Slashdot Mirror
Blu-ray vs. HD DVD Round Two
An anonymous reader writes "A second set of four movies are now available on both high-def disc formats, allowing for another set of head-to-head comparisons — and unlike last month's first round comparisons, Blu-ray fared much better this time. In fact, in comparing Warner's four latest Blu-ray disc releases ('Firewall,' 'Lethal Weapon,' 'Blazing Saddles' and 'Full Metal Jacket') to their HD DVD predecessors, High-Def Digest found three of the four titles to be more or less at picture quality parity. The key difference between these titles and Warner's Blu-ray launch titles last month? On all three of the titles receiving high marks, Warner switched from using the MPEG-2 compression codec to VC-1, which the studio has been using from the start on its counterpart HD DVD releases."
From the article:
Aside from the mere annoyance factor, this is either the blessing or the curse of HD (generic) DVD, and HD TV in general. It is tiresome to see a bad picture and go through the script:
Also, from the article:
WTH? "(F)irmware upgrade" is fast becoming a permanent part of the consumer electronics lexicon?!? Gosh, I hope not! That just means more "consumer support" I have to do. Aside from general consumers not having any idea what firmware is (nor should they have to), the notion of "modding" their units, even under the aegis of "fixing" something is foreign, and frightening to them.
And, now there's a battle brewing over the appropriate codec? Again, WTH? So now we have 2 competing hardware formats, and at least 2 codecs? Are the studios going to ship with a version of each codec? Are all of our players going to be compatible (sans firmware hoops)?
All of this roiling, and a missing piece of the reviews and comparisons. How do these new formats and codecs hold up to and compare with the workhorse DVD of today? Considering today's DVDs have matured quite well, no hassle, no muss, no fuss, it'd be nice to know if the new expensive, complex, and not yet settled new DVD technology is even worth the bother.... Right now, for most, I'm guessing it's not.
The reviewer touches on why the movie is the way it is but then ignores the obvious fact. THE MOVIE WAS MADE IN THE 1970s! Think about how many people felt back then. We may live in a time now where "nigger" offends both races now for some reason and mimicking our favorite rap stars is cool but back then it was not like that at all. The fact that he can't grab Mel's humor as it fits perfectly in the era it was released is very sad. Other then that, yeah, who hasn't already seen blazing saddles? I need to see a 35 year old movie in high def because....?
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
"How long until we get some Blu-ray or HD-DVD pr0n? That's when the formats will explode, pardon the pun."
The LAST thing porn needs is High Definition. Nobody needs to see every pimple (or, heaven forbid - genital wart) on a porn actresses body. Ditto for surgery-based stretch marks and razor burn.
Porn, like Playboy, benefits from a soft lens.
I especially love how they're using large chunks of badly written text in favor of comparative screenshots of each movie! Why waste time and space looking at comparative pictures when we can read endless blocks of text written by Some Guy!
(disclaimer: yes, I'm being sarcastic)
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
I'm not buying into any High Definition products until the content providers and electronics companies get their heads out of their asses and actually produce (and stick to) a standard. The fact is that over the past couple of decades when we've been promised a High Definition standard and what we've gotten is dozens of incompatible set-ups that confuse users and create incompatability; we have 480p, EDTV, 540p, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p using Component, DVI, and HDMI to display either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movies. How hard would it have been to stick with one resolution (say 720p), using one type of input (DVI) and just produce one movie format? How do I know that it 2 years (after I buy a TV) we won't have a solid state video format, that has a resolution of 2248x1280, that uses a brand new cable connection?
DRM? Is it even (legally) possible to take a screenshot of a full-res HD DVD or Blu-Ray movie? I think it needs an encrypted channel to the monitor or it refuses to display in full-res
Picture quality is a function of two things: codec and bitrate.
H.264 is typically better than VC-1, and Blu-ray can fit ~66% more bits per layer. By any reasonable comparison, Blu-ray will come out on top.
However, if the studios don't take advantage of the medium, and ship the same bits on both discs, the result is obvious. Since they both come with DRM though, that means I will get no picture at all, so it hardly matters.
Blazing Saddles? I mean give me a fucking break. I love the movie, don't get me wrong, I just see nothing it would gain in HD. The DVD version is rather grainy, so to get any worthwhile rez gain they'd have to spend some cash cleaning things up. Even if they did, what's the point? The movie doesn't need to look good to be funny. For that matter, it's mixed in mono, as in 1-channel sound! No 5.1 surround sound, nothing. Does it matter? Not one bit, it's still damn hilarious. But I certainly wouldn't spend money rebuying it in HD.
Blue Ray and HD-DVD are both just data discs. Any difference between them is NOT due to the disc or the technology or anything like that, but the mastering process the studio takes. Picture quality and audio quality isnt affected by the Blue Ray or HD-DVD disc any more than the sound quality of your MP3s is affected by your having a Seagate hard drive vs a Maxtor hard drive.
I hate printers.
Whichever one will work in windows xp and linux and allow you to view the content at the full resolution without any encumbering DRM will be the market winner
I think he means "non-obfuscated decryption key".
Why isn't Star Wars on either of the next-gen formats? I bet Lucas is waiting to do the re-re-re-release on HD DVD 2.0 though, but that's Lucas.
So then why not Star Trek or the Matrix trilogy? Why not sell movies that cater to geeks whom I'd be willing to bet would spend hard currency on? I'm thinking ST Nemesis or ST Voyager...something recently filmed with film capable of superseeding high def.
I find the current selection appalling and find it ludicrous that they think a movie three decades old is going to really benefit from high def.
Maybe even Battlestar Galactica 2003 mini-series and on?
If you want to sell your latest widget they why use mediocre stock? From what I've seen, I see no reason to dump a couple pay checks on a new player and TV. I'm not going to dump a couple grand to watch Hitch and 50 First Dates in super-mega-awesome format.
Coming soon: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington on HD DVD; Citizen Kane on Blu Ray; and Casablanca Extendend Edition on HD DVD with 84 hours of unseen footage. OH PLEASE, gimme a break from your marketers!
:wq
Also, Microsoft is one of the patent holders of H.264.
Not only that, but H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10, MPEG AVC) is already an open international standard (and, for those who don't know, one of the three mandatory supported codecs for all Blu-ray Disc (BD) and HD-DVD disc players - MPEG-2 and VC-1 are the other two).
While VC-1 (formerly known as VC-9, the Windows Media 9 (WMV3) codec) has been submitted to SMPTE, VC-1 is still not open, and must still go through the patent pool process, which itself is being administered by MPEG LA.
VC-1 is a SMPTE standard. VC-1 is equally open, in that anyone can create a VC-1 compliant codec pursuant to the standard and the terms of the licenses. You've also conveniently forgotten to mention that the authors of H.264 compliant codecs must obtain licenses from two patent pools, including MPEG LA and Via Licensing.
"Open" is not a magic word, and H.264 is not "free" in any sense of the term. The two codecs are legally equal from a 30,000 ft view, except for the existence of the open-source and quite probably patent infringing H.264 encoder X264.