View Full Version : Blu ray v HD-DVD?


mr-modern-life
07-03-2007, 02:16 AM
So guys thoughts... which is the better format?

I watched Rocky 6 on Blu-Ray on a 1080i Philips TV through a PS3 and to me it seemed that when it is native (ie shot HD) the quaility was gob smacking. Otherwise it was impressive but HD-DVD seemed to be the more robust, consistant format (Serenity was outstanding - again XBOX360 playing HD-DVD drive)

So which is better and will either format win...

Anyone else?

freezer
07-03-2007, 03:28 AM
It only depends on the person who is authoring the HD-Format. Both HD-DVD and BluRay can deliver very nice quality. As noone one the format war between DVD-R and DVD+R, I expect the same outcome with the new HD formats.

VPTurner
07-03-2007, 08:23 AM
It all depends on the movies you want to watch. So far, BluRay has 7 of the major studios on board whereas HD-DVD has only one or two major studios (universal being the primary) as exclusives. Some are producing both formats. The mantra over the last 6 months was always "cost, cost, cost". but I just picked up a Sony BDP-S300 on Saturday for $499, and now they're running a promotion of 5 free BD movies with the Purchase of any BD player from July 1st onwards for about 6-8 weeks. HD laid down the gauntlet by offering free movies, now the BluRay camp has responded. Cost is no longer a factor so HD-DVD just lost its biggest advantage.

So far, I've watched Tears of the Sun, We Were Soldiers, Rocky Balboa and a couple others (the latter four rented from Hollywood Video). I am about to watch Apocolypto, Babel and Seven Years in Tibet (two of which also rented). I own two movies so far becuase Fry's was offering 2 movies for $25 so I bought two with the player. I'm running HDMI to a 73" Mitsubishi 1080p DLP rear projection TV with 6.1 discrete sound. Broadcast HD was never this good! I've had HD broadcasting for 3-4 years at least, and my major complaint was macro blocking during heavy action. You won't see that with either HD format, and both are good formats. It's all going to come down to the content. With the $499 BD player (and that price will drop) and Toshiba HD-DVD players dropping to $299, I will most likely own both formats by Christmas. With prices like this, why choose? :)

If you have kids, you'll want BluRay because Disney is exclusive to the format, although I hear the Harry Potter franchise is going to HD-DVD.

A side note, don't buy The Fifth Element yet. The BD transfer sucks (they had it on demo at Fry's, and I concur that the picture quality is crap). They're in the process of remastering it and Sony is offering an exchange for those who already bought it. Remastered version is due out sometime this month.

VPTurner
07-03-2007, 12:00 PM
Incidentally, at some point in the future it may not matter which format you go with today because studios are already planning dual format discs:

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6456115.html

Avoid dual format players for the moment. They may be good at BluRay, but they are crippled with HD-DVD.

And don't forget there is a third format coming online, HD-VMD:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117967471.html?categoryId=2525&cs=1

volswagn
07-05-2007, 10:32 AM
Incidentally, at some point in the future it may not matter which format you go with today because studios are already planning dual format discs

This kills me... How much will they have to compress the picture to get BOTH HD formats on the same disc?? And if there are any additional featurettes and the like, they'll have to compress it even more.

Loud Orange Cat
07-05-2007, 11:16 AM
Isn't it funny how the lousiest quality format almost always wins?

Beta/VHS = VHS
HDDVD/BluRay = (Looks like) BluRay

I've seen both (attached to the same 1080p monitor!) and the BluRay looked horrible.

volswagn
07-05-2007, 11:22 AM
Heh... I guess the chances of the best technology being owned by the company with the biggest promotional muscles and/or money is pretty slim.

Could've been the mastering that was the difference?

mr-modern-life
07-05-2007, 02:07 PM
You say that buy Sony dont have a good track record of wins... UMD, Beta, Mini disk... none of them took off.

I think NEITHER will win..

Loud Orange Cat
07-05-2007, 02:15 PM
UMD, Beta, Mini disk... none of them took off.

I think NEITHER will win..HA! You're right! :lol:

Spatula
07-05-2007, 02:33 PM
Frankly, by the time either formats "catch on", people will be downloading movies from online stores and watching them on their HD computer monitors.

volswagn
07-05-2007, 02:40 PM
Already doing it. Who needs BluRay or HD-DVD when you have USENET and DVRs?

