HD-DVD VS BluRay - 3 titles in both formats head on.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 1, 2006, 3:56 pm

http://www.highdefdigest.com/feature_bl ... rison.html

And these guys say that the HD-DVD version on all 3 movies is better than the BluRay version.

Training Day Review wrote:Whatever its merits as a film, 'Training Day' has made history by becoming one of the first titles to be released on both the Blu-ray and HD DVD formats. In our first head-to-head comparison, we found the HD DVD to be superior. The unfortunate cropping of the Blu-ray image, coupled with more noticeable compression artifacts and an overall darker cast, can't compete with the more consistently pleasing presentation of the HD DVD. Also a strike against the Blu-ray version is that both the Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital-Plus soundtracks have been dropped in favor of plain old Dolby Digital, and even the disc's menu navigation is more clunky and with less interactive functionality. Certainly, this Blu-ray release delivers fine video quality in its own right, but the format's backers will need to step it up if they are going to win the hearts and minds of early adopters over HD DVD.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang review wrote:
With our second Blu-ray versus HD DVD battle on 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang,' we again declare victory (although by a smaller margin) to the HD DVD verison. Most of the same problems we found with 'Training Day' on Blu-ray -- namely the picture cropping (though it is likely a player issue) and darker cast -- reappear again here. The absence of HD DVD's Dolby Digital-Plus tracks on Blu-ray is problematic, and I still find Blu-ray's clunky menu navigation quite irritating. Though with 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' Blu-ray has proven it can deliver moments of stunning high-def as good as HD DVD, it is still not delivering that level of quality as consistently. Very close with this one, but still no cigar.

Rumor has it... review wrote:I must say, our first Blu-ray versus HD DVD comparisons continue to yield surprises. I wasn't expecting to see much difference in video quality between the two formats with 'Rumor Has It...', yet the two discs did bear noticeable differences, with the HD DVD boasting better detail and a more film-like look. And Warner has again dropped the Dolby Digital-Plus option from the Blu-ray version. However, the Blu-ray is a good $5 cheaper than the pricey $39.95 list price the studio is charging for the HD DVD/DVD combo version, so at least Blu-ray has that going for it. But even with its higher list price, in this reviewer's opinion, the HD DVD release delivers overall better bang for the buck.

And here's the gear they used for all 3 reviews.
http://www.highdefdigest.com/gear.html
And a disclaimer for the Samsung BluRay player

As originally reported by The Digital Bits, some users have experienced poor image quality when viewing Blu-ray discs on the Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-ray disc player when connected via the deck's HDMI output. Apparently these problems, including decreased resolution and diluted color reproduction, are largely corrected when switching to the BD-P1000's component outputs. A recent report from A/V magazine The Perfect Vision has confirmed that both Samsung and Sony are aware of the issue, and the problem most likely stems from a faulty internal scaler chip in the BD-P1000. Samsung is reportedly working to fix the problem on future shipments of the unit, and also plans to issue a firmware upgrade to correct the problem on current players.

It'll be interesting to see if subsequent movies results will consistantly be like this.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 1, 2006, 4:02 pm

Cropping is an issue with the player, menu navigation and sound features is 100% the responsibility of the studio that made the film. Then he says that one of them has a more film like quality than the blu-ray. What does that mean? Is it grainier and has more on screen artifacts?

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 1, 2006, 4:07 pm

Good question and I have no clue.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » August 1, 2006, 4:08 pm

Has that one stray hair jumping all over the picture and the box reeks of stale popcorn.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 1, 2006, 4:22 pm

Blu Ray is fucked until they come out with 50GB discs. Blu Ray uses old MPEG2 codec which is much less efficient than VC-1 used with HD-DVDs. Future Blu Ray discs are larger than HD-DVD because they have to be to even come close to HD-DVD.

Sony's got a shit product on their hands and is charging a premium for it.

Summary:

HD image quality is by and large dictated by its bit-rate, MPEG2 is an ancient (in relative terms) video codec. VC-1 is two to three times more efficient than MPEG2, and thus far it seems to be apparent, that Blu-ray’s smaller disc sizes are only exacerbating this inefficiency.

Until Blu-ray either adopts VC-1 as their sole video codec or releases Blu-ray movies on 50GB discs, it’s very unlikely that Blu-ray’s image quality will even match, much less surpass that of HD-DVD’s.

HD-DVD is simply delivering higher bit-rates and overall better image quality, than Blu-ray is capable of with the combination of MPEG2 and 25GB Blu-ray discs.

In theory with 50GB discs Blu-ray could greatly improve its video quality even with MPEG2, but again until it’s on shelves and in players it’s just a theory.

