Slashdot Mirror
HD DVD vs Blu-ray Direct Comparisons
An anonymous reader writes "With today's release of three movies on Blu-ray, Warner Home Video has become the first studio to release movie titles on both high-def formats, making it finally possible to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the same titles on both formats . High-Def Digest has just posted reviews of all three titles — 'Training Day,' 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' and 'Rumor Has It' — comparing video, audio and extras to the previous HD DVD releases. Their verdict? Due to issues with image cropping, audio selection and supplemental features on the Blu-ray discs, the HD DVD versions win this first face-off."
Training Day Kiss Kiss Bang Bang Rumor Has It
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
There are two problems at the moment. Firstly, it seems that the Samsung player just isn't terribly good, despite costing twice as much as the Toshiba. But by far the largest aspect is that the current batch of BluRay discs are mastered with the MPEG-2 codec, rather than the superior VC-1 that HD-DVD discs are using. This is because Sony's initial mastering software did not support the use of the more advanced codecs.
This has just recently been fixed, so discs should start appearing toward the end of the year with exactly the same encode as the HD-DVD, and the only remaining aspects will be the quality of the player, and any necessary culling of extra features or audio formats to make the film fit on a 25Gb BluRay instead of a 30Gb HD-DVD.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
This is especially true with blu ray because they're using MPEG-2 which is what standard DVD are encoded as. HD DVD is using VC-1 (I think) which is superior. Blu ray supports VC-1 they just haven't gotten around it releasing movies with it.
PLEASE, WAKE UP: Warner Home Video Inc. is member of the HD DVD Promotion Group.
So what would you expect? A better Blu Ray release?
My reply is kind of directed at MindStalker as well, as it's essentially the same question.
BluRay does indeed go to 50Gb in the specs, but they're currently failing to manufacture dual layer discs on a commercial level, so all currently announced titles are only 25Gb at most. The first couple of batches have been more like 22Gb, because they daren't even go to the edge of that first layer, but they're starting to get braver.
Actually, the HD-DVD group recently announced that they're planning to introduce a third layer next year, around the same time that it's expected we'll be regularly seeing 50Gb BluRay discs, so capacity isn't really a big comparison factor.
Finally, it's all something of a marketing argument anyway. 2 hour movies are looking just gorgeous as 15-20Gb VC-1 files, so other than the ability to get all of the extended Return Of The King on one disc I wouldn't worry about it.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
BluRay currently has greater capacity. The only reason its picture quality sucks is because Sony has been using MPEG-2, even though the format supports H.264 and VC1/WMV9.
BluRay and HDDVD support the same three video codecs: MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC (H.264), and VC-1 (WMV9).
AFAIK, all of the current BluRay titles were encoded with MPEG-2. I don't know about the current HDDVD titles.
AFAIK, BluRay holds 25 GB (GigaBytes) per layer, and HDDVD holds 15 GB (GigaBytes) per layer. I have already seen 50 GB BD-ROM blanks at Frys (albeit for $39) so I know the dual layer BluRay discs are already possible. I've also heard that many HDDVD movies are shipping on 30 GB (dual layer) discs. That said, it is entirely possible that the current BluRay movies are shipping on single layer 25 GB discs to save money in manufacturing as it would be cheaper to stamp a single layer disc and "25 GB is close enough to 30 GB".
AFAIK, both BluRay and HDDVD support the same three codecs: MPEG-2, H.264 (MPEG-4 AVC), and VC-1 (WMV9).
AFAIK, the current BluRay authoring software only supports MPEG-2 at this time, so the initial discs were encoded with MPEG-2... even though VC-1 and H.264 codecs have been on the market for several years...
AFAIK, the current HDDVD authoring software supports MPEG-2 and VC-1, and the initial discs have been using VC-1.
We won't be able to see a true Apples to Apple comparison until we can compare two discs that used the exact same codec at the exact same bitrate, or even the exact same H.264 / VC-1 data.
Umm ... JVC launched VHS in 1976, not Samsung:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHS
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
One other thing to keep in mind is that the Samsung model used in the comparison has a now-known defect in one of the video chips, it is a chip for processing high-definition, it's not a format-specific chip. I would regard the video comparisons are completely moot until that gets fixed.
In the end, I expect both formats to have equivalent picture quality for movies, save for player-specific issues or mistakes in the authoring.
Even the audio feature comparisons are moot as far as I'm concerned. Except for deliberate choices (leaving out an audio track) or mistakes in the authoring, I don't expect there to be a difference because both formats generally allow the disc producer to use the same sets of audio codecs.
The whole idea of A-B comparison is interesting, but because, as you state, they haven't isolated all the variables, it really isn't sufficient.
We chose x86 before PPC existed. We stuck with x86 for a variety of reasons, including very good performance, wide availability of systems, ability to run old software, and reasonable price. PPC wasn't and isn't clearly better (at least not in every regard.) RISC didn't prove to be better than CISC when transistor budgets rose, and decode units started taking up a tiny amount of die space. RISC also tends to take more space for the instruction stream, so CISC makes better use of instruction fetch bandwidth.
