| reply to Sircolby45
Re: ? It's not BS. HD DVD just hasn't been having great AV scores lately. They're just not trying anymore. |
|
 imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | No, the trouble is HD DVD hasn't had a really great encode in a while. Hot Fuzz was probably the last truly great one. Since then it's just been half-hearted attempts. They're just not trying hard to make the best. No wonder when their entire userbase consists of people who really don't care about getting the best. You really have no idea what you're talking about, and just showing how much of a fanboy of Sony you truly are. As if the BR discs are nothing but fantastic and perfect in every way.  You have absolutely no argument so you just start throwing FUD everywhere, and then call the people who opted for HD DVD, idiots. And that you think that only people who buy BR want the best in high def movies. You really do live in a dream world. It really is fun watching you make a fool out of yourself. |
|
|
|
| tsk tsk..I didn't call them idiots.
I said they just don't care about quality. And so far it's been proven by their support.
So you really think that a 3.5 release is "high quality"? |
|
imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | said by bogey780:And so far it's been proven by their support. It has? How so? You mean that since the majority of all HDTVs out there are 720p or 1080i, that they are smart enough to not need to spend $400+ on a 1080p player, which would be useless for them. I find you theory pretty dumb. I'm sorry, but you're just grabbing at straws because you are mad that you spent a crapload of money for a BR player and others had opted to go for HD DVD and spent a lot less. So you call them names and claim they don't know quality if it hit them in the face. Man, fantasy island must be awesome, it's just too bad I'll never be able to go there.
So you really think that a 3.5 release is "high quality"? What are you talking about? Arbitrary numbers don't mean a thing. Going by the way you think, I'm sure there are 3.5 or less BR releases as well. |
|
 SlyPremium
join:2004-02-20
Johnson City, TN
 ·Callcentric
1 edit | reply to bogey780
said by bogey780:tsk tsk..I didn't call them idiots. I said they just don't care about quality. And so far it's been proven by their support. So you really think that a 3.5 release is "high quality"? I don't normally get involved in these useless arguments but you are acting like an idiot. Here is a screen shot from the same movie both in HD and Blu-Ray format. Even in a still it's almost impossible to see any differences much less in full motion. I bet if I took off the captions you would only get it right half of the time... 
--
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
- Plato - |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
1 edit | I opened both images in two separate IE windows, and alt-tabbed between them.
The "grain" is significantly more detailed on the Blu Ray version, which is consistent with the format's higher data rate. The random nature of film grain is compression's worst nightmare.
The reality of it is, I would not really care which one I was watching on my 50" plasma. If I had a 100"+ image from a projector going, I might be more concerned about such fine details.
We need dual format players.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
 C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | said by djrobx:We need dual format players. LG makes one  , but it's $1000  |
|
| reply to Sly
You do realize comparing the same encode from a blu-ray and a HD DVD is like comparing the end result of WinRAR and WinZIP. You're going to see the exact same info. Sheesh.
Why does Transformers not have HD audio? Because HD DVD couldn't do it. Every time HD DVD delivers an inferior product it's because HD DVD did the best it could with what it had. Which is lacking so often. |
|
| reply to imrf
'What are you talking about? Arbitrary numbers don't mean a thing. Going by the way you think, I'm sure there are 3.5 or less BR releases as well.'
There were a lot of 3.5 releases... last year when it was all new. But it's unexcusable for a non-catalog title to look so poor in HD. |
|
imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | said by bogey780:There were a lot of 3.5 releases... last year when it was all new. But it's unexcusable for a non-catalog title to look so poor in HD. Again, what are you talking about. Show some proof of all these 3.5 or less titles like you claim. Otherwise, you're just pulling things out of your backside, like you always have when talking about HD DVDs or BR. |
|
imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | reply to bogey780
said by bogey780:Why does Transformers not have HD audio? Because HD DVD couldn't do it. They could have done it if they felt the real need for it. There are so few receivers out there that could even utilize it, they must have felt that the extras would be better. I'm sure once more receivers with HDMI inputs they will release a special edition with it on there, like all studios love to do.
You do realize that there are plenty of BR discs that don't have HD audio. But you'll probably skirt the issue like you always do. |
|
| reply to imrf
»www.hddvdstats.com/index.php
»www.blu-raystats.com/
Blu-ray wins on audio.
For a slightly HD DVD biased review site try this:
»hddvd.highdefdigest.com/reviews.html
And even then you still don't see much that's impressive. |
|
SlyPremium
join:2004-02-20
Johnson City, TN Reviews:
·Callcentric
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780:So you're telling me that the same encode looks the same across two seperate containers? I'm shocked! said by bogey780:You do realize comparing the same encode from a blu-ray and a HD DVD is like comparing the end result of WinRAR and WinZIP. You're going to see the exact same info. Sheesh. Umm... wow. You just totally contradicted yourself in less than 24 hours. First you claim that they are two separate containers and that the image can't look the same... Then you claim that there is no difference in the container (winrar vs. winzip) and the difference is in the audio...
What are you going to say next? Here is a thread for you: »[Poll] HD-DVD or Blu-Ray Tell me which one is which, fanboy...
--
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
- Plato - |
|
| reply to imrf
'They could have done it if they felt the real need for it.'
