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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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