Consumer Reports Gets It Right - Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are Equal

[mtrycrafts]

I should have taken more time to explain my point. I am not surprised that they judged PQ equal. But there is a lot more to it than that even if it is true that all BDs and all HD-DVD's are equal in PQ. My personal reason for tipping toward BD is in my sig. One of the hats I wear at my company is IT and I loathe the idea of Microsoft getting a bigger foothold in A/V.

Don't forget we are talking hi def picture quality. SD reproduction does vary as the test shows.

As to your disliking Microsoft, that is a different issue and has nothing to do with performance of hi def players, one way or the other.

 

[Gasman]

Discuss "Consumer Reports Gets It Right - Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are Equal"

Psst, don't let dobyblue hear you say that.
Certainly BD is superior (in all ways).

And this comes from a fellow (me) that owns both......
(add a PS3 to my inventory, since so many fanboys conclude it is the pinnacle of BD)

 

[pepar]

Don't forget we are talking hi def picture quality. SD reproduction does vary as the test shows.

As to your disliking Microsoft, that is a different issue and has nothing to do with performance of hi def players, one way or the other.

No, of course not the performance. It's just to illustrate that there are other factors involved in one's decision on what to buy besides the CR conclusion on PQ.

 

[henk53]

Well, that may be the common sense but just because one has more storage doesn't mean the encoded file on one has a higher bit rate than the other, right?

It indeed does not mean that, and in fact in practice it appears multi-format titles are encoded only once, for the lowest common denominator. However it does not -have- to be that way, and whichever format allows for more storage could potentially have a better PQ. The reviewer made it sound like VC-1 is always VC-1 no matter what, which is of course not the case.

It's just sad the bitrate advantage isn't really exploited for most titles. Perhaps we'll see 'superbit' releases later on for BR.

(superbit was a series of titles released on DVD without the extras and with increased bit rate)

 

[no. 5]

It indeed does not mean that, and in fact in practice it appears multi-format titles are encoded only once, for the lowest common denominator. However it does not -have- to be that way, and whichever format allows for more storage could potentially have a better PQ. The reviewer made it sound like VC-1 is always VC-1 no matter what, which is of course not the case.

It's just sad the bitrate advantage isn't really exploited for most titles. Perhaps we'll see 'superbit' releases later on for BR.

(superbit was a series of titles released on DVD without the extras and with increased bit rate)

Form what I have read, both formats typically run at the same bitrate. Of course, Blu-ray has the capacity for a higher bitrate, but if they both have stunning (and identical) video quality, how much better could you possibly want it?

 

[solomr2]

Form what I have read, both formats typically run at the same bitrate. Of course, Blu-ray has the capacity for a higher bitrate, but if they both have stunning (and identical) video quality, how much better could you possibly want it?

Well, you can't really answer that question without seeing the PQ from a disc encoded with the highest bitrate. Only then can you say with any degree of certainty whether a higher bitrate looks better than the lower bitrate.

But I think the type of transfer used on the disc is really key. I've seen some poor HD/BD transfers and they really aren't even worth the price of a regular SD disc. I think it basically comes down to the individual disc. I'm hoping that over time these things will improve as the studios get better gear and better experience with the process. But only time will tell.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I've seen some poor HD/BD transfers and they really aren't even worth the price of a regular SD disc. .

Yes, we remember the movie 5th Element that had to be re-released in a better codec rate

 

[mtrycrafts]

Perhaps we'll see 'superbit' releases later on for BR.

Is this something that will happen or hoped for?

 

[Gasman]

Yes, we remember the movie 5th Element that had to be re-released

As well, Full Metal Jacket (on both formats)

 

[Joe Schmoe]

But I think the type of transfer used on the disc is really key. I've seen some poor HD/BD transfers and they really aren't even worth the price of a regular SD disc. I think it basically comes down to the individual disc. I'm hoping that over time these things will improve as the studios get better gear and better experience with the process. But only time will tell.

Exactly. A really good transfer will look great (even in standard def.) By contrast, a poor transfer will not benefit from the hi def format.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Psst, don't let dobyblue hear you say that.
Certainly BD is superior (in all ways).

