Blu-ray vs. HD DVD: The Anti-Fanboy View
Chris Gould tries to take an unbiased look at the new high-definition formats
As a new convert to the world of high-definition I thought it might be a good idea to write a short article detailing my experiences so far. Thankfully I’ve been lucky enough to upgrade to a ‘Full HD’ set-up, which has allowed me to appreciate the improved audio-visual experience offered by both Blu-ray and HD DVD while remaining format-neutral. Let’s begin by examining the pros and cons of each format, as observed by me in the course of everyday use.
In the interests of fair play (and to minimise the inevitable accusations of bias) let’s start alphabetically, with Blu-ray Disc. I’ve been very impressed with the quality of the titles I’ve seen on Sony’s format, especially from relatively recent films such as Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. The level of detail in films encoded at 1080p far surpasses that of standard-definition DVD, allowing you to pick out elements that would ordinarily pass you by. Audio is also impressive, with engaging soundtracks encoded in lossless formats like PCM or DTS-HD Master Audio. However, it’s not all rosy in the Blu-ray garden.
One of the biggest selling points of the new formats is their ability to handle high-def audio. For Blu-ray this means either PCM, DTS-HD Master Audio or, less commonly, Dolby TrueHD. While all of these sound great on paper, things are a little more complicated than the specs suggest. At the time of writing I don’t know of a single Blu-ray player that can internally decode DTS-HD (either ‘lossless’ Master Audio or the lossy High Resolution variant). Instead people will hear the legacy Core track, which should still sound great, but which isn’t high-def audio. Thankfully a large number of discs include uncompressed PCM soundtracks, which are identical to the studio master but eat up disc space that could be used for other things.
The audio issues are annoying, but my biggest criticism of the format is that it is not standardised. My BD player is what they call a ‘Profile 1.0’ machine, which means it is capable of playing back Blu-ray movies and standard features but it is incapable of handling the more advanced features that will be available on future releases. For this you will need a Profile 1.1 player, which will allow you to enjoy picture-in-picture commentaries and other advanced BD-J (Blu-ray Java) features. Another problem with Profile 1.0 machines is that the already long loading times of Blu-ray are exacerbated when players encounter discs with even the most basic of BD-J content.
For example, the average loading time for a film on my machine is around thirty seconds, but throw some BD-J features into the mix (discs such as Pirates of the Caribbean and FF2: Rise of the Silver Surfer) and the loading times rise to anywhere between two and three minutes! I don't know about you, but I find this situation totally unacceptable and can’t believe that the technology was launched with what amounts to built-in obsolescence. I’m not even going to discuss Profile 2.0, which has already been announced...
Another major issue I have with Blu-ray is the regional coding. Although simplified to three regions (from DVD’s six), it is unlikely to be cracked in the way that DVD regional protection was. I wouldn’t have such a big problem with regional coding if it was used to protect the theatrical release dates of new releases (after all, that’s what it’s supposed to be for), but many studios still insist on coding catalogue titles. I’m talking about twenty year old films here (sometimes older). The only reason for the coding of such titles can be to control the price in various markets, but it also means that some territories have access to a much wider selection of titles than others. I like to watch Asian cinema, but this could become very difficult for me in the future, at least on Blu-ray.
Other than that, I’m fairly happy with the format. There are some minor issues that I find bothersome, such as navigation speed and the lack of resume support when you press the stop button, but these problems are not exclusive to Blu-ray.
As we move on to HD DVD many of the positive points raised above still stand, but there are a whole new set of negatives. The most widely publicised of these is probably the disc capacity issue. Whereas Blu-ray has a dual-layer disc capacity of 50GB, HD DVD is currently restricted to 30GB. This means less room for content, be it the main feature or bonus material, which is usually presented in standard definition. More space may come in the future with triple-layer discs, but whether these will be compatible with existing hardware remains to be seen and the Blu-ray camp is already promising 200GB discs...
One of the most obvious side-effects of the relative lack of disc space is that many HD DVD titles lack lossless soundtracks (and I don’t know of any with uncompressed PCM). However, I’ve recently read a number of articles and listened to a number of podcasts that suggest the lack of TrueHD is not necessarily down to storage limitations, but rather conscious choice by the content designers. Indeed, in a recent interview a pair of Dolby engineers discussed the lack of TrueHD on the flagship Transformers HD DVD, proclaiming the Dolby Digital Plus track to be ‘audibly transparent’ to the studio master. Are they to be believed? Thankfully the interactive side of things is pretty much sorted, as HD DVD was launched with support for interactive features from the get-go.
HD DVD also has less studio support than Blu-ray, which translates to a smaller selection of available titles. At present only two of the major studios are exclusively supporting HD DVD (Paramount and Universal), with Warner opting to cover both formats. This is in stark contrast to Blu-ray, which has exclusive backing from Sony (of course), Fox, Disney (and its subsidiaries) and Lionsgate. Of course many smaller studios are also backing the formats, but it would seem that Blu-ray also has the edge there (at least in my experience).
Other, less obvious ‘deficiencies’ include a slightly less robust manufacturing process, which makes HD DVD discs more susceptible to dirt and scratches than Blu-ray discs, and a lower maximum bitrate for DVD video. Whether these are particularly big problems is debatable, but they are worth mentioning all the same. Other than that my experience was much the same as Blu-ray, with only slight annoyances like the lack of resume support and extended loading times and navigational delays (although HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray in these respects).
At the moment both formats have compatibility issues, which usually manifest as the inability to play newer titles, but these can be addressed with firmware updates. Unfortunately it is impossible to get around the hardware restrictions of Profile 1.0 players, so all early-adopters will have to buy a new player if they want to enjoy the full Blu-ray experience. This is a particularly bitter pill to swallow considering the relatively high cost of Blu-ray hardware, and the main driving force behind my next statement.
If studio allegiances were not an issue and I was forced to choose between the formats at this moment in time, I would probably side with HD DVD. In my experience the hardware is more mature, the software offers more in the way of interactivity and, crucially, it does not enforce regional coding. As production costs fall storage will be less of an issue, either because of multi-layered discs or because we will start to see more multi-disc sets (as is the norm with DVD), which will close the gap even further.
Of course my opinion counts for very little in a battle that will be fought and won in the USA, a territory largely unconcerned with multi-region capability because of the size and diversity of the domestic market. With backing from so many of the major players, superior software sales and a larger installed user base courtesy of the PS3, the odds would seem to be stacked in Blu-ray’s favour. Certainly, given a level playing field Sony's format would seem to be the logical choice on paper, but I wouldn’t write off HD DVD just yet. I happen to think the formats are set to coexist for some time, for better or worse.
However, I personally feel that both formats are premature. The vast majority of people are simply not concerned about high-definition, be it Blu-ray, HD DVD or broadcast television. I know only a handful of people who can afford to own an HDTV and of those even fewer have them hooked up to a high-definition source. In fact, most people I've spoken to outside of the 'DVD community' don't have the first clue about either format, which is a trend that's repeated by store-workers and, yes, even the manufacturers if the conversations I've had with various technical help-desks are any indicator (they know who they are).
Sales would seem to reflect my opinion, with combined Blu-ray and HD DVD figures currently accounting for less than two percent of the total DVD market! At least some of the blame for the lacklustre sales figures must be attributed to the ongoing format war, which isn't helped by the two camps taking every opportunity to hurl insults or massage sales figures to 'prove' that the other is about to fail. Fanboys from both sides banging on about attach rates and the like seem to have forgotten what the formats are meant for—watching films. When it comes to that, Blu-ray and HD DVD offer a virtually identical experience; albeit one that is streets ahead of standard-definition in terms of quality. My advice to you is to hold off for a while longer until hardware is standardised and prices start to fall. If nothing else it will give you more time to save your pennies for that all-singing, all-dancing, dual-format player!
