Slashdot Log In
Blu-ray vs. HD DVD Round Two
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Sep 10, 2006 04:23 PM
from the i-coulda-been-a-contender dept.
from the i-coulda-been-a-contender dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A second set of four movies are now available on both high-def disc formats, allowing for another set of head-to-head comparisons — and unlike last month's first round comparisons, Blu-ray fared much better this time. In fact, in comparing Warner's four latest Blu-ray disc releases ('Firewall,' 'Lethal Weapon,' 'Blazing Saddles' and 'Full Metal Jacket') to their HD DVD predecessors, High-Def Digest found three of the four titles to be more or less at picture quality parity. The key difference between these titles and Warner's Blu-ray launch titles last month? On all three of the titles receiving high marks, Warner switched from using the MPEG-2 compression codec to VC-1, which the studio has been using from the start on its counterpart HD DVD releases."
Related Stories
[+]
HD DVD vs Blu-ray Direct Comparisons 423 comments
An anonymous reader writes "With today's release of three movies on Blu-ray, Warner Home Video has become the first studio to release movie titles on both high-def formats, making it finally possible to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the same titles on both formats . High-Def Digest has just posted reviews of all three titles — 'Training Day,' 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' and 'Rumor Has It' — comparing video, audio and extras to the previous HD DVD releases. Their verdict? Due to issues with image cropping, audio selection and supplemental features on the Blu-ray discs, the HD DVD versions win this first face-off."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
compelling (me not to buy) (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
Aside from the mere annoyance factor, this is either the blessing or the curse of HD (generic) DVD, and HD TV in general. It is tiresome to see a bad picture and go through the script:
Also, from the article:
WTH? "(F)irmware upgrade" is fast becoming a permanent part of the consumer electronics lexicon?!? Gosh, I hope not! That just means more "consumer support" I have to do. Aside from general consumers not having any idea what firmware is (nor should they have to), the notion of "modding" their units, even under the aegis of "fixing" something is foreign, and frightening to them.
And, now there's a battle brewing over the appropriate codec? Again, WTH? So now we have 2 competing hardware formats, and at least 2 codecs? Are the studios going to ship with a version of each codec? Are all of our players going to be compatible (sans firmware hoops)?
All of this roiling, and a missing piece of the reviews and comparisons. How do these new formats and codecs hold up to and compare with the workhorse DVD of today? Considering today's DVDs have matured quite well, no hassle, no muss, no fuss, it'd be nice to know if the new expensive, complex, and not yet settled new DVD technology is even worth the bother.... Right now, for most, I'm guessing it's not.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not going to blow a few grand on HDTV/BluRay-HD-DVD/etc. when there is real chance the stuff I buy will NEVER work properly. This while DRM crippled HDTV fiasco is more of a pain in the ass than I will ever be willing to deal with. Get treated like a criminal, and have to PAY for the privledge? - Not a chance.
Re:compelling (me not to buy) (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
For $60 divx DVD players updates are common. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how long before the all the new "dvd"s come out with software to OVERWRITE any firmware on your system that isn't "official"?
It will happen, I will bet my lunch money on it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There's three (video) codecs, and yes, for a unit to be bluray/hddvd compatible it has to support them all. hddvd units have to have two decompressors, also.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TV has not really been all that great about progress until this decade. Before that, it seems to me the only MAJOR upgrade from the original TV in terms of picture was mainly from b/w->color, and then perhaps digital cable/satellite. I welcome more rapid progress.
But yeah, they should clarify resolution with the same numbers used in computer monitor displays, such as 1280x960. 480p, EDTV, 540p, etcetera does not tell me much and isn't intuitive. But anyone can see 1280
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>But anyone can see 1280x960 is better than 640x480 which is better than 320x240.
which is why i'm sticking to the 'next gen hardware' I already have - ie my laptop - anyone can see that 1680x1050
Re:I'm not buying either (Score:5, Insightful)
That is pretty hard to see from my viewpoint. HD formats include 1080p which in fact is 1920 x 1080.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm not buying either (Score:4, Insightful)
Console gaming is all about the social gaming experience. You aren't hunched over a monitor. You are on the couch with your buddies showing off that 60" plasma TV. That is what sells HD to the gamer.
Parent
Re:I'm not buying either (Score:5, Informative)
But yeah, they should clarify resolution with the same numbers used in computer monitor displays, such as 1280x960. 480p, EDTV, 540p, etcetera does not tell me much and isn't intuitive. But anyone can see 1280x960 is better than 640x480 which is better than 320x240.
480i = 640x480, 704x480, or, in the case of DVD, 720x480, interlaced
480p = 640x480, 704x480, or, in the case of DVD, 720x480, progressive.
540p = 960x540, progressive (1/4 of 1080p)
720p = 1280x720, progressive.
1080i = 1920x1080, interlaced.
1080p = 1920x1080, progressive.
1080p at 60 frames/sec is outside of the ATSC spec, but I think the HDDVD and BD formats support it.... don't quote me. 540p is also outside of the ATSC spec.
