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."
Earlier adopters are the only ones that will see these shortcomings in either format.
Once it matures, who's going to know the difference. After reading all three of these fluffy articles, I still have no idea which format is "better" because there was no control.
I choose Betamax.
My ZooLoo
Review summary: Training Day was boring on HD-DVD, but very interesting on Blu-ray.
Training Day Kiss Kiss Bang Bang Rumor Has It
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
Hooray for the terrific initial movie titles released!!
So are the image problems are result of the encoding technique used on the blue-ray? You'd think with the increase in disc size that they would use a better scheme. Is this a fault of the movie producer or Sonys default encoding scheme? Anyone have any ideas???
Consumers.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Isn't the PlayStation 3 essentially going to decide the "better" format? If* the PS3 sells in large volumes, then that means that Blue Ray will be de facto High Definition format?
*When
Summation 2
Early in the life of DVD, The Matrix was the one disc that really got a lot of attention. It's what convinced me that DVD was more than worth the cost - from the surround sound to the higher definition playback, it was plainly superior. Seeing it on VHS and then on DVD made me realize how much I was missing from the experience. I have yet to see either new format in action, but from all I've heard, there is no compeling reason (even when it becomes affordable) for the average Joe to upgrade from DVD to HD or Blu-ray. I highly doubt those three movies above are going to convince anyone.
They're using two different players. Doesn't that invalidate this test?
Unless there is a player out there that supports both formats, no. Mind you, it mind be far easier to build a machine to play either format than building a VCR that could play both VHS and Beta.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Well, if this were a truly scientific experiment, then yes, the lack of a control would invalidate the results. However, the review is ultimately going after something a little more nebulous, the movie watching experience, even if they don't explicitly say such.
Moreover, doesn't the hardware's quality speak volumes about a formats potential in the market place? If the players don't work properly, who gives a flying f#@k about how great the format is? Especially since Sony will likely keep the price of blu-ray players artificially inflated b/c they're, you know, Sony.
my pet machine
Who buys it? People who have disposible income I guess. Time and again people buy products that get obsoleted by new models or new technology but it shouldn't be factor in whether you buy something now. How times do people buy new computers or cars? If you can afford it and you feel you'd appreciate it or get your moneys worth, go for it.
15 years ago I had a room mate that refused to buy audio CD's because he figured something was bound to replace it soon. I suppose now that iTunes is available he's waiting on the next big thing to supplant it. I never felt that was a good way to base my purchases on.
Especially since I mostly watch HD for Sports, not movies. DVD quality movies still look quite nice on my TV... Good enough that I don't have any reason to blow $1,000 on a new format that has almost no movies. It's just not a big enough jump over DVD for me to care. I've got better things to spend that kind of money on.
This is different because these are two competing technologies. Not buying CDs because something better will come out is just ignorant because there is no alternative. CDs were clearly the go ahead platform, whereas blu-ray and hddvd is undecided. One will eventually go away leaving the other the winner... thus the VHS/Betamax analogy.
http://religiousfreaks.com/In cases of monopoly this might make sense, but Sony is trying to lauch a new format here. Keeping the prices inflated (for any reason) is going to drive consumers towards HD-DVD.
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
Or, at least, my prediction has further evidence. :)
I have a simple rule these days about deciding what formats to pick. I simply pick "not Sony" and I'm pretty much always right. Sony stuff seems to look good on paper, but the implementation ends up sucking.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The real question is this: are you happy with what you have? DVDs suit me better than VHS because they do not degrade and I can skip through them instead of having to fast and rewind. What do these new technologies bring to the table? Better image quality. Honestly I am perfectly happy with DVD quality, therefore I will be saving my money for something better.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
This is not surprising at all.
Until Sony actually finds their brain and starts using modern compression techniques(y'know, ones that aren't a decade old), this will only continue. Really, MPEG-2? H.264 and the HD-DVD VC1 completely blow MPEG-2 out of the water with regards to quality/space. The Blu-Ray discs' extra space might make it closer when they start making dual-layer discs, but that's far away, and unless they also switch compression, HD-DVD will still be better.
And what does all this mean? Nothing of course. If the public actually sees fit to buy these clunkers in droves, then whoever has advertising wins. I do hope they both flop, but that's an argument for another day.
At some point you have to expect that a comparison is between things that are different, and there aren't any players capable of playing both formats.