But I do say that when the HD Star Trek Original Series DVDs come out on HD-DVD, I think that is the day I will break down and buy a next-gen player.

As for Sony, I was saying that they didn't quite have the promotional capability to out-muscle the consortium that was backing JVC's VHS format, at least that's what I understood the political situation to be regarding that particular format war.

I think Mini-Disc was a technology that arrived just ahead of its time, and that was just marginally too costly at the time. When Mini-Disc came out, people were still buying CDs instead of using MP3's. The perception at the time was that the Mini-Disc was inferior to the CD because it used "compression" technology. I remember the campaign was such that Sony claimed "we're just removing the stuff you can't really hear anyway," but people weren't buying the "less is more" argument. Mini-Disc also claimed "no skip while jogging," but by that time CD players were available that cached the data and played back from a buffer to eliminate skipping.

Then MP3's happened and people forgot all about sound quality in favor of portability.

Loud Orange Cat
07-05-2007, 02:53 PM
Here's the real story why JVC's technically inferior VHS tape beat out Sony's Beta technology: Pr0n

When the two were released, Sony said NO to distribution of pr0n using Beta. JVC said YES and a new industry was born.

Recently, Sony was asked about licensing Blu-Ray to the 'famous six' pr0n distributors. Sony said NO. The HD-DVD consortium stepped right up and said YES.

Now, you THINK HD-DVD would win this round, right? It's still 50/50 at this time and it looks like Blu-Ray has a slight lead right now (only because of Sony's tie-ins and the PS3 gaming platform push).

It's anyone's game. HD-DVD looks better, but Sony might pull it off by bullying. <shrugs>

volswagn
07-05-2007, 02:55 PM
Here's the real story why JVC's technically inferior VHS tape beat out Sony's Beta technology: Pr0n

You're absolutely right! I had forgotten all about that!

Classic....

Spatula
07-05-2007, 03:40 PM
Now, you THINK HD-DVD would win this round, right? It's still 50/50 at this time and it looks like Blu-Ray has a slight lead right now (only because of Sony's tie-ins and the PS3 gaming platform push).

It's anyone's game. HD-DVD looks better, but Sony might pull it off by bullying. <shrugs>

Pr0n doesn't want HD period, because otherwise they'll have to start naming and giving credit to all the pimples on the herpes-ridden pr0nsters' bottoms.

WideShot
07-05-2007, 03:59 PM
Whichever is the least expensive to produce will win.

VPTurner
07-05-2007, 04:00 PM
This kills me... How much will they have to compress the picture to get BOTH HD formats on the same disc?? And if there are any additional featurettes and the like, they'll have to compress it even more.

They won't. They'll have HD-DVD on one side and Blu-ray on the other.

VPTurner
07-05-2007, 04:22 PM
Already doing it. Who needs BluRay or HD-DVD when you have USENET and DVRs?



Because the bandwidth available for uncompressed audio and high-bitrate video isn't there yet. I've watched HD with my DVR for over two years now, and that quality cannot touch either HD-DVD or Blu-ray.


But I do say that when the HD Star Trek Original Series DVDs come out on HD-DVD, I think that is the day I will break down and buy a next-gen player.

The original Star Trek series barely has enough original bandwidth for standard defition DVDs let alone high-definition. This was a television series meant for broadcast over the airwaves (analog, not digital like today). Analog TV signals are 512 lines for PAL (plus overscan) and 460 lines for NTSC (plus overscan) interlaced. This translates to roughly 720x576 (PAL) or 720x480 (NTSC) maximum resolution. HD-DVD and Blu-ray are at least 720p (1280x720) and at best 1080p (1920x1080) progressive. Studio cameras of the past cannot touch high-definition picture quality of today. What you have on standard definition DVD is the best you're going to get unless you use upconversion. But you still can't add detail that isn't there to begin with.

Standard definition DVDs are running 4-8 Mb (megabits) on average whereas Blu-ray is 42 Mb (HD-DVD is 36Mb), moving up to 10 times more information per second to your television. Try moving 42 Mbits of data on a single channel over your cable or satellite signal. It isn't going to happen anytime soon. And unless you are downloading content over the web that is 10+ Gig in size, it's highly compressed and you're not getting near the quality.

WideShot
07-05-2007, 04:31 PM
Were they for sure shot on studio video cameras?

