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."
No Die Hard yet?
You forgot the most important question: Is it more trouble than it is worth?
I'm not going to blow a few grand on HDTV/BluRay-HD-DVD/etc. when there is real chance the stuff I buy will NEVER work properly. This while DRM crippled HDTV fiasco is more of a pain in the ass than I will ever be willing to deal with. Get treated like a criminal, and have to PAY for the privledge? - Not a chance.
So for a modest investment of a couple of grand, I can see Mary Lynn Rajskub sulk and pout in full high-definition glory? I'm almost tempted!
But seriously. As much as I love Chloe and her big-screen clone, Firewall? Who the fuck do they think would be rushing out to buy this as an example of the best in high-definition viewing? "Guys! Come round to my house to watch a mediocre Harrison Ford thriller, 90% of which takes place in such exotic locations as a house and an office - in high-def!" I bet that shitty in-car greenscreen work in the last 20 minutes looks fantastic in HD...
From the lame selection of movies - in both HD-DVD and BR - so far, it's obvious that the studios are either shit-scared about eating into the profit margin of their DVD ranges, or really couldn't give a crap about HD and have been forced into launching it by the suits.
You must think in Russian.
Indeed - data is data, it doesn't matter if it's on Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, or even DVD. The only issue is related to the storage capacity, i.e. what bitrate you're able to encode the data at.
I'd sooner see comparisons on other aspects of the technology, such as the durability of Blu-Ray compared to HD-DVD.
Why are people making comparisons between HD standards that I personally:
1) Won't need. Current DVD produce is fine.
2) Can't afford. Bring prices down for HD TVs, HD cable boxes, HD cable, HD players, etc.
3) Don't want. *cough* DRM *cough* and too few selections for movies, currently anyway.
I watch movies for the content and story, NOT for the blemishes on the actors faces. My 19" screens and standard DVDs are good enough. That said, HD is good for sporting events. That's all I'd use it for.
Funny createSig(Witty remark, Odd reference)
{
return (Funny)remark + (Funny)reference;
}
Through the endless marketing speak about the "technologies" involved in HDTV and HD_DVD and blueray... I find myself just wanting to ignore the whole thing.
/hdmi connectors (and god damn price of the cable.. lol what a joke).
They have managed to so utterly confuse the average consumer, that people actually flock to best buy and ask the advice of the A/V *cough* "experts" over there.
HD-DVD / Bluray isn't about **ing movies, its just a high density dvd player (hopefully with more data / computer applications than the dinky junk they are going to cram onto the next hollywood trash movie).
Then we come to HDTV.... even more confusing video format that means:
A friggin resolution of 1920x1080 (I think)
some DRM
DVI
The industry seems to think if they can thouroughly confuse the consumer... they can probably also convince him/her to change his/her entire Home Theatre setup.
I bet in less than a year's time, there is going to be some new HDTV surround sound requirement that will force everyone to replace their current dolby digital sound / speakers in order to truely enjoy hdtv sound.
I also have a question... this thing about 32bit vista not being able to produce true HD resolution with movies.... is that some kind of joke? My computer can already play that resolution, what gives? Is the encoding of the movie that cpu hungry?
I'm sorry.. obviously I'll be marked as a troll... but I find this so frustrating. The arsenal of buzzwords is starting to get to me. For gods sake.. can't I just use bluray to back-up my files? I don't care about movies.
Maybe you should have read his entire post:
The future is hard disk and broadband. Besides, my mpeg4s look just fine on my widescreen. This will be the biggest digital video flop since the first Divx!
IMAX can use 48 fps. Apparently the first two movies shot with the 70 mm Todd-AO format were done with 30 fps (Around the World in Eighty Days, and Oklahoma!), but after that they switched to the more conventional 24 fps.
One new proposed film format with 48 fps is MaxiVision48. Showscan is done at 60 fps. I'm pretty doubtful that a new film-based format can take off, because of the high cost of switching projection equipment, and because there will be increasing pressure to switch to digital to lower distribution costs. The last few times that I've gone to theaters, I've been appalled at the crappy image quality--I think we've actually gone backwards since the era of 70 mm movies like Laurence of Arabia (I saw a new print of that screened a few years ago, and it was amazing!), and I think the future, unfortunately, will be medium-quality digital, full of banding and compression artifacts.
I think movies with lots of rapid camera movements and hyperkinetic fight scenes would definitely benefit from switching to 48 fps or higher. While most people can't tell the difference between 24, 30, and 60 fps, I think they can subconsciously feel it. On the other hand, there are many people who feel that such "high motion" filming actually interferes with audience's suspension of disbelief, or that acting and directing would have to change to work in that format. (see this article).
Um, it was made to insult, the fact that it insults now as well just furthers the genius of the movie.
Neither is HDTV. All other HD resoulutions support 24,25,30,50 and 60 FPS, but 1080p only goes as far as 30 fps. I would be surprised if your laptop doesn't use more than 30 fps.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.