Within the ATSC spec, all of the interlaced modes are 30 frames/sec. The progressive modes (except 1080p) can be 24, 30 or 60 frames/sec. 1080p can be 24 or 30 frames/sec.
The thing to note is that except for the 480 modes, the pixels are square. For this reason, you can use the Y value (540, 720, 1080) and multiply it by 16/9 (the aspect ratio of the screen) to get the X value.
Now, my challenge to you: Which is higher resolution, 1920x1080 or 1600x1200? You may not use a calculator.
By comparison, which is higher resolution, 1080p or 720p? You won't need a calculator.
Parent
Picture quality (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Picture quality (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd sooner see comparisons on other aspects of the technology, such as the durability of Blu-Ray compared to HD-DVD.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
H.264 is typically better than VC-1, and Blu-ray can fit ~66% more bits per layer. By any reasonable comparison, Blu-ray will come out on top.
However, if the studios don't take advantage of the medium, and ship the same bits on both discs, the result is obvious. Since they both come with DRM though, that means I will get no picture at all, so it hardly matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong! All codecs support varying bitrates, and for a given codec a higher bitrate always equals higher picture quality. The point of the physical medium is to hold enough data to support a high bitrate. Blu-Ray holds 66% more than HD-DVD, so it should have a leg up in picture quality.
Anyways, these standards (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) do not just specify the physical media, they include the codecs as well. But since they support the same
Re: (Score:2)
Blazing saddles review (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The above line says it all as far as how I feel about HD movies (except that I feel that way about all movies, not just 35-yr-old ones). High-definition picture would be a bonus if tv/movies were an immersive medium, but I don't see them as such; to me, tv and movies are a *storytelling* medium, not an immersive medium.
Woo! Hi-def Chloe from "24"! (Score:5, Interesting)
But seriously. As much as I love Chloe and her big-screen clone, Firewall? Who the fuck do they think would be rushing out to buy this as an example of the best in high-definition viewing? "Guys! Come round to my house to watch a mediocre Harrison Ford thriller, 90% of which takes place in such exotic locations as a house and an office - in high-def!" I bet that shitty in-car greenscreen work in the last 20 minutes looks fantastic in HD...
From the lame selection of movies - in both HD-DVD and BR - so far, it's obvious that the studios are either shit-scared about eating into the profit margin of their DVD ranges, or really couldn't give a crap about HD and have been forced into launching it by the suits.
No a much better question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Too few movies (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Won't need. Current DVD produce is fine.
2) Can't afford. Bring prices down for HD TVs, HD cable boxes, HD cable, HD players, etc.
3) Don't want. *cough* DRM *cough* and too few selections for movies, currently anyway.
I watch movies for the content and story, NOT for the blemishes on the actors faces. My 19" screens and standard DVDs are good enough. That said, HD is good for sporting events. That's all I'd use it for.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not if you appreciate the higher resolution video. (Some people do.)
You can get HDTVs for $800 (32" LCD) or less. I think you can get 30" CRT HDTVs for $500 or less. Considering they're all widescreen, they're pretty nice even if you only want to watch DVDs.
Digital Cable here with one HD receiver (plus analog for evey other tv) cost less
Awesome! (Score:3, Insightful)
(disclaimer: yes, I'm being sarcastic)
Still waiting for HVD (Score:2)
I don't think the adopters are there in quantity to push either standard into common acceptance beyond a laserdisc level.
Either that, or perhaps movies will be
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Music CDs aren't a good comparison. First, CD quality encoding is high enough that I've only met one, maybe two people who can tell the difference between it and any higher quality of music. Both of the two I know had very good hearing above 20khz. That's why the wav format it uses hasn't been replaced yet. As to the medium of the CD itself. For music at that quality, you don't need anything more for 99.99%
Yawwwnnn. (Score:4, Interesting)
They have managed to so utterly confuse the average consumer, that people actually flock to best buy and ask the advice of the A/V *cough* "experts" over there.
HD-DVD / Bluray isn't about **ing movies, its just a high density dvd player (hopefully with more data / computer applications than the dinky junk they are going to cram onto the next hollywood trash movie).
Then we come to HDTV.... even more confusing video format that means:
A friggin resolution of 1920x1080 (I think)
some DRM
DVI
The industry seems to think if they can thouroughly confuse the consumer... they can probably also convince him/her to change his/her entire Home Theatre setup.
I bet in less than a year's time, there is going to be some new HDTV surround sound requirement that will force everyone to replace their current dolby digital sound / speakers in order to truely enjoy hdtv sound.
I also have a question... this thing about 32bit vista not being able to produce true HD resolution with movies.... is that some kind of joke? My computer can already play that resolution, what gives? Is the encoding of the movie that cpu hungry?
I'm sorry.. obviously I'll be marked as a troll... but I find this so frustrating. The arsenal of buzzwords is starting to get to me. For gods sake.. can't I just use bluray to back-up my files? I don't care about movies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that Hollywood can do that (Score:3, Informative)
XP users can use hardware decoding, but that requires a copy protection-compliant video card and monitor.