This page says they were shot on 35mm as were most TV shows of the time (or 16): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060028/technical

And they have been now mastered to HDCAM @ 1080@24p.

I bet they will be gorgeous to watch the way they were shot.

VPTurner
07-05-2007, 04:43 PM
Were they for sure shot on studio video cameras?

This page says they were shot on 35mm as were most TV shows of the time (or 16): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060028/technical

And they have been now mastered to HDCAM @ 1080@24p.

I bet they will be gorgeous to watch the way they were shot.

If they had all of the original film footage and scanned it in high resolution, then that would be fan freaking tastic.

Actually, it looks like they did. Woo hoo! Shows how out of touch I am. I haven't been following recent developments in the original series.

Now I wonder what HD format they'll use to release it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series#Remastered_series

Remastered series

In September 2006, CBS Paramount Television began syndication of an enhanced version of Star Trek: The Original Series in high definition with new state-of-the-art CGI visual effects.[11] These are being done under the supervision of Mike Okuda, technical consultant to the show. All live action footage was scanned in high definition from its original 35 mm film elements, while visual effects shots have been digitally reproduced. Notable changes include new space shots with a CGI Enterprise, and other new models (a Gorn ship is shown in Arena for example), redone matte background shots, and other minor touches such as tidying up viewscreens, etc. A small number of scenes have also been recomposed, and in some cases new actors have been placed into the background of some shots.[12] In addition, the opening and closing music has been re-recorded in digital stereo.

The first episode to be released to syndication was "Balance of Terror" on the weekend of September 16, 2006. Episodes are being released at the rate of about one a week and broadcast in 4:3.

While the CG shots have already been mastered in 16:9 for future applications, they are currently broadcast along with the live action footage in the original 4:3 TV format to respect the show's original composition. If the producers choose to reformat the entire show for 16:9, live action footage would have to be recropped, widening the frame to the full width of the 35 mm negatives while trimming its height by nearly 30%; though this would add a marginal amount of imagery on the sides, much more would need to be eliminated from the top and bottom of the frame to fit.

Loud Orange Cat
07-05-2007, 05:15 PM
They added CGI into the original series?

Did George Lucas have anything to do with that?

...The infamous "Trouble with Tribbles" episode will now feature an extended scene where the tribbles mutate into ewoks...

:lol:

Spatula
07-05-2007, 05:35 PM
sooooooooooooooo coooooooooooooooollll!!!

I want it NOW!!!! Kirk and Spock are my favorites!!!

indietalk
07-05-2007, 05:44 PM
Usually those who keep the rights to themselves and do not license to third parties lose.

Loud Orange Cat
07-05-2007, 08:04 PM
CGI manipulation of existing film is just as deplorable as Ted Turner's colorization of B&W film.

He made Laurel and Hardy green. They looked like they had hepatitis.

mr-modern-life
07-06-2007, 02:31 AM
Porm is why VHS won, Porn is why the internet became so popular and porn WILL decide the format war. But then again can both not win? Can this be a duel format future?

Loud Orange Cat
07-06-2007, 07:35 AM
The public rarely accepts a 'dual format' future as you call it.

Pros:

HD-DVD: Cheap to manufacture, better technical implementation; looks great; inexpensive for consumers; little DRM to mangle things up. Pr0n.
Blu-Ray: Tie-in with Sony PS3

Cons:

HD-DVD: Few takers because Sony is a Hollywood bully.
Blu-Ray: Very expensive to manufacture; questionable technical implementation; Sony admitted they pushed the untested technology out the door just to compete with HD-DVD; questionable video quality; expensive for consumers; "sony proprietary format curse"; Orwellian DRM scheme; no software readers for movies on computers; no pr0n.

Right now, it's still too early to early in the format war. Hollywood is backing Sony for the simple reason they're one of the big six in Hollywood now since they bought MGM/UA and a few other film studios (lots of them minor). Hollywood sticks to their own (Spiderman films, anyone?).

I'll wait it out. I have no rush to buy the biggest, baddest, latest technology. Personally, I hope HD-DVD wins, but it looks like I'm going to be wrong. :(

knightly
07-06-2007, 12:38 PM
... USENET and DVRs?

Because the bandwidth available for uncompressed audio and high-bitrate video isn't there yet. I've watched HD with my DVR for over two years now, and that quality cannot touch either HD-DVD or Blu-ray.