We chose the less proprietary, more widely available format over the one that didn't hold as much content.
This wasn't much of a consumer choice. (And, I'm not familiar enough with the technology to assess the relative merits.) It isn't like there was a time when some TV's and stations in the US used one format, and some used another, resulting in a format war and the market deciding. This is kind of a non sequiter in the Blu-Ray / HDDVD format war analogy list.
Admittedly, the consumers did have some impact with this. Some very educated consumers know which carrier is using which network, and consider this very important. But, again, infrastructure had to be rolled out before consumers could get in on any decision making.
So, yes, the US is not the ultimate technology leader. But, when there is a consumer format war, there is often some reason behind the winner. Just claiming the loser was "best" leaves out a lot.
The Blue-Ray format supports multiple codecs, the least of which is MPEG-2. It also supports MPEG-4, H.264/AVC, and VC-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-ray#Codecs
--Edward Dassmesser
Hold on I was sure the blueray was the bigger size?
The biggest CURRENTLY AVAILABLE format is HD-DVD:
BluRay: 25GB/layer * 1 layer = 25 GB
HD-DVD: 15GB/layer * 2 layers = 30 GB
Furthermore, the video encoding scheme used by HD-DVD is more efficient--BluRay is still encoded similar to standard DVDs though in a few weeks some BluRay discs using identically encoded video as HD-DVD will start showing up. I'm not all that certain studios will spend extra money to produce excluseinve content to take advantage of the extra 5GB on HD-DVD.
One thing that isn't discussed much is that although the two formats can use identically encoded video, IIRC they have different DRM schemes and different programming methods (for interactivity/menus). The reviewer was quite disappointed with the performance of BluRay for interactivity--its responsiveness was much poorer than that of the HD-DVD release, so much so that it more than erased the benefit of faster initial start-up of Blu-ray. Combine the inferior quality of these releases with the fact that there is less selection of BluRay players, and they cost much more than HD-DVD, and the smaller number of titles than HD-DVD, and BluRay has an uphill battle on its hands to escape the fate of becomeing the Betamax of the 21st century.
Take note that BluRay has the largest POTENTIAL size. I THINK current BluRay players are dual-layer capable, but even if they are this capability isn't well tested as there is no capability to mass-produce dual-layer discs yet. That'll take another year, at which time there will be an ample 20GB extra room on BluRay vx. HD-DVD. If BluRay can hang on for another year then this could be what it needs to come out on top. More importantly studios will have to actually take advantage of the space for meaningful exclusive content, and hardware vendors will have to bring down the price of BluRay players to be much closer in price to HD-DVD. Consumers will pay a premium for the extra capacity, but only a small one, and the quality had better improve from the current offerings.
In the end though, content will win this war. Given how things are shaping up BluRay will be second fiddle for a couple of years IMO. I don't know if either format will win total domination either--in another decade it won't matter how the bits are patterned on the little shiny plastic discs, because even today the little shiny plastic disc as a distribution medium is slowly going extinct. The kind of people who have HDTV sets today are also the kind of people who have digital cable or sattelite, and digital HTDV service offers video-on-demand and/or PVR digital recording. Just as iTunes and similar services are surging as CD sales flatten out and decline, electronic distribution of video content will change the industry.
so... people still do not realize that Sony is not in "control" of this format? It is not a proprietary tech. Samsung is one of the 15 companies responsible for making blu ray, Sony is not.....and can not, force thier hand on the matter. This hate mongering for Sony on the web is leading to some very inaccurate statements and comparisons. Some people need to wake up and see the potential of Blu ray instead of harping it down because they want to see sony's demise.
I was pretty sure Warner was backing HD-DVD, and that this might be some weird attempt to sabotage Blu-Ray, and in searching for evidence (turns out my bizarre conspiracy theory was just that), i found this info:
i ng_article.cfm?article_id=8150
;)
http://www.homemediaretailing.com/news/html/break
Warner is actually banking on Blu-Ray, having officially signed up to support the media. So let's keep going with 'the player is the problem', i guess, if you're dead set on adopting Laserdisc2006 or whatever it is we're bickering about.
It also does not have the quality of standard cd's either....that's why I'm not interested in purchasing them...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Actually the crippled version without HDMI is going to be $499 and the fully featured PS3 will be $599. Just a heads up.
Will HD-DVD "win" the war? I hope so because the quality is better, but if it doesn't, who cares? My $436 HD-DVD player not only plays the HD-DVD format (which looks MUCH better than regular DVD; in fact, it even looks better than braodcast HD) but in addition it upscales regular DVDs to 720p so that they look better as well. If the format dies, I still have a kick-ass upconverting DVD player that plays all of my current movies (and any HD movies I happen to purchase before then). For that price, it was a no-brainer for me.