Editorial by Chris Gould
In the interests of fair play (and to minimise the inevitable accusations of bias) let’s start alphabetically, with Blu-ray Disc. I’ve been very impressed with the quality of the titles I’ve seen on Sony’s format, especially from relatively recent films such as Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. The level of detail in films encoded at 1080p far surpasses that of standard-definition DVD, allowing you to pick out elements that would ordinarily pass you by. Audio is also impressive, with engaging soundtracks encoded in lossless formats like PCM or DTS-HD Master Audio. However, it’s not all rosy in the Blu-ray garden.
One of the biggest selling points of the new formats is their ability to handle high-def audio. For Blu-ray this means either PCM, DTS-HD Master Audio or, less commonly, Dolby TrueHD. While all of these sound great on paper, things are a little more complicated than the specs suggest. At the time of writing I don’t know of a single Blu-ray player that can internally decode DTS-HD (either ‘lossless’ Master Audio or the lossy High Resolution variant). Instead people will hear the legacy Core track, which should still sound great, but which isn’t high-def audio. Thankfully a large number of discs include uncompressed PCM soundtracks, which are identical to the studio master but eat up disc space that could be used for other things.
The audio issues are annoying, but my biggest criticism of the format is that it is not standardised. My BD player is what they call a ‘Profile 1.0’ machine, which means it is capable of playing back Blu-ray movies and standard features but it is incapable of handling the more advanced features that will be available on future releases. For this you will need a Profile 1.1 player, which will allow you to enjoy picture-in-picture commentaries and other advanced BD-J (Blu-ray Java) features. Another problem with Profile 1.0 machines is that the already long loading times of Blu-ray are exacerbated when players encounter discs with even the most basic of BD-J content.
For example, the average loading time for a film on my machine is around thirty seconds, but throw some BD-J features into the mix (discs such as Pirates of the Caribbean and FF2: Rise of the Silver Surfer) and the loading times rise to anywhere between two and three minutes! I don't know about you, but I find this situation totally unacceptable and can’t believe that the technology was launched with what amounts to built-in obsolescence. I’m not even going to discuss Profile 2.0, which has already been announced...
Another major issue I have with Blu-ray is the regional coding. Although simplified to three regions (from DVD’s six), it is unlikely to be cracked in the way that DVD regional protection was. I wouldn’t have such a big problem with regional coding if it was used to protect the theatrical release dates of new releases (after all, that’s what it’s supposed to be for), but many studios still insist on coding catalogue titles. I’m talking about twenty year old films here (sometimes older). The only reason for the coding of such titles can be to control the price in various markets, but it also means that some territories have access to a much wider selection of titles than others. I like to watch Asian cinema, but this could become very difficult for me in the future, at least on Blu-ray.
Other than that, I’m fairly happy with the format. There are some minor issues that I find bothersome, such as navigation speed and the lack of resume support when you press the stop button, but these problems are not exclusive to Blu-ray.
As we move on to HD DVD many of the positive points raised above still stand, but there are a whole new set of negatives. The most widely publicised of these is probably the disc capacity issue. Whereas Blu-ray has a dual-layer disc capacity of 50GB, HD DVD is currently restricted to 30GB. This means less room for content, be it the main feature or bonus material, which is usually presented in standard definition. More space may come in the future with triple-layer discs, but whether these will be compatible with existing hardware remains to be seen and the Blu-ray camp is already promising 200GB discs...
One of the most obvious side-effects of the relative lack of disc space is that many HD DVD titles lack lossless soundtracks (and I don’t know of any with uncompressed PCM). However, I’ve recently read a number of articles and listened to a number of podcasts that suggest the lack of TrueHD is not necessarily down to storage limitations, but rather conscious choice by the content designers. Indeed, in a recent interview a pair of Dolby engineers discussed the lack of TrueHD on the flagship Transformers HD DVD, proclaiming the Dolby Digital Plus track to be ‘audibly transparent’ to the studio master. Are they to be believed? Thankfully the interactive side of things is pretty much sorted, as HD DVD was launched with support for interactive features from the get-go.
HD DVD also has less studio support than Blu-ray, which translates to a smaller selection of available titles. At present only two of the major studios are exclusively supporting HD DVD (Paramount and Universal), with Warner opting to cover both formats. This is in stark contrast to Blu-ray, which has exclusive backing from Sony (of course), Fox, Disney (and its subsidiaries) and Lionsgate. Of course many smaller studios are also backing the formats, but it would seem that Blu-ray also has the edge there (at least in my experience).
Other, less obvious ‘deficiencies’ include a slightly less robust manufacturing process, which makes HD DVD discs more susceptible to dirt and scratches than Blu-ray discs, and a lower maximum bitrate for DVD video. Whether these are particularly big problems is debatable, but they are worth mentioning all the same. Other than that my experience was much the same as Blu-ray, with only slight annoyances like the lack of resume support and extended loading times and navigational delays (although HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray in these respects).
Conclusion
At the moment both formats have compatibility issues, which usually manifest as the inability to play newer titles, but these can be addressed with firmware updates. Unfortunately it is impossible to get around the hardware restrictions of Profile 1.0 players, so all early-adopters will have to buy a new player if they want to enjoy the full Blu-ray experience. This is a particularly bitter pill to swallow considering the relatively high cost of Blu-ray hardware, and the main driving force behind my next statement.
If studio allegiances were not an issue and I was forced to choose between the formats at this moment in time, I would probably side with HD DVD. In my experience the hardware is more mature, the software offers more in the way of interactivity and, crucially, it does not enforce regional coding. As production costs fall storage will be less of an issue, either because of multi-layered discs or because we will start to see more multi-disc sets (as is the norm with DVD), which will close the gap even further.
Of course my opinion counts for very little in a battle that will be fought and won in the USA, a territory largely unconcerned with multi-region capability because of the size and diversity of the domestic market. With backing from so many of the major players, superior software sales and a larger installed user base courtesy of the PS3, the odds would seem to be stacked in Blu-ray’s favour. Certainly, given a level playing field Sony's format would seem to be the logical choice on paper, but I wouldn’t write off HD DVD just yet. I happen to think the formats are set to coexist for some time, for better or worse.
However, I personally feel that both formats are premature. The vast majority of people are simply not concerned about high-definition, be it Blu-ray, HD DVD or broadcast television. I know only a handful of people who can afford to own an HDTV and of those even fewer have them hooked up to a high-definition source. In fact, most people I've spoken to outside of the 'DVD community' don't have the first clue about either format, which is a trend that's repeated by store-workers and, yes, even the manufacturers if the conversations I've had with various technical help-desks are any indicator (they know who they are).
Sales would seem to reflect my opinion, with combined Blu-ray and HD DVD figures currently accounting for less than two percent of the total DVD market! At least some of the blame for the lacklustre sales figures must be attributed to the ongoing format war, which isn't helped by the two camps taking every opportunity to hurl insults or massage sales figures to 'prove' that the other is about to fail. Fanboys from both sides banging on about attach rates and the like seem to have forgotten what the formats are meant for—watching films. When it comes to that, Blu-ray and HD DVD offer a virtually identical experience; albeit one that is streets ahead of standard-definition in terms of quality. My advice to you is to hold off for a while longer until hardware is standardised and prices start to fall. If nothing else it will give you more time to save your pennies for that all-singing, all-dancing, dual-format player!
