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!
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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