Like I stated earlier, much of this could change with the introduction of dual-layer, 25GB (50GB total) discs from Blu-ray. But this begs the question if Blu-ray part deux only matches and doesn’t surpass HD-DVD in video quality, why the $500 premium?

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 1, 2006, 4:27 pm

Winnow wrote:Blu Ray is fucked until they come out with 50GB discs. Blu Ray uses old MPEG2 codec which is much less efficient than VC-1 used with HD-DVDs. Future Blu Ray discs are larger than HD-DVD because they have to be to even come close to HD-DVD.

Sony's got a shit product on their hands and is charging a premium for it.

Summary:

HD image quality is by and large dictated by its bit-rate, MPEG2 is an ancient (in relative terms) video codec. VC-1 is two to three times more efficient than MPEG2, and thus far it seems to be apparent, that Blu-ray’s smaller disc sizes are only exacerbating this inefficiency.

Until Blu-ray either adopts VC-1 as their sole video codec or releases Blu-ray movies on 50GB discs, it’s very unlikely that Blu-ray’s image quality will even match, much less surpass that of HD-DVD’s.

HD-DVD is simply delivering higher bit-rates and overall better image quality, than Blu-ray is capable of with the combination of MPEG2 and 25GB Blu-ray discs.

In theory with 50GB discs Blu-ray could greatly improve its video quality even with MPEG2, but again until it’s on shelves and in players it’s just a theory.

Like I stated earlier, much of this could change with the introduction of dual-layer, 25GB (50GB total) discs from Blu-ray. But this begs the question if Blu-ray part deux only matches and doesn’t surpass HD-DVD in video quality, why the $500 premium?

Are the current BR players and will the PS3 be able to read these dual layer disks though? I'm not really in the knowa bout optical tech however one would assume that they should be able to since they are in the cards.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 1, 2006, 4:52 pm

$40 for a not-so great movie isn't really enticing me to jump on the new format bandwagon.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 1, 2006, 6:39 pm

It is really stupid to be putting so much into a new format right now. It will not be successful until most homes have HDTV's, and their market penetration right now is still incredibly low.

Fuck some people are just getting DVD players now and the recordable ones are just becoming affordable to the middle-lower class.

Akanae · Post by **Akanae** » August 1, 2006, 7:06 pm

We don't have access to a Blu-Ray player, but have been using the HD-DVD one from my husbands office.

They still have a lot of kinks to work out with the player before I would consider purchasing one. Namely movies still glich a little while you are playing them, and the audio becomes out of sync when this happens. It is not nearly as bad as it was before we downloaded the update, but it still happens.

And have you seen the remote? It has to be the worst remote design I have ever seen. You can't tell the difference between any of the buttons in the dark, and even with the light on the text below the buttons is so small it is difficult to read. Also it is about 3x bigger than it needs to be.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 1, 2006, 7:47 pm

why is it that whenever a first wave of a new technology comes out, they all look like boxy entertainment systems from the 70's.

That shit looks downright retro.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » August 1, 2006, 8:25 pm

I'm fine with DVD. It's not like it's poor quality or something. The jump from VHS to DVD was a real jump in quality, plus afforded all sorts of neat bells and whistles like commentaires, deleted scenes, alternate endings. It brought something with meat to the table. I don't see DVD being replaced any time soon.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » August 4, 2006, 1:41 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:I'm fine with DVD. It's not like it's poor quality or something. The jump from VHS to DVD was a real jump in quality, plus afforded all sorts of neat bells and whistles like commentaires, deleted scenes, alternate endings. It brought something with meat to the table. I don't see DVD being replaced any time soon.

Not that it'll happen anytime soon (it didn't for DVD), but imagine games that utilize a 50 gig storage space..

miir · Post by **miir** » August 4, 2006, 3:50 pm

Siji wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:I'm fine with DVD. It's not like it's poor quality or something. The jump from VHS to DVD was a real jump in quality, plus afforded all sorts of neat bells and whistles like commentaires, deleted scenes, alternate endings. It brought something with meat to the table. I don't see DVD being replaced any time soon.
Not that it'll happen anytime soon (it didn't for DVD), but imagine games that utilize a 50 gig storage space..

