Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First HD-DVD Disc Reviews - Mixed Marks

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the welcome-to-the-party dept.

An anonymous reader writes "As the first HD-DVD players and discs hit store shelves nationwide today, the new site High-Def DVD Digest has posted extraordinarily detailed reviews of the HD-DVD disc releases of 'Serenity' and 'The Last Samurai,' with more reviews to come later today. The site gives both discs mixed marks, with the Tom Cruise flick edging out the Whedon-fest for demonstrating more pure high-def eye-candy appeal. Also worth a look-see: a detailed account of their 'review reference system' (ie: their gear)."

15 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Something else to consider... by TobyWong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Something else to consider... if you are disinterested in this new technology because the difference isn't that noticable and from the looks of things you seem to be technically fluent, how is the average joe going to react? I'm talking about those people who watch standard def contents on their HDTV sets without even realizing it/knowing the difference.

    --
    - Toby
    1. Re:Something else to consider... by TobyWong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The transition from cassette tape to CD and from VHS to DVD offered dramatic and obvious improvements, even to the untrained eye/ear. Aside from P & S quality, you also had the ability to jump around to random places on the discs and you didn't have to rewind those damn tapes(!!!). Even the neophyte can appreciate these improvements.

      Now compare this to the DVD -> HD-DVD/Blu-Ray transition. For starters, they essentially look the same. So whats the difference again? Oh yeah, the picture looks a little better. How many Joe 6-packs do you know who complain about DVD image quality (assuming a properly done transfer)? Not many.

      --
      - Toby
    2. Re:Something else to consider... by Pieroxy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Firstly, digital is superior to analog, at least where there isn't overcompression

      I haven't read something that dumb in a while. Digital and Analog are two different ways to store/transmit data, nothing more. The quality of each is bound to be the quality that it was designed to hold, nothing more, nothing less. The ONE property digital data has over analog, is that it _can_ be duplicated without loss.

      A 8KHz PCM (no compression) stereo file will sound worse than a LP or a cassette, you can be sure of that.

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    3. Re:Something else to consider... by Firehed · · Score: 2, Insightful
      the resolution of your eyes
      I do life at 100 terapixels. How 'bout you?

      Compression is a BIG factor too. I can fit a seven-hour movie on a DVD-5 disc, but it'll look like ass. I can fit a two-hour movie on that same disc and it'll actally look decent. It varies by content quite a bit when you get any sort of lossy video format (which is used by both DVDs and both high-def formats) - some two-hour movies will fit on a DVD-5 with no compression from the orignal with room to spare while some 1.5-hour movies need to be shrunk to 70%. Take something like Saving Private Ryan - that thing looks absolutely horriffic shrunk even to a DVD-5 disc because of the content and how the algorithms run. When I Xvid my collection, I use "lossless" settings (100% quality, original ac3 audio), and while most movies are about 2-2.5GB in size, that puppy weighed in at over five gigs.

      Yeah, ideally we'd have had movies shot on oversized ISO1 film (which would be crazy sharp) and then digitized at some equivalent resolution, probably well over ten times 1080i in both dimensions (IIRC, standard movie film equates to something like 5000 lines of resolution). It would be as lifelike as it could be without being there in person. But that's not going to happen any time soon As it is, the increase to HD from SD isn't that noticible, especially when compared to the numerous differences between VHS and DVD, most notably a much crisper picture.

      I personally never touch the bonus content, and at least on most two-disc movies, that's true of most people. As it is, when I make backup copies of my movie so I don't damage the original somehow, I take out everything but the movie - I put it in, it starts playing, no previews or sitting at a menu while you're searching for the remote to hit enter because they couldn't have been smart enough to put that button on the player itself. I think it's safe to say that most people aren't looking for more interactivity, and I can safely say that most people wouldn't benefit from the quality increase right now unless someone hands them the equipment. I'd estimate at least 70% of people prefer fullscreen, since widescreen "cuts off the top and bottom of the original" (yes, they really think that. Of course, that would make perfect sense - remove picture and make it not fit most TVs).

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    4. Re:Something else to consider... by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I remember people making the same point when DVD first came out.

      I was an early adopter (still have my original Phillips 400AT player from 1997). And I wish I had a nickel for every naysayer back then who said "Joe Sixpack will never buy into DVD. He's already perfectly happy with his VHS. He's not going to notice the quality difference and doesn't care about the extras."

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. It's Just Beginning by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, I hope you are not tired of reading; because the media hype is just going to get worse.

    When both formats are up and running you will not be able to go anywhere and not read about this stuff. There is too much cash involved just to leave the decision up to the consumer. The companies backing the standards simply are not going to trust you to make the choice--they are going to let you know what to think. And the way they are going to do that is by running thousands of ads; ghost writing reviews, etc.

    It's just beginning and you haven't heard nothing yet.