And this comes from a fellow (me) that owns both......
(add a PS3 to my inventory, since so many fanboys conclude it is the pinnacle of BD)

They both look exactly the same, but BD is superior in sound. That's all there is to it.

 

[GlocksRock]

I think they are both able to sound the same, but blurays advantage is higher capacity so that a lossless audio track, or several losless audio tracks as the case may be, can fit on a disc, whereas on HD DVD space is limited so the best you may get is Dolby Digital Plus. But I think good quality audio has more to do with how it's mastered than it does with compression, seeing as how Live Free or Die Hard's DTS core audio track is said to be better than some uncompressed PCM tracks.

 

[Electone]

They both look exactly the same, but BD is superior in sound. That's all there is to it.

How is BD "superior" in sound? Both formats use the exact same encodes. Although BD has more titles with linear PCM soundtracks, there is no evidence that it sounds any better than Dolby True HD or DTS MA lossless. If you are saying that BD has released more films with better sound encodes, then perhaps your statement could carry some weight, but BD is in no way superior in sound quality to HD DVD.

 

[solomr2]

Exactly. A really good transfer will look great (even in standard def.) By contrast, a poor transfer will not benefit from the hi def format.

Indeed, and in fact a high def format of a poor transfer may actually look even worse since the finer details revealed by hi def TVs will usually be more noticable.

 

[solomr2]

How is BD "superior" in sound? Both formats use the exact same encodes. Although BD has more titles with linear PCM soundtracks, there is no evidence that it sounds any better than Dolby True HD or DTS MA lossless. If you are saying that BD has released more films with better sound encodes, then perhaps your statement could carry some weight, but BD is in no way superior in sound quality to HD DVD.

I think his point may have been as GlocksRock pointed out, that since it has greater capacity there is more room for loss-less audio tracks, should the studios wish to use it. But unfortunately, most studios are not taking advantage of it just yet. Maybe this will change.

I've said from the beginning that I favor BD in the format war simply because it has higher capacity. In the end, the capacity limitation will pretty much force the obsolescence of all storage mediums... it has always been and will always be. Setting a standard on an already obsolete technology may be good for the corporate coffers, who will benefit from recycling technology every few years, but it's bad for the consumer.

 

[Electone]

I think his point may have been as GlocksRock pointed out, that since it has greater capacity there is more room for loss-less audio tracks, should the studios wish to use it. But unfortunately, most studios are not taking advantage of it just yet. Maybe this will change.

I've said from the beginning that I favor BD in the format war simply because it has higher capacity. In the end, the capacity limitation will pretty much force the obsolescence of all storage mediums... it has always been and will always be. Setting a standard on an already obsolete technology may be good for the corporate coffers, who will benefit from recycling technology every few years, but it's bad for the consumer.

Well then, I guess BD's now inferior storage capacity (50gb 2-layer) compared to HD DVD's new 51gb triple layer will be BD's demise...

 

[solomr2]

Well then, I guess BD's now inferior storage capacity (50gb 2-layer) compared to HD DVD's new 51gb triple layer will be BD's demise...

I understand you're joking, at least I think you are. But I think this is going to be a problem for Toshiba and HD DVD because those millions of dual-layer players being sold at Wally World won't be able to read the third layer on these new discs.

That may explain why prices on HD DVD players have been falling so precipitously. When the new 3-layer players come out, we'll see if HD DVD can continue to put pricing pressure on BD.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I understand you're joking, at least I think you are. But I think this is going to be a problem for Toshiba and HD DVD because those millions of dual-layer players being sold at Wally World won't be able to read the third layer on these new discs.

That may explain why prices on HD DVD players have been falling so precipitously. When the new 3-layer players come out, we'll see if HD DVD can continue to put pricing pressure on BD.

Perhaps this can be solved with a firm ware update as so many other issues are.

 

[j_garcia]

Perhaps this can be solved with a firm ware update as so many other issues are.

I read it was a hardware issue, so I don't think firmware will solve it. That is why it isn't on the market yet.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I read it was a hardware issue, so I don't think firmware will solve it. That is why it isn't on the market yet.

Then it would be a focusing issue most likely that may be limited with current laser lenses?