mtrycrafts Seriously, I have no life. Aug 19, 2004 23,546 0 113 Nov 23, 2007 #41 pepar said: 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. Click to expand... 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.
pepar said: 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. Click to expand... 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.
G Gasman Senior Audioholic Aug 29, 2007 562 0 0 A hop, skip, & jump from Stratman :p Nov 23, 2007 #42 admin said: Discuss "Consumer Reports Gets It Right - Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are Equal" Click to expand... 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) Last edited: Nov 23, 2007
admin said: Discuss "Consumer Reports Gets It Right - Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are Equal" Click to expand... 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 Junior Audioholic Feb 13, 2004 71 0 0 York, PA Nov 23, 2007 #43 mtrycrafts said: 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. Click to expand... 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.
mtrycrafts said: 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. Click to expand... 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 Audiophyte Nov 23, 2007 2 0 0 Nov 24, 2007 #44 mtrycrafts said: 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? Click to expand... 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)
mtrycrafts said: 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? Click to expand... 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 Audioholic Field Marshall Oct 19, 2006 1,859 0 83 wisconsin!? Nov 24, 2007 #45 henk53 said: 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) Click to expand... 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?
henk53 said: 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) Click to expand... 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 Full Audioholic Mar 17, 2007 315 0 0 Paradise Nov 24, 2007 #46 no. 5 said: 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? Click to expand... 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. Reactions: no. 5
no. 5 said: 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? Click to expand... 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 Seriously, I have no life. Aug 19, 2004 23,546 0 113 Nov 24, 2007 #47 solomr2 said: I've seen some poor HD/BD transfers and they really aren't even worth the price of a regular SD disc. . Click to expand... Yes, we remember the movie 5th Element that had to be re-released in a better codec rate
solomr2 said: I've seen some poor HD/BD transfers and they really aren't even worth the price of a regular SD disc. . Click to expand... Yes, we remember the movie 5th Element that had to be re-released in a better codec rate
mtrycrafts Seriously, I have no life. Aug 19, 2004 23,546 0 113 Nov 24, 2007 #48 henk53 said: Perhaps we'll see 'superbit' releases later on for BR. Click to expand... Is this something that will happen or hoped for?
henk53 said: Perhaps we'll see 'superbit' releases later on for BR. Click to expand... Is this something that will happen or hoped for?
G Gasman Senior Audioholic Aug 29, 2007 562 0 0 A hop, skip, & jump from Stratman :p Nov 24, 2007 #49 mtrycrafts said: Yes, we remember the movie 5th Element that had to be re-released Click to expand... As well, Full Metal Jacket (on both formats)
mtrycrafts said: Yes, we remember the movie 5th Element that had to be re-released Click to expand... As well, Full Metal Jacket (on both formats)
J Joe Schmoe Audioholic Ninja Dec 19, 2006 3,051 0 0 Nov 26, 2007 #50 solomr2 said: 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. Click to expand... 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.
solomr2 said: 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. Click to expand... 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 Audioholic Jedi Jul 10, 2007 34,056 0 113 Nov 26, 2007 #51 Gasman said: 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) Click to expand... They both look exactly the same, but BD is superior in sound. That's all there is to it.
Gasman said: 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) Click to expand... They both look exactly the same, but BD is superior in sound. That's all there is to it.
GlocksRock Audioholic Spartan Oct 28, 2005 6,275 0 113 Charlotte, NC Nov 26, 2007 #52 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.
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.
E Electone Audioholic Jan 12, 2005 162 0 18 Nov 26, 2007 #53 AcuDefTechGuy said: They both look exactly the same, but BD is superior in sound. That's all there is to it. Click to expand... 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.
AcuDefTechGuy said: They both look exactly the same, but BD is superior in sound. That's all there is to it. Click to expand... 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 Full Audioholic Mar 17, 2007 315 0 0 Paradise Nov 26, 2007 #54 Joe Schmoe said: 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. Click to expand... 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.
Joe Schmoe said: 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. Click to expand... 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 Full Audioholic Mar 17, 2007 315 0 0 Paradise Nov 26, 2007 #55 Electone said: 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. Click to expand... 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 said: 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. Click to expand... 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.
E Electone Audioholic Jan 12, 2005 162 0 18 Nov 29, 2007 #56 solomr2 said: 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. Click to expand... 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 said: 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. Click to expand... 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 Full Audioholic Mar 17, 2007 315 0 0 Paradise Nov 29, 2007 #57 Electone said: 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... Click to expand... 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.
Electone said: 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... Click to expand... 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 Seriously, I have no life. Aug 19, 2004 23,546 0 113 Nov 29, 2007 #58 solomr2 said: 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. Click to expand... Perhaps this can be solved with a firm ware update as so many other issues are.
solomr2 said: 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. Click to expand... Perhaps this can be solved with a firm ware update as so many other issues are.
j_garcia Audioholic Jedi Jul 11, 2005 32,531 0 113 Nov 29, 2007 #59 mtrycrafts said: Perhaps this can be solved with a firm ware update as so many other issues are. Click to expand... 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 said: Perhaps this can be solved with a firm ware update as so many other issues are. Click to expand... 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 Seriously, I have no life. Aug 19, 2004 23,546 0 113 Nov 29, 2007 #60 j_garcia said: 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. Click to expand... Then it would be a focusing issue most likely that may be limited with current laser lenses?
j_garcia said: 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. Click to expand... Then it would be a focusing issue most likely that may be limited with current laser lenses?