Editorial by Chris Gould
Advertisements
Chris, I would like to say "thanks" for one of the more unbiased looks at the new formats. I have found that on other DVD sites, personal bias has caused a lot of one-sided negative news reporting/slanting. It was VERY nice to have someone obviously without an agenda detailing the pros and cons of the two formats. I have to agree with your final analysis that BOTH were premature and needed to have A LOT more beta testing done. Our customers at the company I work for would hang us out to dry if we released product in this fashion.
Again, thanks for the article.
Again, thanks for the article.
Tyler Foster wrote: And Steven Spielberg has said that he only wants his films released on Blu-Ray.
Then why would his studio go HD DVD only? I'm not arguing or anything, I'm just wondering.
Then why would his studio go HD DVD only? I'm not arguing or anything, I'm just wondering.
John Oaks wrote: Well, word is that Warner is going to go Blu-Ray exclusive in 2008 which would almost mean the end of the format war.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/07/warner-cou...
Word was that Warner was going HD DVD exclusive last November because they didn't renew their membership with the Blu-ray Disc Association. That didn't exactly pan out, did it?
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/07/warner-cou...
Word was that Warner was going HD DVD exclusive last November because they didn't renew their membership with the Blu-ray Disc Association. That didn't exactly pan out, did it?
Wrymouth wrote: I got to admit this war sucks. True thing about this article is that the BR players are slow when it comes to the interactive menu's. My friend got a PS3 and went to his place and when we watched a few movies it lags a little when you select a movie option.
I'm more leaning towards HD-DVD movies are way cheaper and movie selection owns (IMO) Plus CLOVERFIELD, IRON MAN, INDIANA JONES, THE DARK KNIGHT, all going to HD DVD only it looks. Difference in picture quality is minimal when you see '300' on BR and HDDVD on 2 HD sets side by side.
I could have sworn, me and few other ppl at the store, the 300 movie on HD looked a lil better.
actauly indiana jones is made by steve speilberg he has the right to produce his movies on any format hence why 2001 space oddysy came out on blu ray only
I'm more leaning towards HD-DVD movies are way cheaper and movie selection owns (IMO) Plus CLOVERFIELD, IRON MAN, INDIANA JONES, THE DARK KNIGHT, all going to HD DVD only it looks. Difference in picture quality is minimal when you see '300' on BR and HDDVD on 2 HD sets side by side.
I could have sworn, me and few other ppl at the store, the 300 movie on HD looked a lil better.
actauly indiana jones is made by steve speilberg he has the right to produce his movies on any format hence why 2001 space oddysy came out on blu ray only
Gabe Powers wrote: Then why would his studio go HD DVD only? I'm not arguing or anything, I'm just wondering.
Does Spielberg own Paramount? Seriously I didn't think he owned them.
Bouncy X wrote: i'm not sure porn will make that big a difference this time. i mean its availabe everywhere these days. its not like back in the VHS/BETA war....where porn was only in seedy theaters. now you can see it for free online and even on tv.
Exactly. Neither do I.
Would anyone seriously pay HD Disc prices for Porn? Especially when it's free on the web. Does porn really matter if it's in SD or HD? As long as it's watchable I cannot see it being at all important if it's in HD.
Quote: Well, word is that Warner is going to go Blu-Ray exclusive in 2008 which would almost mean the end of the format war.
Even if that happens it won't change much when Universal and Paramount still only support HD-DVD.
Does Spielberg own Paramount? Seriously I didn't think he owned them.
Bouncy X wrote: i'm not sure porn will make that big a difference this time. i mean its availabe everywhere these days. its not like back in the VHS/BETA war....where porn was only in seedy theaters. now you can see it for free online and even on tv.
Exactly. Neither do I.
Would anyone seriously pay HD Disc prices for Porn? Especially when it's free on the web. Does porn really matter if it's in SD or HD? As long as it's watchable I cannot see it being at all important if it's in HD.
Quote: Well, word is that Warner is going to go Blu-Ray exclusive in 2008 which would almost mean the end of the format war.
Even if that happens it won't change much when Universal and Paramount still only support HD-DVD.
I've stopped buying DVD's for sole fact that I want to wait and see what technology is coming next. I would like Blu-Ray to come out on top simply because of the higher capacity.
One thing that bothers me is that there are claims that if you buy the duel format player, you don't have to worry about who wins. Well, until you want to replace your player and, if Blu-Ray wins (for the sake of argument), you suddenly have dozens-to-hundreds of HD DVD's that won't work on Blu-Ray player and since Blu-Ray won the format war, they don't make duel format players anymore.
I do have a couple of questions maybe someone can clear up. I gather that Blu-Ray players will NOT play regular dvd's but HD DVD players will. Is that true?
Also...I can't remember my second question, so I guess I just have that one.
One thing that bothers me is that there are claims that if you buy the duel format player, you don't have to worry about who wins. Well, until you want to replace your player and, if Blu-Ray wins (for the sake of argument), you suddenly have dozens-to-hundreds of HD DVD's that won't work on Blu-Ray player and since Blu-Ray won the format war, they don't make duel format players anymore.
I do have a couple of questions maybe someone can clear up. I gather that Blu-Ray players will NOT play regular dvd's but HD DVD players will. Is that true?
Also...I can't remember my second question, so I guess I just have that one.
It looks like BD should win out, despite what anybody would say about Sony formats and refer to BetaMax, MiniDisc, or UMD. The sales numbers are speaking loudly to the studios, with BD ahead 2+:1, 3:1 over Black Friday weekend.
Warner going BD-exclusive is currently a rumor, with reps saying they're waiting to see sales figures for Q4 of this year.
Somebody mentioned that 300 looked virtually the same on BD and HD DVD - that's because they're using the same files which were encoded for HD DVD's smaller disc capacity. If Warner would encode for BD's 50GB capacity and then re-encode for HD DVD's 30GB capacity, a lot of people would see a huge difference in the picture quality. BD's extra space and bandwidth (about 10Mbps more than HD DVD) work in tandem to reduce the amount of compression applied to the video, hence producing a better quality picture.
Warner going BD-exclusive is currently a rumor, with reps saying they're waiting to see sales figures for Q4 of this year.
Somebody mentioned that 300 looked virtually the same on BD and HD DVD - that's because they're using the same files which were encoded for HD DVD's smaller disc capacity. If Warner would encode for BD's 50GB capacity and then re-encode for HD DVD's 30GB capacity, a lot of people would see a huge difference in the picture quality. BD's extra space and bandwidth (about 10Mbps more than HD DVD) work in tandem to reduce the amount of compression applied to the video, hence producing a better quality picture.
Then why is it that films encoded at a 30GB capacity like Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, sound and look just as good as something like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, encoded for and released exclusively on Blu-ray?
Exactly. The extra disc space isn't an issue for the video side of things. A movie encoded with AVC/VC-1 will be the same size regardless of format. The difference is with audio options and the availability of extras.
Oh, and I believe Gabe was talking about DreamWorks, not Paramount, when referring to Spielberg.
Oh, and I believe Gabe was talking about DreamWorks, not Paramount, when referring to Spielberg.
Regular DVDs play fine in the PS3 blu-ray player. Infact,they look even better if you turn the upscaler on.
great points made there, and it is the reason why i am holding off for now.
I went for HD DVD earlier this year and haven't looked back, 60+ discs and counting. I'm not buying a BD player just for Man On Fire and you can keep the Pirates movies, etc. If you're a Bruckheimer fan then Blu-Ray's your daddy.