I'm pretty sure that volswagn is referring to downloading and burning them (dvd-r, not dvr)...at least that's what I get from the USENET (NNTP - newsgroups) reference.

I do think that piracy will help determine what format wins as well...either by driving the consumer device end or by making DRM such an important piece of the puzzle to the content creator that it pushes toward the Sony side. With beta/vhs, piracy was something that could happen as easily on either platform, so wasn't as much as an issue...digital copies don't have generational loss, however, so piracy becomes a bigger issue and makes DRM more important.

volswagn
07-06-2007, 03:18 PM
If they had all of the original film footage and scanned it in high resolution, then that would be fan freaking tastic.

Actually, it looks like they did. Woo hoo! Shows how out of touch I am. I haven't been following recent developments in the original series.

Now I wonder what HD format they'll use to release it...

They have already committed to HD-DVD. I am familiar with the different television formats and their limitations. I should've mentioned that the Star Trek: TOS will be a full HD remastered product from the original camera negatives, not just the NTSC versions.

I have read that The Next Generation, DS9 and Voyager will most likely NOT be done in HD because all the special effects and final editing were done on NTSC video. I'm not even sure if the original camera negatives exist or are easy to get. They probably do, but going back and re-imaging all those effects in HD would be quite expensive I'd imagine. Might be worth doing for TNG, but probably not for DS9 or Voyager. :)

volswagn
07-06-2007, 03:22 PM
Usually those who keep the rights to themselves and do not license to third parties lose.

Unless you're Apple, which somehow has managed to make the general public believe they are "thinking differently" when they spend twice the amount of money on hardware than they would otherwise, just because the product "looks cool." First thing Jobs did when he came back is shut the third parties down.

On the flipside, imagine how much software market share Apple could grab if they'd allow their OSX to run on regular old Intel/AMD machines? But noooooo... They want to be a HARDWARE company...

volswagn
07-06-2007, 03:30 PM
I'm pretty sure that volswagn is referring to downloading and burning them (dvd-r, not dvr)...at least that's what I get from the USENET (NNTP - newsgroups) reference.

Right. That's not to say I support "piracy" per se. I am a firm believer that the MPAA and RIAA are punishing some of their best customers. I buy probably 20-30 DVDs a year, plus maybe 3-4 boxed sets. Just because I download a movie or television show doesn't mean I would've bought it. If you put 10 different boxed sets of television shows on a rack and show them to me and say, 'you can have all these for free if you want them," chances are, I'll grab all 10. I might watch one or two of them immediately, and then put 8 in the media case for a later date. Chances are I'll not even get to six of those until years have gone by. Meanwhile, if you put those 10 different shows on the rack again and say, "they're $20 each," I'll probably buy three or four of them. That doesn't mean the extra six or seven are "lost sales" just because I didn't buy them. Not everything is a lost sale. That's what really bugs me about their argument.

Last year my Tivo missed taping an episode of 30 Rock. I went on a bittorrent site to snag it so I could watch it. It's one of my favorite shows, and I had every intention of purchasing the boxed set when it came out.

Turns out NBC/Universal sent a little letter to my local ISP saying they reserved the right to take legal action against me for "hosting" this file for others to share.

You think I'm going to give them my money now? No way in hell.

It's just bad business. The MPAA sees the RIAA and is scared to death. They see the future coming (digital distribution) and they're resisting -- at least on the consumer distribution front. They're catching up with theater digital distribution.

Also, lest you think I don't pay for stuff, I buy every piece of software I find I use regularly (Nero, Photoshop, Windows, WinRAR, Flash FXP, etc.).

I sleep fine at night.

As for DVR, no, I meant Digital Video Recorder. I watch my weekly HD shows off my cable company's HD DVR, and other than that, I have a media center PC that is connected to the television and stream HD stuff off the media server in the basement... No need to burn anything after you grab it from USENET.

Loud Orange Cat
07-06-2007, 04:30 PM
It's just bad business. The MPAA sees the RIAA and is scared to death. They see the future coming (digital distribution) and they're resisting -- at least on the consumer distribution front.They're resisting because the internet as a whole threatens their decades-old ways of doing business and they have no idea how to embrace new technology. I don't think they have one single person on their payroll under 40. Technophobes. Don't get me wrong, I don't HATE the MPAA, but I think the RIAA, by suing their own customers, elderly people who don't know what the internet it, three year old children and DEAD PEOPLE is just wrong. I've read all the articles.