What's frustrating about this test, though, is that there are so many differences between the players that it would almost seem necessary to go through a calibration routine with each player to ensure that the display device was properly calibrated for the source.
It'd also be nice to take the results of the test to the respective manufacturers and ask them about the output from each player and see if they have any feedback about the problems; the fact that the Samsung player is so new and that patches and firmware upgrades are likely probably makes an early comparison like this meaningless.
The technically superior standard almost never wins in the US.
We chose x86 over PPC
We chose VHS over BetaMax
We chose 8VSB over OFDM (for HDTV Broadcasting)
We chose CDMA over GSM (only just now starting to change)
And now we will probably end up with BluRay because of some gaming console... (PS3)
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.
In cases of monopoly this might make sense, but Sony is trying to lauch a new format here. Keeping the prices inflated (for any reason) is going to drive consumers towards HD-DVD.
This is SONY we're talking about. They don't know how to push a new format; They think that by pushing it at a high price it'll drive the format. They haven't learned any lessons in 20 years.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
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?
The VHS/Betamax war was in the early 80s. Who of the "early adopters", who are usually between 20 and 30 years old, would remember that?
Besides, don't underestimate the "ohhh, shiny" effect.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I keep hearing that the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD is just like the VHS vs Betamax from the past. There is a real problem with this analogy. With VHS vs Betamax, there wasn't any existing technology that did the same thing (unless you count reel projectors, which I don't). One of those technologies HAD to win because the market demanded the technology and there was no alternative.
The Blu-ray vs HD-DVD debate leaves out the very important aspect of existing DVD players and recorders. The market isn't really demanding a newer prettier picture quality or better sound or additional features that don't already exist on regular DVDs. With DVD-R camcorders now catching on in the consumer market, there's an even more compelling reason to stick with the older technology. It's an added feature the neither new format supports.
I predict that Blu-ray and HD-DVD will go the way of DAT and SACD. There may be a new format in the future but it's too soon and not advanced enough to take over the market. There will be a niche market for them just like Laserdisc for the true videophiles but that's all.
How about comparing both to DVD as well? I'd sure like to know why I am expected to pay 50% more for a blue-ray version of a movie than a regular DVD version.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
They're using two different players. Doesn't that invalidate this test?
The biggest HD-DVD supporter among the studios fucks up a Blu-Ray release? That alone should invalidate this test.
Thus spoke the voice of consumers everywhere!
The third most important thing I have learned in life: Squeeze anything hard enough and it eventually makes a noise.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Training Day
What?
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Who?
Rumor Has It
Wazzat?
These are their flagship release titles? Oh, I can't wait until these formats crater.
I am guessing it will go the way of DVD+- can anyone give reasons why we wont just see players that do both? Heck when was the last time you really had to pay attention to which DVD you bought? Almost everyone has +- players so I go for cheaper disks every time. I imagine that is what the blueray and HD-DVD will come down to. In the long run no one will really care, they will look for price and packaging, consumers dont care too much about the technology behind it.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
In addition to the players, you have to expect differences due to the teams that put the releases together. If it's the same team and they're more familiar with HD-DVD, then they're likely to put together a nicer HD-DVD product. If it's a different team, then there might also be differences in skill level and quality control. Throw in differences in brand new, first generation players and you're unlikely to get a perfect apples to apples comparison of what the technologies are capable of.
Though this is certainly a good attempt at comparison, the real truth will only come from building concensuss over time.
TW
I think it's safe to say that Sony is the worst company in history when it comes to competance in launching new formats.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
What is there to compare here? The format of the media storage is completely irrelevant to the quality of the movie. The movie is encoded in a binary, compressed codec. The combination of the codec, the compression level, the decoder in the player, and the quality of the components in the player - these are what determine the quality of the movie.
And since both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray support the same codecs, it is almost totally dependant on the player. The disc format of the movie doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
What a stupid article. Why not write an article comparing a movie viewed in a white to a movie viewed in an black house? It would have about the same difference on image and sound quality.
In cases of monopoly this might make sense, but Sony is trying to lauch a new format here. Keeping the prices inflated (for any reason) is going to drive consumers towards HD-DVD.
It would be a perfectly valid argument except that Sony has a long track record of shooting themselves in the foot in exactly this manner.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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.