    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
  3. Why? by jawtheshark · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Why do I need HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? DVD does just fine everything I need. I'm probably not in the market, because two years and a half ago my old TV died and I bought a new one. A CRT, simply because anything Plasma/LCD was pretty much over 4000€. I got a nice 83cm (~32inch) 16:9 TV for 900€ and it works fine. No, it's not HD-Ready (not that I'm aware of), but I don't care.

    My wife would like me to replace it with a Plasma or LCD because the current one looks bulky, but I cannot think of any reason to "throw away" such an investment. It has to stay at least another 6 years. After that, we'll see.

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    1. Re:Why? by radish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simple. If you don't have an HDTV you don't need HD-DVD or BluRay.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Every format Sony introduces fails. Betamax, they had a DVD competitor that was stilborn, minidisc, DAT, memory stick and on and on. The only success was the CD but that was only because Philips was involved.

      The future of the PS3 is looking shaky with its delays and probable pricepoint and even if it is a smash success, somebody has to make blu-ray movies to play on it and purchasers have to care enough to buy the discs and by that time they may already have HD-DVD players which marginalizes it even more. Of course, there's still the question of whether people will allow the obsolesence of perfectly functional DVDs for crippleware with little additional to recommend it.

  4. Will NetFlix speed adoption? by GGardner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Netflix (and competitors, I assume) claim they will have HD-DVDs available when they are released. To the degree that people use these companies to rent media, instead of owning it, I wonder if that will speed adoption. Sure, HD-DVD and BlueRay players will be backward compatible with my existing DVDs, but if I've got a stack of plain-old DVDs next to the player, I think I'm less likely to upgrade.

  5. Re:plays in Peoria?, redux by hal2814 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I seriously don't understand how people can claim to not be able to tell the difference."

    I'm with you there. I really think the difference is noticeable but at the same time I don't think there are a whole lot of people who care about that noticable difference. What they have is good enough right now to not justify spending the extra money on HD. HDTV still isn't quite cheap enough yet, especially considering the sheer number of people who bought a big screen a few years ago during the big screen TV boom.

    "Regular DVD's just look like trash on a large HD sceen"

    That's usually because any NTSC signal looks like trash on an HDTV screen. Most manufacturers don't take the time to get a non-HD signal looking good on their TVs, which is unfortunate considering low-def video isn't going to just disappear any time soon. Upconverters on DVD players is a decent idea but the TV should be doing a good enough job of conversion that it's not neccessary.

  6. Yes! by julienbh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Now there is a way to know which tech will get most hype: The first to be cracked.
    Let's look back in my crystal ball:

    0- VHS - insert press record
    1- CD - cracked, press record
    2- DVD - cracked, press record
    3- BluRay vs HDdvd: easiest to crack will win

    IMHO.

    --
    http://www.soundclick.com/g1mike
  7. Re:cracked ? The key to adoption by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, seriously. The parent may well be trolling, but the point is actually insightful in a roundabout way. I don't think the format will take off until you can make a copy for yourself. Do you really think Netfix would be where it is today if you couldn't rip and burn DVDs? Of course not. A cracked format will be the doorway to universal accptance of the new format. Otherwise, it will just sit next to DAT on the shelf of technology that could have been big.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  8. SD and HD content. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Am I the only one that thinks that they should just put the stadard SD (720x480p) content on the HD-DVD discs as an UNENCRYPTED bonus. DVDs are as wide open as they come. People may want to copy HD content, but I think the majority just want at least SOME freedom to place their content on other devices (psp, video ipod, portable media centers, etc). Why not just make dual sided (one side unencrypted SD content, one side HD-DVD content). That way their PRECIOUS HD content doesn't get stolen (until it is cracked) and that way we have a LEGAL means of exercising our legal right to make backups and use our content on other devices (yes I know that some will argue that we ripping DVDs IS legal, but some would disagree). Who wants to downgrade HD content. I think their idiots for thinking that we want to rip and send this stuff over the internet. Give me a break. SD content is GOOD ENOUGH FOR MOST PEOPLE WHICH IS WHY HD-DVD MAY FAIL!!! However, if they make it so the info is as portable as can be, then I would adopt as soon as I can pony up the cash.

  9. Serenity HD quality by Bluude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, Joss Wheadon just couldn't keep those spaceships in focus. The guys floating around in space filming it must have had too much to think about besides camera focus. :)

    I am just tired of everyone saying Serenity had bad cinematography. Joss intentionally did zoom focus shots and motion blur shots to make it look like there was a camera guy right there filming the action. But of course since all the action is usually done against a green screen, or no screen at all, these affects were purposefully added later just like the space ships that were zoom focused on. It was a creative decision, and while it might not have been the best one, it has nothing to do with crappy cinematography. In fact after watching the making of on the dvd, I realized he went to great effort to make those effects happen.

    Making everything look crisp and clear is easy today. He wanted the old spaghetti western camera shots for his space western movie. Show some respect for his genius even if you are too ignorant to appreciate it.