The internet is here to stay, whether they like it or not. They need to adapt or they will go the way of the dodo. Apple embraced it with iTunes and look at them now!!

I don't encourage piracy or theft at all. Everything I possess I have a receipt for. I don't steal. However, there's many others who don't consider downloading stealing.

Laws need to keep up with changing technology. Will that ever happen? No. That's the sad part. :no:

indietalk
07-06-2007, 04:36 PM
Unless you're Apple, which somehow has managed to make the general public believe they are "thinking differently" when they spend twice the amount of money on hardware than they would otherwise, just because the product "looks cool." First thing Jobs did when he came back is shut the third parties down.

On the flipside, imagine how much software market share Apple could grab if they'd allow their OSX to run on regular old Intel/AMD machines? But noooooo... They want to be a HARDWARE company...

Well the ipod didn't take off until they made it Windows compatible, and they also now make dual-OS systems. But yeah, they don't license out their stuff. They tried that, there were some third-party apple computers a few years back.

volswagn
07-06-2007, 05:27 PM
But yeah, they don't license out their stuff. They tried that, there were some third-party apple computers a few years back.

Right. There were at least one or two little manufacturers making some nice Apple-compatible hardware, and it sold well. Probably because it was cheaper than Apple's own hardware. Then Jobs came back and said, "uh uh. No more."

Loud Orange Cat
07-06-2007, 05:37 PM
Steve Jobs hates competition.

Spatula
07-06-2007, 07:43 PM
They're resisting because the internet as a whole threatens their decades-old ways of doing business and they have no idea how to embrace new technology.


I disagree. I think the reason they're holding back is simply... people will pay MORE for a physical object. No one is gonna pay $20 to download a movie from the internet. No one is gonna pay $60 for a special edition download they have to burn themselves. They want something tangible- physical. A "showpiece". Therefore, since they'd have to lower the prices of films downloaded, the profit margins would slip, and they'd have to stop spending 12million dollars to give Ben Affleck his trailer full of hookers.


The internet is here to stay, whether they like it or not. They need to adapt or they will go the way of the dodo. Apple embraced it with iTunes and look at them now!!


For a music album with 12 songs, it'd actually be cheaper to just buy the physical thing- so the recording industry (in it's death throes as it is) would stand to gain a lot from micro-selling online- people think $.99/song is cheap, until they download the WHOLE album and realize they just paid a couple more bucks and don't even have a CD to show for it... whereas films can't exactly be sold "per scene", so having a Physical product would be very important for the "home market". Theatre and Cinemas are an EXPERIENCE, whereas the home-movie collection is just that- a COLLECTION.
What are other things people collect? How about comic books? People don't wanna download a comic book and print them! They want to go out and buy it- hold it, caress it... make love to it.

So that's my point. The industry is resisting the move to online because people pay more for tangible objects.

Loud Orange Cat
07-06-2007, 08:13 PM
For a music album with 12 songs, it'd actually be cheaper to just buy the physical thingSometimes, not always. Here's a good example:

I want to buy THIS (http://www.amazon.com/Love-Life-Hitomi/dp/B00005HQ6K/ref=sr_1_1/002-8240453-8812038?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1183770165&sr=1-1) music CD from Amazon.com. As you can see from the link, it's $41.99. (Ok, I like J-Pop)

From iTunes, it's $12.99.

Yes, this is an extreme example, but when I buy music, I buy it from Second Spin (http://www.secondspin.com/). Sure, I'm buying it used, but I've purchased a CD from them for $1.49. No kidding. I even got free shipping from them on a promo!

While I'm the kind of person who wants to buy physical media like CDs and DVDs, others like the convenience of online purchases. After all, we live in an instant-gratification society thanks to the invent of the internet. We've all become too complacent and "want it now." We've turned ourselves into such a lazy-ass society, we can't remember how to change the oil in our cars and pay for the convenience of having some undocumented alien do it for $2 an hour.

I'm sometimes embarrassed to consider myself a geek. It's not such a good thing sometimes.

//depressed :(

knightly
07-06-2007, 09:05 PM
Right. There were at least one or two little manufacturers making some nice Apple-compatible hardware, and it sold well. Probably because it was cheaper than Apple's own hardware. Then Jobs came back and said, "uh uh. No more."