It's anybodys guess at this point. PS3 is so overpriced at launch that it's no longer a done deal by a longshot. It all depends on what each console has to offer to gamers next holiday season. Xbox 360 has suffered due to lack of good exclusive titles, which supposedly is getting fixed this winter. At the same time PS3s launch lineup is still very much in the dark.
PS3 may still turn out to be the biggest turkey in the universe of game consoles, or it might pwn everything. At 300$ at launch it would absolutely surely wipe floor with everything.
At 599$, with crippled version having no HDMI, nobody knows what happens yet.
My personal bet is that X360-Wii -combo will beat PS3 for the first year, until lot more games are ready, and Sony, after bleeding for a while, goes for broke and drops the price. HD DVD/Blu-ray fight will be an irrelevant sideshow, as the movies are way overpriced and offer no serious benefits unless you buy a super-expensive TV. Whoever first gets the standalone player price down and offers more *movie* features wins. Additionally, if, say, HD-DVDs DRM gets cracked first, and people can start making 'backups' of their HD content bit like you can muck with DVDs today, Blu-ray will insta-lose the fight right there unless they can counter with technical merits (none so far, the formats are almost identical) or price (not likely with sony).
And I wasn't even using my "from on high" voice! About your sig: what are the first most important things?
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
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.
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.
Okay, so due to issues WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMATS THEMSELVES, HD-DVD won. This means nothing.
Not only that CD's are way the hell better than Tapes. The difference is much larger than DVD -> Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.
Go back to listening to tapes for a while and you'll see. Want to listen to a song in the middle of the tape? Bah. Fast forward, hit play every few seconds to see where you're at, fast forward some more, oops passed it, rewind... ehh.. screw that.
Plus the quality of the sound, the amount of space they holds, the fact that they don't get warn out from over use (unless you scratch the hell out of it)...
The list goes on.
Nah, neither of these technologies will become "the next betamax".
They're more likely to both become the next SACDs and DVD-Audios...
Right now, I'm not seeing either being a roaring success. Sony's insistance on basing the PS3 on Blu-ray may help ensure the format isn't lost completely, but I'm seeing two scenarios playing out here.
The first is CD (DVD) and SACD (HDDVD) and DVD-Audio. (Blu-ray)
The other is VHS (DVD) and Laserdisc (one of these formats, probably Blu-ray.)
Most consumers, either way, will stick with DVD. It works. We already have large movie collections on DVD. The quality of DVD is fine - not perfect, but largely acceptable. There are no substantial operational improvements the new formats have over DVD. The user friendliness of the technology is the same. And the equipment needed for the new formats, for now, looks to be substantially more expensive.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I have read the articles, but I can't say that this is in favour of the author of the articles.. Why? since he comments on all BR's being a bit dark, and all the disks having a 'wrong' ratio should have rang a bell that it surely is the player... But the fact that the HD-sound tracks have been dumped doesn't bode well for the Blue Ray... And why the hell they chose to use Mpeg2 compression on BR while it could also be encoded in VC1 is a mistery... The only good comparison would be to rip the disks to Harddrive and then use the same player for comparison, that way, the standalone player can't be the problem.. I've got 3 different dvd-players, and they all have a different ratio and color when I put in the same dvd.. But I guess a really decent reviewer would have known of these kinds of things...
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.
No, you're doing the wrong test. You need a typical crt based 27 inch television in a room with average lighting and a group of normal people. Then you let them watch the movies, but don't tell them if they are watching HD-DVD or Blu-Ray or plain DVD. Then you ask them for their opinion on which was best. Of course, since these are supposed to be HD formats, you would probably want to use an HD TV instead of that 27 inch TV, but you get the idea.
What is important is not which is technically the best, but what is perceived the best to the viewer. Also, not what is best under the optimum viewing conditions, but under the normal viewing conditions (since most people don't have the optimum viewing conditions).
Then the final question to ask the viewers, assuming if they can tell the difference between the formarts and the plain DVD, is give them the cost of the players and movies for the HD formatted movies compared with the plain DVD and ask them if, in their opinion, if they feel the improved quality is worth the extra price?
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.
Not to mention that I can put DVDs on my iPod or computer for that long plane ride. I'll stick with CDs and DVDs as long as possible.
The porn industry is going to decide this one, just like they decided the betamax vs VHS.