Cingular is only the largest carrier by acquisitions. Combined, the GSM carriers in the US have 76M customers (though that includes Cingular's TDMA customers) while the CDMA carriers in the US have 110M customers (though that includes Sprint's iDEN customers, which are soon to be CDMA). The CDMA carriers also have, on average, higher EBIDTA margins, higher average revenue per user, lower churn, and a lower percentage of pre-paid customers than the GSM networks. Doesn't really paint a picture of GSM "winning," does it?
Source
Your comment is part of the issue. As someone producing the tech for making these discs I know for a fact that the encoders have a lot to do with the issue just as DVD did in its beginning. The second issue is the decoder and its immaturity. Any comparison done now is practically pointless. One generation from now you wont see a difference other then the features differences between the to format spec.
x86 is and always was superior to PPC. Most knew it immediately. Apple took a little longer.
So score one for HD DVD's VC1 compression codec over the MPEG2/AVC scheme used for Blu-ray
Both Blu-Ray and HD DVD support both VC1 and MPEG2/AVC, if I'm not mistaken. They are comparing the encoding on a specific movie, but imply that it's inherent to the format.
Unfortunately, due to disc space limitations, Warner has elected to drop the [TrueHD Dolby Digital] track altogether on the Blu-ray release. [...] But more troubling is that Warner has also dropped the Dolby Digital-Plus track off of this Blu-ray release
Disc space limitations on Blu-Ray? 25GB on a single layer is really not enough (compared to 30 on a dual-layer with HD DVD) that two audio tracks had to be dropped? Something is fishy here.
E pluribus unum
I was a teenager in that era and the reason Beta pissed me off was because of the Beta I/II/III and the tape lengths.
First off, if you had a Beta I/II player, you couldn't play Beta III tapes.
Then, on the Beta machines I had access to, you had to physically switch to Beta I or Beta II to whatever tape you were going to watch, not a biggie but annoying.
The tape lengths were also confusing as L-750 didn't translate easily to parents as how many shows you can record on it as VHS did with the 2/4/6 HR tapes.
On the VHS machines I had access to, they could play any SP/LP/EP recorded media as that setting only affected recording.
Back in '81, Star Wars was on Beta and was $80 to buy or $12 to rent for 2 nights. Back then, at least where I lived, you could only buy them at the appliance stores that sold the players.
Blank VHS tapes were cheaper as well as the players. I remember paying $550 for my first VHS player that had 13 presets for analog tuning and a wireless remote. The remote for my Beta was wired and only paused, played, and stopped.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
The high-definition itself does help a lot following small, fast-moving objects, so as far as seeing the action it's more of a help in hockey or tennis than basketball or football.
Independently of how "helpful" it is, though, the hi-def is nice for the same reason it's nice in movies: it just looks better, and gives you more detail. And widescreen lets you see more of the product.
I mean, it's not like you can't follow what's going on in a VHS copy of Lawrence of Arabia. But god does it look better on hi-def widescreen (or 70mm projection if you get a chance).
Similarly, seeing all the fog players blow out on a cold day, the condition of the grass, dirt stains on the uniforms after a slide, etc don't help you follow the action any better but they do make it "feel" more immediate and make it more fun to watch.
Seeing a great film cut to pan-and-scan is just silly, you miss 30% or so of the visuals. Somewhat similarly, widescreen lets you see more. You can follow positioning and motion away from the ball, and really get a feel for team strategy instead of just following the action of whoever has the ball at the moment..
rage, rage against the dying of the light
Let's not forget all sorts of crippling DRM, which is probably one of the main reasons movie execs are drooling over this crap. And this time, it's not just a joke like CSS. Lest we forget, according to Wikipedia HD DVD has sophisticated audio watermarking, HDCP downconversion, and other crap. Blu Ray is just as bad, with "dynamically-changing keys for the cryptographic protections", HDCP, digital watermarking, and so forth.
I think I'll stick to plain DVDs and save my money.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
I saw the first blueray players setup at the local electronics retailer yesterday. Frankly, I wasn't impressed. I have an HDTV and a decent new progressive scan DVD player.
When I first walked in to the store, and saw the big scren tv playing its movie, I wasn't wowed, I did NOT say: "Damn, that's clear, that can't be a DVD! Is it BlueRay? HDDVD? I gotta find out more!"
I just assumed it was a regular DVD, and didn't give it much thought. I didn't have the slightest idea that I was looking at a BlueRay presentation until I noticed the blue ray logo on the advertising signage underneath.
This is a miles away from when I saw my first DVD, when I was literally amazed. Especially because at that time I mostly watched rented VHS, which were always somewhat worse for the wear.
Factor in the premium for the HD player and the movies themselves. ($46 bucks for movies I would typically pick up for under $20, often under $15)
So, will I get one? Yeah, eventually, when the price comes down to around 200-300, the format war is settled (or rendered irrelevant by cheap dual-mode players), and title availability is high. My first impression left me disctinctly underwhelmed. Paying *that* much more for soemthing that doesn't look even half *that* much better just isn't worth it to me.
Your mileage will, of course, vary.
Actually if was Philips who was responsible for BOTH the CD and Audio Cassette. ;)
Not bad for a little Dutch company