In that era...I was an apple support technician. My professional experience at that time showed that the clones had so much promise that they simply failed miserable to live up to. Every clone we ever bought just died, hardware failures, not software incompatibilities. They were cheaper because they were made with cheap parts...the cheaper Power Computing machines we had at the publisher I worked for then died repeatedly and ended up costing more in repairs than buying apple hardware as we did for most other machines in the building. The motorola machines (their chip...machine should have been rock solid) were the same story. The clone manufacturers used the components from the PC competition and the lack of quality showed through in spades. I spent 50% of my support time inside those machines with the 15 year old macs plunking away quietly in the corner not bothering anyone.

The licensing for the clones was taken away because exactly what Steve Jobs said would happen did...the machines failed as their manufacturers were more concerned with competition than making a solid product. Apple's macos started to becoming more bloated as they had to support more hardware out of the box and it started looking bad as a result...the machines didn't have that much RAM or HD that they could even address (1Gb max RAM-technically 4Gb but you'd have needed 16 slots for RAM, 4Gb max HD/partition). Apple's image as a simple, elegant machine was tarnished. One of the reasons the iMac was created to look so simplistic and toyish was to bring the image of simplicity back. Gil Amelio missed the target audience thinking the geeks were the ones who wanted apples...fact was the target audience were non-computer people who just wanted a machine that could let them get on the web (new thing) and check e-mail (also new thing) without having to know how to do so.

VPTurner
07-08-2007, 12:59 AM
...

Blu-Ray: no software readers for movies on computers

...


This is not accurate. I have one. It's made by Cyberlink. Intervideo is also up and coming. Granted, the drive it's running on has not yet been released (it's not Sony), but they exist and are coming soon to a store near you.

indietalk
07-08-2007, 03:53 AM
In that era...I was an apple support technician. My professional experience at that time showed that the clones had so much promise that they simply failed miserable to live up to. Every clone we ever bought just died, hardware failures, not software incompatibilities. They were cheaper because they were made with cheap parts...the cheaper Power Computing machines we had at the publisher I worked for then died repeatedly and ended up costing more in repairs than buying apple hardware as we did for most other machines in the building. The motorola machines (their chip...machine should have been rock solid) were the same story. The clone manufacturers used the components from the PC competition and the lack of quality showed through in spades. I spent 50% of my support time inside those machines with the 15 year old macs plunking away quietly in the corner not bothering anyone.

The licensing for the clones was taken away because exactly what Steve Jobs said would happen did...the machines failed as their manufacturers were more concerned with competition than making a solid product. Apple's macos started to becoming more bloated as they had to support more hardware out of the box and it started looking bad as a result...the machines didn't have that much RAM or HD that they could even address (1Gb max RAM-technically 4Gb but you'd have needed 16 slots for RAM, 4Gb max HD/partition). Apple's image as a simple, elegant machine was tarnished. One of the reasons the iMac was created to look so simplistic and toyish was to bring the image of simplicity back. Gil Amelio missed the target audience thinking the geeks were the ones who wanted apples...fact was the target audience were non-computer people who just wanted a machine that could let them get on the web (new thing) and check e-mail (also new thing) without having to know how to do so.

I agree, it's like when Coke changed their formula to taste more like Pepsi. They quicky realized it was a horrible idea, but they recovered well, like Apple did.

Loud Orange Cat
07-08-2007, 09:03 AM
This is not accurate. I have one. It's made by Cyberlink. Intervideo is also up and coming. Granted, the drive it's running on has not yet been released (it's not Sony), but they exist and are coming soon to a store near you.It's about time they released a software player. HD-DVD released one the day their player was originally released, but Blu-Ray didn't immediately have one. I'm glad to see they've come to their senses. :lol:

VPTurner
07-27-2007, 09:58 AM
It looks like Blu-ray is starting to gain the upper hand with retailer and rental house exclusives even though HD DVD continues to get exclusive earlier releases (e.g. Star Trek OS - it will hit Blu-ray, just not initially like The Matrix trilogy). The Close Encounters exclusive to Blu-ray (for me, at least) is a big deal so I'm glad I chose Blu-ray for now. There is really nothing "must have" out there in HD-DVD yet that I don't already own on SD DVD.

http://www.blu-ray.com/

And I am really looking forward to this release. All five versions of Bladerunner:

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=352

Spielberg embracing Blu-ray? Maybe not. I read somewhere that Sony supposedly paid him $700 million to release it on Blu-ray

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Sony/Disc_Announcements/Spielberg_to_Hit_High-Def_With_Close_Encounters_Blu-ray/812

On a side note regarding quality differences between HD-DVD and Blu-ray, I've watched close to twenty movies on Blu-ray now, and they all look and sound amazing. I'd be real curious what titles are being referenced where quality is supposedly crap on Blu-ray. The Fifth Element was an exception because it was poorly mastered. The remastered version hit the shelves this month. I agree, that film transfer was crap. It wasn't the format to blame, though.