Incorrect. All HD DVD recievers can output TrueHD. They didn't have the bandwidth for it and PiP though so it had to go.
'I'm sure once more receivers with HDMI inputs they will release a special edition with it on there, like all studios love to do.'
Then why argue in favor of a format that will double dip?
BTW... blu-ray released Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind with all 3 versions of the film (theatrical, video release, and 2nd theatrical release) all on one blu-ray in 1080p with lossless audio.
'You do realize that there are plenty of BR discs that don't have HD audio. But you'll probably skirt the issue like you always do.'
Some 2/3 to 3/4 of them have lossless. Which is almost the inverse of HD DVD. Size matters. |
|
| reply to Sly
I actually didn't contradict myself.
If you take the same VC-1 stream and put it on blu-ray and HD DVD the end result should always look the same. That's the problem with comparing dual format releases. They almost always use the same encode.
The only thing close to a comparison was when Nature's Journey came out and they maxed the bandwidth for each format. They were nearly identical but a few shots tipped towards blu-ray. |
|
SlyPremium
join:2004-02-20
Johnson City, TN
1 edit | nm |
|
imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | reply to bogey780
said by bogey780: They didn't have the bandwidth for it and PiP though so it had to go. Incorrect.
Then why argue in favor of a format that will double dip? Do you even know what you're talking about? The format isn't the one double dipping, it's the studio producing the disc. And I hate to break it to you but they all do it.
BTW... blu-ray released Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind with all 3 versions of the film (theatrical, video release, and 2nd theatrical release) all on one blu-ray in 1080p with lossless audio. It's not really hard to do that. All they have to do is keep the parts that weren't there originally and insert them when needed. They don't have 3 full length films on one disc.
Some 2/3 to 3/4 of them have lossless. Which is almost the inverse of HD DVD. More like half.
Size matters. Not really. HD DVDs could all have uncompressed audio, if the studios feel the need to do so. There could be a ton of reasons why they don't and all we can do is speculate why they don't. Personally, I don't care either way. Very few consumers will ever have a system that will be able to sport the difference between 1.5Mbps Dolby Digital + and Dolby True HD audio. |
|
imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | reply to bogey780
said by bogey780:And even then you still don't see much that's impressive. I guess if you're completely biased to one format sure. Ignorance is bliss.
I, personally, don't care who wins. Once the BR camp pulls their heads out of their butts and realize that they need sub $200 players their format will not be the dominant one. Once they do have a sub $200 player, then I'll get one and be format neutral. Until then I'll enjoy my HD DVD discs, and enjoy watching you spread FUD about a format that you seem to know nothing about. |
|
| reply to imrf
'Incorrect.'
And here's the proof you're wrong, naturally:
Indeed, I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps). Unfortunately, this confirms the long-held theory that the 30Gb capacity of an HD-30 dual-layer HD DVD disc has forced studios to choose between offering a robust supplements package (as they've done here) and the very best in audio quality.
From »hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/tra···ers.html
'Do you even know what you're talking about? The format isn't the one double dipping, it's the studio producing the disc. And I hate to break it to you but they all do it.'
And it helps when you have a format that encourages it. Blu-ray has working seamless branching (such as CEof3K) so they have less of an excuse to double dip.
'All they have to do is keep the parts that weren't there originally and insert them when needed'
Ok, let's get technical for a moment. To do seamless branching you need a certain buffer size. HD DVD can do seamless branching but due to lower bandwidth the compressionist has to branch from a relative minimum to relative minimum as the branching requires more bandwidth for the seeking and buffering. Thus making for a sloppier more difficult time for the compressionist. It's easiest to just transfer from any point to any point and not have the bandwidth be a concern.
'There could be a ton of reasons why they don't and all we can do is speculate why they don't. '
But it's not speculation. they stated why before. |
|
imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | said by bogey780:'Incorrect.' And here's the proof you're wrong, naturally: Indeed, I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps). Unfortunately, this confirms the long-held theory that the 30Gb capacity of an HD-30 dual-layer HD DVD disc has forced studios to choose between offering a robust supplements package (as they've done here) and the very best in audio quality.From » hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/tra···ers.html And again, if he would have asked a follow up question he could have an even better understanding as to why. If they took out the extras they could have added the better audio track. But they simply felt the demand was not there for the better audio track and felt that extras were worth it.
And it helps when you have a format that encourages it. Blu-ray has working seamless branching (such as CEof3K) so they have less of an excuse to double dip. Yes, because I'm sure Sony as a studio hates making double and even triple dipping on customers.
Ok, let's get technical for a moment. To do seamless branching you need a certain buffer size. HD DVD can do seamless branching but due to lower bandwidth the compressionist has to branch from a relative minimum to relative minimum as the branching requires more bandwidth for the seeking and buffering. Thus making for a sloppier more difficult time for the compressionist. It's easiest to just transfer from any point to any point and not have the bandwidth be a concern. Seamless branching has nothing to do with compression. All they do is insert markers on where to put a different file. It isn't tough to do and has been around for many years.
But it's not speculation. they stated why before.
No, it was one blogger's comments. There was nothing official from that release. If you want to believe it go ahead. But in the end, I still don't care. Very few people would have benefited from it and would have been a waste of disc space. The DD+ track on that disc is excellent as it is. |
|