Melissa
Framerate (Score:2)
High Motion (Score:3, Interesting)
IMAX can use 48 fps. Apparently the first two movies shot with the 70 mm Todd-AO format were done with 30 fps (Around the World in Eighty Days, and Oklahoma!), but after that they switched to the more conventional 24 fps.
One new proposed film format with 48 fps is MaxiVision48 [geocities.com]. Showscan [showscan.com] is done at 60 fps. I'm pretty doubtful that a new film-based format can take off, because of the high
This is such a bogus fight! (Score:2, Interesting)
Stop these pointless comparisons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but data-heavy signals such as audio and video exhaust disc storage easily depending on the quality of the signal versus the level of compression. The enlarged capacity of the new discs enables for the creation of new formats. You can consider picture quality and audio quality to depend on the size of the disk, so this is a natural trait of the format.
Of course the quality can vary depending on the mastering techniques. A DVD can contain video quality far inferior to that of VHS if that is the co
data storage (Score:2)
----
http://world4.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=47010 693 [monstersgame.co.uk]
The Real Winner is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Wars!? Star Trek!? Matrix trilogy!? (Score:5, Insightful)
So then why not Star Trek or the Matrix trilogy? Why not sell movies that cater to geeks whom I'd be willing to bet would spend hard currency on? I'm thinking ST Nemesis or ST Voyager...something recently filmed with film capable of superseeding high def.
I find the current selection appalling and find it ludicrous that they think a movie three decades old is going to really benefit from high def.
Maybe even Battlestar Galactica 2003 mini-series and on?
If you want to sell your latest widget they why use mediocre stock? From what I've seen, I see no reason to dump a couple pay checks on a new player and TV. I'm not going to dump a couple grand to watch Hitch and 50 First Dates in super-mega-awesome format.
Coming soon: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington on HD DVD; Citizen Kane on Blu Ray; and Casablanca Extendend Edition on HD DVD with 84 hours of unseen footage. OH PLEASE, gimme a break from your marketers!
Porn Should NEVER Be High Def (Score:5, Insightful)
The LAST thing porn needs is High Definition. Nobody needs to see every pimple (or, heaven forbid - genital wart) on a porn actresses body. Ditto for surgery-based stretch marks and razor burn.
Porn, like Playboy, benefits from a soft lens.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I figure this is the perfect crowd to ask (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Although that might not please you if you have a 16:9 TV...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's just elitist of me, but I can't stand a picture being out of aspect ratio. I would rather see black bars than see people with oblong heads.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite so. Most of them were shot to negative at 1.37:1 (which is 4.11:3) on 35mm, typically with an Arriflex camera. This was a fairly popular format (and camera). The negative image was then cropped to print at 1.66:1 (5:3), wider than 4:3 but not quite "wide screen". The relatively light weight of the Arriflex made it easier to get some of the unique shots that Kubrick was known for.
At least
Why VC-1? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why VC-1? (Score:4, Informative)
While VC-1 (formerly known as VC-9, the Windows Media 9 (WMV3) codec) has been submitted to SMPTE, VC-1 is still not open, and must still go through the patent pool process, which itself is being administered by MPEG LA [mpegla.com].
While WMV3 is an arguably good codec, Microsoft worked hard to get it into things like Blu-ray and HD-DVD, so that it could be in a position to get people to use it as the codec for HD content. Since VC-1 is nothing more than Windows Media Video 9, I guess I don't blame them for wanting it to be everywhere. Then all of a sudden, the same content can easily be repurposed for other things, and work extremely well with other Microsoft- and Windows Media-based products. Genius, on their part.
For what it's worth, H.264 is generally [wisc.edu] seen as similar in quality and functionality (and better in some ways) than VC-1; it's the official next-generation successor to the MPEG family of video codecs.
And no, to reiterate what's been said elsewhere, H.264 is NOT "Apple's codec". Apple uses and promotes it, but it's hardly "Apple's codec". It's an open international standard that is already heavily used in DTV/HDTV and satellite TV, and is being deployed in more industrial and commercial video equipment every day. Why? Because it's open, and didn't stem from one company. (If anything, Apple's involvement was to pressure MPEG LA to actually have reasonable [com.com] licensing [com.com], so that it would also be able to actually be useful to individual users instead of just commercial users and equipment OEMs, which was positive for everyone involved.)
If people are switching to VC-1 instead of H.264, given that it's not open and came 100% out of Microsoft (and indeed is nothing more than WMV3 plus Windows Media Audio (WMA), you can believe Microsoft has likely had involvement. Every VC-1 user is a huge win for Microsoft and a blow to already-open MPEG standards.
Parent
VC1 has been an open standard since 4/06 (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Microsoft is one of the patent holders of H.264.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While VC-1 (formerly known as VC-9, the Windows Media 9 (WMV3) codec) has been submitted to SMPTE, VC-1 is still not open, and must still go through the patent pool process, which itself is being administered by MPEG LA.
VC-1 is a SMPTE standard. VC-1 is