My wager is that they'll go HD-DVD, which means the rest of us will too, despite Sony's best efforts.
Training Day wasn't the first HD-DVD, btw, Island Fever 3 with Tera Patrick was.
Draw around the disc with a marker. Replace the power cable with a solid silver cable and plugs. Get video cables spun from the finest unobtanium by tibetan monks. It all makes a difference.
I wonder if either one of them will become a 'winner'. I know these can hold much more content, true HD quality, but, I'm just wondering how many of Joe Consumers out there are gonna flock to this?
I mean...DVD, is spread far into the general market. And I think the general public is quite happy with it. I dunno if HDTV or the HD dvd's are really presenting a compelling incentive to the avg. non-techie consumer to dump all they've just invested in over the past 10 years or so...to start all over again? With the still high prices of HD viewing televisons and players, combined with the strains the gas prices are putting on already taxed family budgets...I dunno if any of these are going to 'take off' in a big way. If it doesn't happen soon...the 'next' step forward will come out before these get adopted.
It will be interesting to see...I for one am not in a hurry to jump in on the HD dvd stuff....but, since I got a projector capable of HD quality...I may experiment with some FOTA capturing of HD signals...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.........
No alternative? I believe the parent mentioned iTunes and then of course you have mini-disc, sacd (still a "cd" but not a standard cd), and one or two dvd formats such as DVDA (I think that's what it's called).
Okay, how many of the "alternatives" you describe were available 15 years ago? You know, like from when the guy wrote this part:
15 years ago I had a room mate that refused to buy audio CD's....
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
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.
One of the reviews mentions the menus are even slower on Blu-ray than they are on DVDs, routinely taking two or three seconds for even the simplest of operations.
The reviewer said something to the effect of DVD being OK, but I disagree. Every DVD menu that I've ever seen on any player already trends towards the slow side. I understand taking a moment to load new content, but what's up with taking a second to register the pressing of the "up" or "down" button?
Why, in 2006, does every piece of consumer electronics feel (and often look) like it's being powered by a Nintendo Entertainment System, with some sort of auto-delay-on-input circuit added for extra measure? I understood it in 1996, but ten years later and if anything it's worse; every generation seems to get slower and slower. My TiVo Series 2 is actually a little slower than my Series 1, which I thought was impossible. My Comcast cable box when I tried it last year had multi-second response times for everything. My cell phone can't seem to do anything in less than half a second, except input text. For every DVD player I've ever seen (except the PS2), you can see it drawing the menus and stuff to the screen. Come on! You can't draw text to the text in less than half-a-second? My Commodore 64 seemed to manage that feat, even when running in BASIC!
I realize that not all consumer electronics are going to act as snappy as my computer, but must it feel like I'm doing everything over the web with a 9600 dial-up connection?
Which will win? HD-DVD Why? Because the larger consumer mass has NO IDEA what a Blu-Ray player is. The name itself gives no clue as to what the product is. But when you mention HD-DVD, which has _DVD_ in the name, they'll understand what it is. For me, I'll stick with my upconvert DVD player. Works fine for me, and it's 1/7 the price of an HD-DVD player.
Future ruler of a small Asian-Pacific island
Of course to get that 1080p projector for your projection screen you're looking at spending around $10,000 minimum. You can get 1080p LCD projection TVs (for around $2500, or more for Sony's XRD), but the vast majority of televisions being sold as "HD" only actually offer up to 1280x720 (though there seem to be a large number offering something like 1366x768 - really weird), and with projectors it's even worse.
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
How do you do a head-to-head comparision of a new format with two players that have issues and limitations? From the article: "But first, a note on this comparison. I hooked up both my Toshiba HD-XA1 HD DVD player and Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-ray player to my HP Pavilion reference HDTV via its two HDMI inputs. Note, however, that the first-generation Toshiba HD DVD decks are not capable of outputting native 1080p signals (unlike the Samsung), so it was up to the HP's internal processing to upconvert the Toshiba's 1080i signal to 1080p. Also, given the Samsung's much-publicized problems with its HDMI output (due to a reported faulty noise reduction chip that results in a degraded signal via the deck's HDMI out -- Samsung is planning to correct the problem on future shipments as well as issue a firmware upgrade sometime this Fall), I also compared both the Toshiba and the Samsung via component out to ensure the most fair comparison possible between the two discs."
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.