony may yet pull defeat from the jaws of victory, but the trend toward Blu-ray is strong. HD-DVD may survive. With Sony's hubris, they may even win- but it doesn't look that way right now.

Either way, it makes no sense to make baseless claims that one format's PQ exceeds the other. It has been pretty well established they have about the same PQ. The battle will be decided on other merits.

 

[teamerickson]

Either way, it makes no sense to make baseless claims that one format's PQ exceeds the other. It has been pretty well established they have about the same PQ. The battle will be decided on other merits.

In order to try and match HD DVD picture quality, when Blue-Ray use Mpeg 2 or mpeg 4, they have to use higher bit rates. Doesn't that eat up more space? They are wasting space to match HD DVD. Until they use a more efficent codec the larger disc is a non-issue.

 

[navychop]

Do you think J6P cares that his movie uses up 60% or 90% of the available space on the disc?

When the average buyer perceives PQ is the same, he/she will look at price, features, available titles, ease of use and connection, and maybe a few other factors. PQ might not even be at the top of the list. And when he sees Disney releases are only on Blu-ray ..........

 

[JoeSp]

Navychop, you have stated my feelings exactly. People buy the player for the movies they want to watch and not the other way around.