VPTurner
08-20-2007, 04:26 PM
Wow. This announcement could definitely change the playing field:

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-19015486.htm

freezer
08-21-2007, 01:43 AM
Regarding the quality differences between HD-DVD and Blu-ray:
That is not an isue of the medium (both of them are perfectly capable of delivering good quality) but an authoring problem only. If the authoring studio makes bad encodings or uses bad sources or even does an up-rez only there's no wonder you see badly compressed images. Just remember the Fifth Element DVD - it was one of the first to be on DVD and it looked horrible. Seems they tried the same with it on Blu-ray...

VPTurner
08-21-2007, 09:05 AM
Regarding the quality differences between HD-DVD and Blu-ray:
That is not an isue of the medium (both of them are perfectly capable of delivering good quality) but an authoring problem only. If the authoring studio makes bad encodings or uses bad sources or even does an up-rez only there's no wonder you see badly compressed images. Just remember the Fifth Element DVD - it was one of the first to be on DVD and it looked horrible. Seems they tried the same with it on Blu-ray...

They did, but the remastered edition hit the shelves in July. I have that version. The remastered disc has a Dolby True HD audio track. Sony offered a free exhange for those who got the crappy edition.

I suspect we'll be stuck with both formats for awhile. 20th Century Fox and MGM reiterated their support for Blu-ray yesterday, with 29 new titles planned by the end of the year:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/pressrelease_fox2007bluray.html

I will no doubt have an HD-DVD player to compliment my PS3 by Christmas if this trend continues.

MattMiller
01-08-2008, 03:50 PM
Back to the whole HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray thing...

Blu-Ray is the wiser choice since it is capable of holding significantly MORE data than HD-DVD. At this point, its all a matter of what codec they're encoding the movies in and what the bitrate is. Why Blu-Ray looks like ass sometimes is beyond me. I've seen both formats go both ways. I blame idiocy. :)

VPTurner
01-08-2008, 09:23 PM
Back to the whole HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray thing...

Blu-Ray is the wiser choice since it is capable of holding significantly MORE data than HD-DVD. At this point, its all a matter of what codec they're encoding the movies in and what the bitrate is. Why Blu-Ray looks like ass sometimes is beyond me. I've seen both formats go both ways. I blame idiocy. :)

I guess you missed the other thread. HD-DVD is just about dead and buried now.

And I have both formats now, and I can tell you there is no visible quality difference in any of the movies I've watched so far. Transformers on HD-DVD looks and sounds just as good as Spiderman 3 on Blu-ray. You're right. It's about the encoding. Blu-ray may be higher capacity and higher bitrate capable, but they're not really doing much extra to take advantage of it yet. They only as of October 31st got to BD-J 1.1 where they finally have mandatory functionality that HD-DVD had for awhile already.

More up to date discssion here:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=11937

mr-modern-life
01-09-2008, 11:10 AM
Blu ray is by far the worst format. But Sony had to win one eventually!!!

Thunderclap
01-09-2008, 11:56 AM
Blu ray is by far the worst format. But Sony had to win one eventually!!!

I don't know if it's the worst format. What I don't like about Blu-Ray is all the different profiles. First we had 1.0, now 1.1 and later this summer 2.0 is coming out. Then there is the security: BR vs BR+. The current budget players are all profile 1.0 and can't be upgraded. The moderate and expensive players are profile 1.1 which also can't be upgraded. The only upgradeable and player is the PS3 which is why I ended up buying one to replace the HD-DVD player.

Almondo99
01-11-2008, 07:09 PM
Is it really over though? The high-def market isn't very large and DVD sales are larger than both formats. I hope HD DVD can pull through, because despite less disc space it delivers the same quality and has cheaper players. If the point of blu-ray's larger disc size is to have everything on one disc, why is Superbad on two?