I couldn't care less which Hi-def format wins out, as long as ONE does, that is supported by EVERY studio...and so long as 'bribing' Microsoft's hope for mass 'downloads', which would probably end up 'extras-lite' in too many cases, doesn't win out too soon over a REAL medium to own and collect.
Here's a very good article on the latest state of things...
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/the-state-of-hd-dvd/...
Here's a very good article on the latest state of things...
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/the-state-of-hd-dvd/...
I read that article not long after I started mine and found it to be very pro HD DVD, to the point of making omitting certain bits of info that showed HD DVD in a more favourable light.
[quote=Bradavon wroteQuote: Well, word is that Warner is going to go Blu-Ray exclusive in 2008 which would almost mean the end of the format war.
Even if that happens it won't change much when Universal and Paramount still only support HD-DVD.[/quote]
Oh, yes it will...and if & when they do Paramamount will probably find a way to wriggle themselves of the deal. And not that I'm taking a specific side in this stupid, useless, pathetic, greedy format war - which was instigated by Microsoft so that both sides lose/end in a stalemate & then they'll clean up with their movie download service. Sheesh!
Even if that happens it won't change much when Universal and Paramount still only support HD-DVD.[/quote]
Oh, yes it will...and if & when they do Paramamount will probably find a way to wriggle themselves of the deal. And not that I'm taking a specific side in this stupid, useless, pathetic, greedy format war - which was instigated by Microsoft so that both sides lose/end in a stalemate & then they'll clean up with their movie download service. Sheesh!
HagenDarth wrote: [quote=Bradavon wroteQuote: Well, word is that Warner is going to go Blu-Ray exclusive in 2008 which would almost mean the end of the format war.
Even if that happens it won't change much when Universal and Paramount still only support HD-DVD.
Oh, yes it will...and if & when they do Paramamount will probably find a way to wriggle themselves of the deal. And not that I'm taking a specific side in this stupid, useless, pathetic, greedy format war - which was instigated by Microsoft so that both sides lose/end in a stalemate & then they'll clean up with their movie download service. Sheesh!
[/quote]
At least I'm not alone with the Microsoft conspiracy...
Even if that happens it won't change much when Universal and Paramount still only support HD-DVD.
Oh, yes it will...and if & when they do Paramamount will probably find a way to wriggle themselves of the deal. And not that I'm taking a specific side in this stupid, useless, pathetic, greedy format war - which was instigated by Microsoft so that both sides lose/end in a stalemate & then they'll clean up with their movie download service. Sheesh!
[/quote]
At least I'm not alone with the Microsoft conspiracy...
I haven't purchased a hi-def player yet, but when this madness first started, I was going to go with HD-DVD based on the titles being presented (and the fact Blu-Ray was having some serious issues).
Now jump forward a bit and I would have to go with Blu-Ray. Although the hardware situation is a little disheartening (after I saw the price drops and was ready to pull the trigger), HD-DVD just doesn't have the capacity to keep up. I work in a technical field and I can tell you that when a copy is behind and comes up with something like "we now have 51GB's on a disc as opposed to Blu-Ray's 50GB"...it never ends well.
However that is not to say I am ready to hand my money over to Sony just yet. Granted there are some incredible looking Blu-Ray titles, unless they get some of the hardware stuff straight, I can wait a bit.
Now jump forward a bit and I would have to go with Blu-Ray. Although the hardware situation is a little disheartening (after I saw the price drops and was ready to pull the trigger), HD-DVD just doesn't have the capacity to keep up. I work in a technical field and I can tell you that when a copy is behind and comes up with something like "we now have 51GB's on a disc as opposed to Blu-Ray's 50GB"...it never ends well.
However that is not to say I am ready to hand my money over to Sony just yet. Granted there are some incredible looking Blu-Ray titles, unless they get some of the hardware stuff straight, I can wait a bit.
A couple of things. DTS HD is simply maximized legacy DTS. It has a ceiling of 1.5mbps. EVERY Blu-ray player can decode this.
There are a couple of Blu-Ray standalone players that can pass via bitstream DTS HD Master Audio. You will then need a receiver that can decode it.
The PS3 is heavily rumored to provide internal DTS HD MA decoding within the next couple of months via a firmware update.
As far as regional coding, it is optional for content creators. Sony, for example, often does not inlcude regional encoding. I have the UK version of Hellboy for example and it plays fine on my American BD player.
As for speed of navigation and disc access, that is restricted to the Smasung player. My PS3 can access every Blu-ray disc as fast as a DVD player accesses DVDs. It is HD DVD that is molassis slow with every disc. The notion that HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray is ridiculous. Anyone who has experience with both knows this.
I bought a first gen HD-A1 HD DVD player. It is not true that all interactive content was available from the "get-go". In fact it coulodn't even decode TrueHD when it came out. It wouldn't even play U-Control discs without a firmware update.
There are a couple of Blu-Ray standalone players that can pass via bitstream DTS HD Master Audio. You will then need a receiver that can decode it.
The PS3 is heavily rumored to provide internal DTS HD MA decoding within the next couple of months via a firmware update.
As far as regional coding, it is optional for content creators. Sony, for example, often does not inlcude regional encoding. I have the UK version of Hellboy for example and it plays fine on my American BD player.
As for speed of navigation and disc access, that is restricted to the Smasung player. My PS3 can access every Blu-ray disc as fast as a DVD player accesses DVDs. It is HD DVD that is molassis slow with every disc. The notion that HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray is ridiculous. Anyone who has experience with both knows this.
I bought a first gen HD-A1 HD DVD player. It is not true that all interactive content was available from the "get-go". In fact it coulodn't even decode TrueHD when it came out. It wouldn't even play U-Control discs without a firmware update.
Fettastic wrote:
As for speed of navigation and disc access, that is restricted to the Smasung player. My PS3 can access every Blu-ray disc as fast as a DVD player accesses DVDs. It is HD DVD that is molassis slow with every disc. The notion that HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray is ridiculous. Anyone who has experience with both knows this.
EXACTLY! This was the point I was making when Chris shot me down. I'm actually lucky enough to own be able to play both formats and through my experience there is little to seperate the two at this point other than different coloured boxes, but if I really had to go for a format, it would be Blu-ray.
As for speed of navigation and disc access, that is restricted to the Smasung player. My PS3 can access every Blu-ray disc as fast as a DVD player accesses DVDs. It is HD DVD that is molassis slow with every disc. The notion that HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray is ridiculous. Anyone who has experience with both knows this.
EXACTLY! This was the point I was making when Chris shot me down. I'm actually lucky enough to own be able to play both formats and through my experience there is little to seperate the two at this point other than different coloured boxes, but if I really had to go for a format, it would be Blu-ray.
Matt Thompson wrote: Then why is it that films encoded at a 30GB capacity like Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, sound and look just as good as something like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, encoded for and released exclusively on Blu-ray?
In the case of Warner dual titles are based on the HD-DVD encode. I doubt the extra space could make the BD look much better though.
Blue-Kal-El wrote: At least I'm not alone with the Microsoft conspiracy...
And yet over 90% of the world uses their software, including most Microsoft bashers, sigh!
Fettastic wrote: A couple of things. DTS HD is simply maximized legacy DTS. It has a ceiling of 1.5mbps. EVERY Blu-ray player can decode this.
No it's NOT! The legacy core inside DTS-HD is 1.5Mbps but the bitrate of DTS-HD HR and MA is much, much higher.
Fettastic wrote: As far as regional coding, it is optional for content creators. Sony, for example, often does not inlcude regional encoding. I have the UK version of Hellboy for example and it plays fine on my American BD player.
It's optional on DVD too but you reckon if HD-DVD disappears Sony will continue to not use Regional Coding?