What kills me is that most of the time you actually have to pay extra to buy games on DVDs.... So you pay $10 more and instead of 8-9 CDs, they only have to use 1 DVD.. less packaging and less printing.
Are they trying to imply that DVD media is a hundred times more expensive than CD? Last time I checked, the retail price of DVD media was about 8 cents more per unit than CD.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » August 4, 2006, 5:34 pm

miir wrote:
Siji wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:I'm fine with DVD. It's not like it's poor quality or something. The jump from VHS to DVD was a real jump in quality, plus afforded all sorts of neat bells and whistles like commentaires, deleted scenes, alternate endings. It brought something with meat to the table. I don't see DVD being replaced any time soon.
Not that it'll happen anytime soon (it didn't for DVD), but imagine games that utilize a 50 gig storage space..
What kills me is that most of the time you actually have to pay extra to buy games on DVDs.... So you pay $10 more and instead of 8-9 CDs, they only have to use 1 DVD.. less packaging and less printing.
Are they trying to imply that DVD media is a hundred times more expensive than CD? Last time I checked, the retail price of DVD media was about 8 cents more per unit than CD.

Think the release on CD is more of a US thing still, most games in in DK at least are on DVD only.
The last 8 games i bought was both DVD, and know the US release of Dreamfall was on 6 CDs, where the euro version was on 1 DVD

.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 4, 2006, 6:55 pm

miir wrote: What kills me is that most of the time you actually have to pay extra to buy games on DVDs.... So you pay $10 more and instead of 8-9 CDs, they only have to use 1 DVD.. less packaging and less printing.
Are they trying to imply that DVD media is a hundred times more expensive than CD? Last time I checked, the retail price of DVD media was about 8 cents more per unit than CD.

I've never seen the cost of a game on DVD to be more than one on CD. When some games have been released in both formats and sit side-by-side at the retailers I frequent, they are the same price.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 4, 2006, 8:58 pm

It's not so common now but when I bough COD2, the DVD Special Edition was $10 more.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 4, 2006, 9:28 pm

miir wrote:It's not so common now but when I bough COD2, the DVD Special Edition was $10 more.

So, the only difference was that it was a DVD edition? How is that a "special" edition?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 4, 2006, 10:01 pm

Question
What is the difference between the cd and dvd versions of the game? (Call of Duty 2)

Answer

- The media and number of discs the game comes with.

- The bonus DVD generally only comes with the DVD version. Some retailers did sell the regular cd version with the bonus dvd, but that was a retailer specific choice.

- The games themselves play and behave exactly the same, the bonus dvd only contains behind the scenes footage and artwork, it does not affect ingame play at all.

How many discs does the game come with?

Answer
The Call of Duty 2 DVD collectors edition version of the game comes with one DVD with the game on it, and one bonus DVD with extra content. Some regions outside of North America may not contain the bonus DVD with extra content. Please check the game packaging for complete details.

The Call of Duty 2 CD-ROM version comes with 6 cds, and some retailers packaged a bonus DVD with this version of the game. The bonus dvd is labeled as disc 2.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » August 5, 2006, 11:11 am

You're probably paying extra in those cases because some up-tight executive thought it wise to charge extra for the convenience of not having to swap CD's during install.. If I had to guess.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 23, 2006, 2:58 pm

CNet's re-evaluated both the Samsung and Toshiba next-gen players.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6623572.html

Whereas the scores were tied before, the update sees HD-DVD going up and the Samsung offering going down in scores.

Their recommendation however is that people buy neither offering and wait for a bit for the technology to be improved.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 23, 2006, 4:11 pm

I couple more points about HD-DVD vs Blu Ray:

1. HD-DVD will always be cheaper to manufacture. As the prices come down, HD-DVD will maintain its edge.

2. HD-DVD has a better name than Blu Ray. The point being that the common non tech hobbiests will understand what "HD-DVD" is as opposed to "Blu Ray". HAVE YOU EVEN HEARD OF THE BLU RAY!?

3. HD-DVD has the better video codec in VC-1. Blu Ray currently using mpeg2 isn't going to cut it. (VC-1 requiring less space while at the same time providing a better picture)

4. HD-DVD has mandated features that developers can count on being there that Blu Ray doesn't madate be included with every Blu Ray player:

-ethernet port
-two dvd decoders (for showing multiple streams) (examples being running a director commentary PiP style or multiple angles split screen, etc)
-mandates ability to offload content to a server

5. HD-DVD can use existing factories to manufacture discs while Blu Ray requires new facilities.

Blu Ray's benefits:

capacity: 25/50 for Blu Ray vs 15/30 for HDTV

-does the common person care? Did the common movie buying person care or know that DVD's held 4.7GB of data? As long as they are getting the movies that look the best. ATM, Blu Ray needs the extra capacity because their ancient mpeg2 codec is a space hog so no advantage there except for storage of data files.

-------------

A couple of those points are valid, a few are iffy but still lean toward HD-DVD.