In the case of Warner dual titles are based on the HD-DVD encode. I doubt the extra space could make the BD look much better though.
Blue-Kal-El wrote: At least I'm not alone with the Microsoft conspiracy...
And yet over 90% of the world uses their software, including most Microsoft bashers, sigh!
Fettastic wrote: A couple of things. DTS HD is simply maximized legacy DTS. It has a ceiling of 1.5mbps. EVERY Blu-ray player can decode this.
No it's NOT! The legacy core inside DTS-HD is 1.5Mbps but the bitrate of DTS-HD HR and MA is much, much higher.
Fettastic wrote: As far as regional coding, it is optional for content creators. Sony, for example, often does not inlcude regional encoding. I have the UK version of Hellboy for example and it plays fine on my American BD player.
It's optional on DVD too but you reckon if HD-DVD disappears Sony will continue to not use Regional Coding?
If Warner goes blu-ray exclusive i think the format war is over. blu-ray wins! But i doubt this will happen anytime soon as there are many movies that are hd dvd exclusive from Warner such as the Matrix trilogy, Caddyshack etc. But this could be because it is easier to encode or something on hd dvd
This new rumor is old and is being said by a lionsgate executive, who is surprise, blu-ray exclusive!
I think hd dvd will gain some software sales in the next few months as the all the people that bought cheap hardware will be giving and getting them for christmas and then be buying software. Plus, they have started doing buy one get one free sales that blu-ray has been doing for a while now.
This new rumor is old and is being said by a lionsgate executive, who is surprise, blu-ray exclusive!
I think hd dvd will gain some software sales in the next few months as the all the people that bought cheap hardware will be giving and getting them for christmas and then be buying software. Plus, they have started doing buy one get one free sales that blu-ray has been doing for a while now.
The thing that gets me about all this, is that the formats are still bloody changing! How can they release these players and discs and then start to update the spec so that older equipment won't be able to access the new features. Triple layerd HD DVD and 200GB Blu-ray - are you kidding? (I know you are not btw) How can that be acceptable - as I can only assume movies will take advantage of these new discs and possibly render current players out of date. Shocking. As for the 3 minute-loading time.. someone should be shot for that.
If you really want a blu-ray player, I couldn't reccomend a PS3 high enough. It's constantly being updated via wireless (or ethernet) firmware releases and the ease of use and picture quality is fantastic. I haven't had any region issues with any of my US blu-rays yet.
I have a WB exclusinve, Forbidden Planet on HD and I really disappointed with the picture quality. I'd heard great things about this restoration but it really disappoints me. There is some excellent special features on the HD30 single disc. I wonder if the extra content made them encode the film in a lower bitrate...?
I have a WB exclusinve, Forbidden Planet on HD and I really disappointed with the picture quality. I'd heard great things about this restoration but it really disappoints me. There is some excellent special features on the HD30 single disc. I wonder if the extra content made them encode the film in a lower bitrate...?
Fettastic wrote: A couple of things. DTS HD is simply maximized legacy DTS. It has a ceiling of 1.5mbps. EVERY Blu-ray player can decode this.
No it's not. DTS-HD covers both the HR (High Resolution) and MA (Master Audio) variants. It says so on the DTS website.
Quote: The PS3 is heavily rumored to provide internal DTS HD MA decoding within the next couple of months via a firmware update.
I read that it doesn't have the necessary silicon to do so.
Quote: As far as regional coding, it is optional for content creators. Sony, for example, often does not inlcude regional encoding. I have the UK version of Hellboy for example and it plays fine on my American BD player.
A lot of Sony UK's titles are multi-region, but most of the other distributors are coding. It's also the same story in the US.
Quote: As for speed of navigation and disc access, that is restricted to the Smasung player. My PS3 can access every Blu-ray disc as fast as a DVD player accesses DVDs. It is HD DVD that is molassis slow with every disc. The notion that HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray is ridiculous. Anyone who has experience with both knows this.
Did you even read the article? I have experience of both and HD DVD is faster. It's not just the Samsung - I've seen YouTube footage of BD players taking 3 minutes to load PotC (and then failing). The reason it is slower is because most players don't have the secondary video/audio processors required for Profile 1.1. When 1.1 is common, it will be less of an issue. You keep bringing up the PS3 but it's not a standalone deck, which is what I'm talking about here.
Quote: I bought a first gen HD-A1 HD DVD player. It is not true that all interactive content was available from the "get-go". In fact it coulodn't even decode TrueHD when it came out. It wouldn't even play U-Control discs without a firmware update.
It's true that it was part of the specs 'from the get'go', which is not true with Blu-ray. All new formats have teething problems, but at least HD DVD was standardised. I wondered when the first true 'fanboy' would arrive - I expected it to be a pro-Blu-rayer.
toonloon wrote: EXACTLY! This was the point I was making when Chris shot me down.
I didn't shoot anybody down, I merely acknowledged what you said and then offered my own opinion. I know the PS3 is faster, but it's a games console not a standalone unit. The issue I have with the PS3 is its inability to offer multi-channel lossless audio over analogue connections, which forces people to buy a new amp to hear PCM, DD+, TrueHD and DTS-HD.
No it's not. DTS-HD covers both the HR (High Resolution) and MA (Master Audio) variants. It says so on the DTS website.
Quote: The PS3 is heavily rumored to provide internal DTS HD MA decoding within the next couple of months via a firmware update.
I read that it doesn't have the necessary silicon to do so.
Quote: As far as regional coding, it is optional for content creators. Sony, for example, often does not inlcude regional encoding. I have the UK version of Hellboy for example and it plays fine on my American BD player.
A lot of Sony UK's titles are multi-region, but most of the other distributors are coding. It's also the same story in the US.
Quote: As for speed of navigation and disc access, that is restricted to the Smasung player. My PS3 can access every Blu-ray disc as fast as a DVD player accesses DVDs. It is HD DVD that is molassis slow with every disc. The notion that HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray is ridiculous. Anyone who has experience with both knows this.
Did you even read the article? I have experience of both and HD DVD is faster. It's not just the Samsung - I've seen YouTube footage of BD players taking 3 minutes to load PotC (and then failing). The reason it is slower is because most players don't have the secondary video/audio processors required for Profile 1.1. When 1.1 is common, it will be less of an issue. You keep bringing up the PS3 but it's not a standalone deck, which is what I'm talking about here.
Quote: I bought a first gen HD-A1 HD DVD player. It is not true that all interactive content was available from the "get-go". In fact it coulodn't even decode TrueHD when it came out. It wouldn't even play U-Control discs without a firmware update.
It's true that it was part of the specs 'from the get'go', which is not true with Blu-ray. All new formats have teething problems, but at least HD DVD was standardised. I wondered when the first true 'fanboy' would arrive - I expected it to be a pro-Blu-rayer.
toonloon wrote: EXACTLY! This was the point I was making when Chris shot me down.
I didn't shoot anybody down, I merely acknowledged what you said and then offered my own opinion. I know the PS3 is faster, but it's a games console not a standalone unit. The issue I have with the PS3 is its inability to offer multi-channel lossless audio over analogue connections, which forces people to buy a new amp to hear PCM, DD+, TrueHD and DTS-HD.
Both formats are hassled with slow discs. Order of the Phoenix takes a lifetime to boot up on my HD-A2.
Chris Gould wrote: Fettastic wrote: A couple of things. DTS HD is simply maximized legacy DTS. It has a ceiling of 1.5mbps. EVERY Blu-ray player can decode this.
No it's not. DTS-HD covers both the HR (High Resolution) and MA (Master Audio) variants. It says so on the DTS website.
This is what you said in your article:
Quote: At the time of writing I don’t know of a single Blu-ray player that can internally decode DTS-HD (either ‘lossless’ Master Audio or the lossy High Resolution variant)."
Seems pretty clear that you don't think a single Blu-ray player can decode lossy DTS, which is completely absurd since they ALL can.
Quote: The PS3 is heavily rumored to provide internal DTS HD MA decoding within the next couple of months via a firmware update.
Quote: I read that it doesn't have the necessary silicon to do so.
There is no proof anywhere that one of the most powerful computer chips in the world can't manage to decode a soundtrack.
Quote: As far as regional coding, it is optional for content creators. Sony, for example, often does not inlcude regional encoding. I have the UK version of Hellboy for example and it plays fine on my American BD player.
Quote: A lot of Sony UK's titles are multi-region, but most of the other distributors are coding. It's also the same story in the US.
I was just clarifying that just because it's Blu-ray doesn't mean it's region locked. But unlike HD DVD, there are very few Blu-ray titles that are not or soon will be available in the US so region encoding doesn't really matter. Yeah I paid $50 for Reign of Fire on HD DVD and if people want to do that they can, but the Blu-ray version which apeared a little later is far superior.
Quote: As for speed of navigation and disc access, that is restricted to the Samsung player. My PS3 can access every Blu-ray disc as fast as a DVD player accesses DVDs. It is HD DVD that is molassis slow with every disc. The notion that HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray is ridiculous. Anyone who has experience with both knows this.
Quote: Did you even read the article? I have experience of both and HD DVD is faster. It's not just the Samsung - I've seen YouTube footage of BD players taking 3 minutes to load PotC (and then failing). The reason it is slower is because most players don't have the secondary video/audio processors required for Profile 1.1. When 1.1 is common, it will be less of an issue. You keep bringing up the PS3 but it's not a standalone deck, which is what I'm talking about here.[quote]
You said in your article that HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray. That is not true and in fact it's quite teh opposite. The fact that a couple java intensive discs, which has nothing to do with the mechanical operations the players themselves, is a totally different situation than the millenium long wait all HD DVD owners have to go through just to get the thing to turn on and open the disc tray.
[quote]I bought a first gen HD-A1 HD DVD player. It is not true that all interactive content was available from the "get-go". In fact it coulodn't even decode TrueHD when it came out. It wouldn't even play U-Control discs without a firmware update.
Quote: It's true that it was part of the specs 'from the get'go', which is not true with Blu-ray. All new formats have teething problems, but at least HD DVD was standardised. I wondered when the first true 'fanboy' would arrive - I expected it to be a pro-Blu-rayer.
Blu-ray has had specs "from the get-go", it's just that they are being broached in tiers, far in excess of what HD DVD is capable of by the way. For example, internet downloading is highly touted as a reason why HD DVD is superior. Profile 2.0 will mandate 1GB of internal memory for downloads. HD DVD has a measly 128mb dedicated to storing internet downlodas, which isn't even enough to store everything you can download for Transformers alone!
Quote: The issue I have with the PS3 is its inability to offer multi-channel lossless audio over analogue connections, which forces people to buy a new amp to hear PCM, DD+, TrueHD and DTS-HD.
Neither do the HD-A2 or the HD-A3, the most popular models of HD DVD player! Heck they don't even offer 1080p/24 playback which is what the discs are encoded in! The reason that's a big deal is because displays are forced to deinterlace the image and some of them don't do a very good job, leading to artifacts.
You can hear DD+ and DTS HD over the included optical connection on the PS3 though, another place you are wrong. If you're talking about DTS HD MA, then you have to make that distinction.
I think it's pretty clear who the fanboy without the facts is.
Also the idea that the lack of a secondary video processor being the reason POTC is slow to boot up on some players is ridiculous. POTC doesn't have a secondary video!
No the reason for a couple of titles being slow to boot up is due to enhanced java on the disc which some players need a firmware upgrade in order to process correctly. That's it, that's all. No conspiracy, no spec problem with blu-ray, just like you couldn't watch King Kong on any HD DVD player without upgrading to 2.0 firmware.
No it's not. DTS-HD covers both the HR (High Resolution) and MA (Master Audio) variants. It says so on the DTS website.
This is what you said in your article:
Quote: At the time of writing I don’t know of a single Blu-ray player that can internally decode DTS-HD (either ‘lossless’ Master Audio or the lossy High Resolution variant)."
Seems pretty clear that you don't think a single Blu-ray player can decode lossy DTS, which is completely absurd since they ALL can.
Quote: The PS3 is heavily rumored to provide internal DTS HD MA decoding within the next couple of months via a firmware update.
Quote: I read that it doesn't have the necessary silicon to do so.
There is no proof anywhere that one of the most powerful computer chips in the world can't manage to decode a soundtrack.
Quote: As far as regional coding, it is optional for content creators. Sony, for example, often does not inlcude regional encoding. I have the UK version of Hellboy for example and it plays fine on my American BD player.
Quote: A lot of Sony UK's titles are multi-region, but most of the other distributors are coding. It's also the same story in the US.
I was just clarifying that just because it's Blu-ray doesn't mean it's region locked. But unlike HD DVD, there are very few Blu-ray titles that are not or soon will be available in the US so region encoding doesn't really matter. Yeah I paid $50 for Reign of Fire on HD DVD and if people want to do that they can, but the Blu-ray version which apeared a little later is far superior.
Quote: As for speed of navigation and disc access, that is restricted to the Samsung player. My PS3 can access every Blu-ray disc as fast as a DVD player accesses DVDs. It is HD DVD that is molassis slow with every disc. The notion that HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray is ridiculous. Anyone who has experience with both knows this.
Quote: Did you even read the article? I have experience of both and HD DVD is faster. It's not just the Samsung - I've seen YouTube footage of BD players taking 3 minutes to load PotC (and then failing). The reason it is slower is because most players don't have the secondary video/audio processors required for Profile 1.1. When 1.1 is common, it will be less of an issue. You keep bringing up the PS3 but it's not a standalone deck, which is what I'm talking about here.[quote]
You said in your article that HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray. That is not true and in fact it's quite teh opposite. The fact that a couple java intensive discs, which has nothing to do with the mechanical operations the players themselves, is a totally different situation than the millenium long wait all HD DVD owners have to go through just to get the thing to turn on and open the disc tray.
[quote]I bought a first gen HD-A1 HD DVD player. It is not true that all interactive content was available from the "get-go". In fact it coulodn't even decode TrueHD when it came out. It wouldn't even play U-Control discs without a firmware update.
Quote: It's true that it was part of the specs 'from the get'go', which is not true with Blu-ray. All new formats have teething problems, but at least HD DVD was standardised. I wondered when the first true 'fanboy' would arrive - I expected it to be a pro-Blu-rayer.
Blu-ray has had specs "from the get-go", it's just that they are being broached in tiers, far in excess of what HD DVD is capable of by the way. For example, internet downloading is highly touted as a reason why HD DVD is superior. Profile 2.0 will mandate 1GB of internal memory for downloads. HD DVD has a measly 128mb dedicated to storing internet downlodas, which isn't even enough to store everything you can download for Transformers alone!
Quote: The issue I have with the PS3 is its inability to offer multi-channel lossless audio over analogue connections, which forces people to buy a new amp to hear PCM, DD+, TrueHD and DTS-HD.
Neither do the HD-A2 or the HD-A3, the most popular models of HD DVD player! Heck they don't even offer 1080p/24 playback which is what the discs are encoded in! The reason that's a big deal is because displays are forced to deinterlace the image and some of them don't do a very good job, leading to artifacts.
You can hear DD+ and DTS HD over the included optical connection on the PS3 though, another place you are wrong. If you're talking about DTS HD MA, then you have to make that distinction.
I think it's pretty clear who the fanboy without the facts is.
Also the idea that the lack of a secondary video processor being the reason POTC is slow to boot up on some players is ridiculous. POTC doesn't have a secondary video!
No the reason for a couple of titles being slow to boot up is due to enhanced java on the disc which some players need a firmware upgrade in order to process correctly. That's it, that's all. No conspiracy, no spec problem with blu-ray, just like you couldn't watch King Kong on any HD DVD player without upgrading to 2.0 firmware.
Quote:
Blu-ray has had specs "from the get-go", it's just that they are being broached in tiers, far in excess of what HD DVD is capable of by the way. For example, internet downloading is highly touted as a reason why HD DVD is superior. Profile 2.0 will mandate 1GB of internal memory for downloads. HD DVD has a measly 128mb dedicated to storing internet downlodas, which isn't even enough to store everything you can download for Transformers alone!
First of all, I think what Chris means is that HD DVD mandated from the beginning to support PiP playback through HDI technology, to support internet connectivity through an Ethernet port, to have onboard storage, etc... These are things that were not mandated by Blu-Ray. Minus the PS3, how many Blu-Ray players have built-in ethernet ports? 1? 2? I just can't believe you're touting Blu-Ray has better specs *after* Profile 2.0. Lest we forget that it took them a year and a half to implement Profile 1.1.
As for the Toshiba's internal memory, what is really great about it is the fact that when you download content (such as on Transformers) it doesn't download the entire file, it downloads the pathway so the next time you put in the disc, you have the option to play that downloaded feature without having to download it again. Higher storage would have been nice, but it's simply not necessary as I have downloaded all the features on Transformers and it did not fill up my internal memory.
I have both a PS3 and the HD-A3 and it's true, the PS3 is an incredible machine. But what people forget is the reason why it's performs in the way of BD titles so greatly is because it's a gaming machine (with enough processing power to power a small city block.)
I agree with Chris that if you're going to compare formats and compare them on an apples-to-apples basis, then you have to take the PS3 out of the equation.
That being said, I also side with HD DVD (even though I own both) because Toshiba has delivered on which they have promised. Think about it, Sony has been developing Blu-Ray for 10 years, it should have been flawless out the gate... and it wasn't...
Fettastic wrote: [quote=Chris Gould wrote][quote=Fettastic wrote]
Quote: The issue I have with the PS3 is its inability to offer multi-channel lossless audio over analogue connections, which forces people to buy a new amp to hear PCM, DD+, TrueHD and DTS-HD.
Neither do the HD-A2 or the HD-A3, the most popular models of HD DVD player! Heck they don't even offer 1080p/24 playback which is what the discs are encoded in! The reason that's a big deal is because displays are forced to deinterlace the image and some of them don't do a very good job, leading to artifacts.
The A2 and A3's are the most popular because they are the most affordable. The A20, XA2, A30, and A35 all offer "FullHD 1080p" (which is a bulls**t claim to begin with as the difference between 1080i and 1080p are so insignifficant that you'd have to have a display device of at least 60" to even tell a difference, and those that do (like myself) have noticed no deinterlacing problems through my A3 on my 62" DLP. In fact, there's such a miniscule amount of deinterlacing problems 1080p fixes that it honestly really isn't worth mentioning.) playback.
Quit looking at paper and start looking at reality man.
Blu-ray has had specs "from the get-go", it's just that they are being broached in tiers, far in excess of what HD DVD is capable of by the way. For example, internet downloading is highly touted as a reason why HD DVD is superior. Profile 2.0 will mandate 1GB of internal memory for downloads. HD DVD has a measly 128mb dedicated to storing internet downlodas, which isn't even enough to store everything you can download for Transformers alone!
First of all, I think what Chris means is that HD DVD mandated from the beginning to support PiP playback through HDI technology, to support internet connectivity through an Ethernet port, to have onboard storage, etc... These are things that were not mandated by Blu-Ray. Minus the PS3, how many Blu-Ray players have built-in ethernet ports? 1? 2? I just can't believe you're touting Blu-Ray has better specs *after* Profile 2.0. Lest we forget that it took them a year and a half to implement Profile 1.1.
As for the Toshiba's internal memory, what is really great about it is the fact that when you download content (such as on Transformers) it doesn't download the entire file, it downloads the pathway so the next time you put in the disc, you have the option to play that downloaded feature without having to download it again. Higher storage would have been nice, but it's simply not necessary as I have downloaded all the features on Transformers and it did not fill up my internal memory.
I have both a PS3 and the HD-A3 and it's true, the PS3 is an incredible machine. But what people forget is the reason why it's performs in the way of BD titles so greatly is because it's a gaming machine (with enough processing power to power a small city block.)
I agree with Chris that if you're going to compare formats and compare them on an apples-to-apples basis, then you have to take the PS3 out of the equation.
That being said, I also side with HD DVD (even though I own both) because Toshiba has delivered on which they have promised. Think about it, Sony has been developing Blu-Ray for 10 years, it should have been flawless out the gate... and it wasn't...
Fettastic wrote: [quote=Chris Gould wrote][quote=Fettastic wrote]
Quote: The issue I have with the PS3 is its inability to offer multi-channel lossless audio over analogue connections, which forces people to buy a new amp to hear PCM, DD+, TrueHD and DTS-HD.
Neither do the HD-A2 or the HD-A3, the most popular models of HD DVD player! Heck they don't even offer 1080p/24 playback which is what the discs are encoded in! The reason that's a big deal is because displays are forced to deinterlace the image and some of them don't do a very good job, leading to artifacts.
The A2 and A3's are the most popular because they are the most affordable. The A20, XA2, A30, and A35 all offer "FullHD 1080p" (which is a bulls**t claim to begin with as the difference between 1080i and 1080p are so insignifficant that you'd have to have a display device of at least 60" to even tell a difference, and those that do (like myself) have noticed no deinterlacing problems through my A3 on my 62" DLP. In fact, there's such a miniscule amount of deinterlacing problems 1080p fixes that it honestly really isn't worth mentioning.) playback.
Quit looking at paper and start looking at reality man.
I'll try and address some of what you've said (although your quoting needs some tidying up), but this is quickly turning into the sort of fanboy thread I didn't want.
Quote: Seems pretty clear that you don't think a single Blu-ray player can decode lossy DTS, which is completely absurd since they ALL can.
What I actually said was that I don't know of one, ot that none exist. As far as I am aware you still only get Core from DTS-HD HR on the vast majority of players. If that's wrong, please point me to the relevant information and I'm amend the article.
Quote: There is no proof anywhere that one of the most powerful computer chips in the world can't manage to decode a soundtrack.
By that rationale there is no proof that it can. I'm repeating information I've read quite recently in various AV forums. That info could be wrong, but just because you want it to be true, it doesn't mean it is.
Quote: I was just clarifying that just because it's Blu-ray doe
sn't mean it's region locked. But unlike HD DVD, there are very few Blu-ray titles that are not or soon will be available in the US so region encoding doesn't really matter.
The world does exist outside of the USA you know. This is a UK website and I live in England. It is a big issue for me because most titles come out earlier and are cheaper in the US and Asia.
Quote: You said in your article that HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray. That is not true and in fact it's quite teh opposite. The fact that a couple java intensive discs, which has nothing to do with the mechanical operations the players themselves, is a totally different situation than the millenium long wait all HD DVD owners have to go through just to get the thing to turn on and open the disc tray.
I'm basing my opinions on the hardware that is available now, not what has come before or some intangible players that might come in the future. Based on my experiences with two standalone decks HD DVD is marginally more responsive in most (but not all) areas. You're quite right that BD's slow loading of BD-J titles has nothing to do with the mechanics of the players. I don't remember saying it did.
Quote: Neither do the HD-A2 or the HD-A3, the most popular models of HD DVD player! Heck they don't even offer 1080p/24 playback which is what the discs are encoded in! The reason that's a big deal is because displays are forced to deinterlace the image and some of them don't do a very good job, leading to artifacts.
Again, you're talking about old hardware. Even your beloved PS3 needed a firmware upgrade to enable 24Hz support and up-conversion.
Quote: You can hear DD+ and DTS HD over the included optical connection on the PS3 though, another place you are wrong. If you're talking about DTS HD MA, then you have to make that distinction.
Tell me what the maximum bitrate of DTS-HD HR is. Now tell me what the maximum bitrate that can be sent over legacy optical/coax. Can't do it? Go to DTS, read up on it. You can get Core (i.e. reduced bitrate audio) over those legacy connections. They don't have the bandwidth to do anything like the bitrates supported by DTS-HD HR or MA. The same goes for DD+. What you're talking about is downmixing, which is completely different. I think it's you who needs to work on your distinctions.
Quote: Also the idea that the lack of a secondary video processor being the reason POTC is slow to boot up on some players is ridiculous. POTC doesn't have a secondary video!
Wait for profile 1.1 and see how much faster these discs are. It's to do with persistent storage and all of the stuff that will come with 1.1. I'll admit that mentioning the secondary video/audio stuff wasn't clever; I should have made it clear I was talking about the full benefits of 1.1, which includes that and more. The video and audio processing does make a difference for features that are overlayed on the main feature though, such as the games on the FF: RotSS disc.
Quote: No conspiracy, no spec problem with blu-ray, just like you couldn't watch King Kong on any HD DVD player without upgrading to 2.0 firmware.
Your point? My BD player didn't work with four or five titles until the second firmware upgrade. You didn't have to buy a new player with HD DVD either, did you? People with 1.0 machines will, then they'll have to get another one when 2.0 is rolled out. Yeah, the specs were really standardised/finalised from the start...
Quote: Seems pretty clear that you don't think a single Blu-ray player can decode lossy DTS, which is completely absurd since they ALL can.
What I actually said was that I don't know of one, ot that none exist. As far as I am aware you still only get Core from DTS-HD HR on the vast majority of players. If that's wrong, please point me to the relevant information and I'm amend the article.
Quote: There is no proof anywhere that one of the most powerful computer chips in the world can't manage to decode a soundtrack.
By that rationale there is no proof that it can. I'm repeating information I've read quite recently in various AV forums. That info could be wrong, but just because you want it to be true, it doesn't mean it is.
Quote: I was just clarifying that just because it's Blu-ray doe
sn't mean it's region locked. But unlike HD DVD, there are very few Blu-ray titles that are not or soon will be available in the US so region encoding doesn't really matter.
The world does exist outside of the USA you know. This is a UK website and I live in England. It is a big issue for me because most titles come out earlier and are cheaper in the US and Asia.
Quote: You said in your article that HD DVD is quicker than Blu-ray. That is not true and in fact it's quite teh opposite. The fact that a couple java intensive discs, which has nothing to do with the mechanical operations the players themselves, is a totally different situation than the millenium long wait all HD DVD owners have to go through just to get the thing to turn on and open the disc tray.
I'm basing my opinions on the hardware that is available now, not what has come before or some intangible players that might come in the future. Based on my experiences with two standalone decks HD DVD is marginally more responsive in most (but not all) areas. You're quite right that BD's slow loading of BD-J titles has nothing to do with the mechanics of the players. I don't remember saying it did.
Quote: Neither do the HD-A2 or the HD-A3, the most popular models of HD DVD player! Heck they don't even offer 1080p/24 playback which is what the discs are encoded in! The reason that's a big deal is because displays are forced to deinterlace the image and some of them don't do a very good job, leading to artifacts.
Again, you're talking about old hardware. Even your beloved PS3 needed a firmware upgrade to enable 24Hz support and up-conversion.
Quote: You can hear DD+ and DTS HD over the included optical connection on the PS3 though, another place you are wrong. If you're talking about DTS HD MA, then you have to make that distinction.
Tell me what the maximum bitrate of DTS-HD HR is. Now tell me what the maximum bitrate that can be sent over legacy optical/coax. Can't do it? Go to DTS, read up on it. You can get Core (i.e. reduced bitrate audio) over those legacy connections. They don't have the bandwidth to do anything like the bitrates supported by DTS-HD HR or MA. The same goes for DD+. What you're talking about is downmixing, which is completely different. I think it's you who needs to work on your distinctions.
Quote: Also the idea that the lack of a secondary video processor being the reason POTC is slow to boot up on some players is ridiculous. POTC doesn't have a secondary video!
Wait for profile 1.1 and see how much faster these discs are. It's to do with persistent storage and all of the stuff that will come with 1.1. I'll admit that mentioning the secondary video/audio stuff wasn't clever; I should have made it clear I was talking about the full benefits of 1.1, which includes that and more. The video and audio processing does make a difference for features that are overlayed on the main feature though, such as the games on the FF: RotSS disc.
Quote: No conspiracy, no spec problem with blu-ray, just like you couldn't watch King Kong on any HD DVD player without upgrading to 2.0 firmware.
Your point? My BD player didn't work with four or five titles until the second firmware upgrade. You didn't have to buy a new player with HD DVD either, did you? People with 1.0 machines will, then they'll have to get another one when 2.0 is rolled out. Yeah, the specs were really standardised/finalised from the start...
I am not going to upgrade to either format. When I put a movie in I don't want to have to wait minutes for it to start up. I definitely don't want to download patches in order for some movies/features to work.
The quality may not be as good, but I will stick with DVD until all the hassle is worked out. However, majority of folks seem to feel the download movie system will be in place way before the kinks are worked out of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, so it would appear to be a moot issue and waste of money and time by both companies producing these two new formats.
The quality may not be as good, but I will stick with DVD until all the hassle is worked out. However, majority of folks seem to feel the download movie system will be in place way before the kinks are worked out of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, so it would appear to be a moot issue and waste of money and time by both companies producing these two new formats.
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Past Reviews
Magnolia Pictures Wrap-Up
US - BD RA
Birthday Girl
AU - DVD R4
Ghost Ship
US - DVD R1
Do the Right Thing: 20th Anniversary Edition
US - BD
Finding Nemo (2D)
US - BD
Hot News
Disney Animation Blu-rays
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Prince of Darkness
US - BD RA
The Lovely Bones
US - DVD R1 | BD
ABC TV
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Wrong
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Hot Articles
Star Wars: The Changes - Part One
DVD | BD
Star Wars: The Changes - Part Three
DVD
Star Wars: The Changes - Part Two
DVD
Old Films on Blu-ray: Are They Worth It?
BD
Star Wars: Top 20 Moments
DVD
Most Talked About
More Scream Factory News
US - BD RA
Texas Chainsaw (2013, 2D)
US - BD RA
Spring Breakers
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Host, The
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Universal Steelbooks
US - BD RA
and as someone else said, porn is fantasy, we dont wanna see every detail..like all their scars and stretchmarks....makeup is used for a reason..lol