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.
Picture quality is a function of the codec used. Format: irrelevant.
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.
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.
"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.
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
anyone can see that 1680x1050 is better than any HD format,
That is pretty hard to see from my viewpoint. HD formats include 1080p which in fact is 1920 x 1080.
But yeah, they should clarify resolution with the same numbers used in computer monitor displays, such as 1280x960. 480p, EDTV, 540p, etcetera does not tell me much and isn't intuitive. But anyone can see 1280x960 is better than 640x480 which is better than 320x240.
480i = 640x480, 704x480, or, in the case of DVD, 720x480, interlaced
480p = 640x480, 704x480, or, in the case of DVD, 720x480, progressive.
540p = 960x540, progressive (1/4 of 1080p)
720p = 1280x720, progressive.
1080i = 1920x1080, interlaced.
1080p = 1920x1080, progressive.
1080p at 60 frames/sec is outside of the ATSC spec, but I think the HDDVD and BD formats support it.... don't quote me. 540p is also outside of the ATSC spec.
Within the ATSC spec, all of the interlaced modes are 30 frames/sec. The progressive modes (except 1080p) can be 24, 30 or 60 frames/sec. 1080p can be 24 or 30 frames/sec.
The thing to note is that except for the 480 modes, the pixels are square. For this reason, you can use the Y value (540, 720, 1080) and multiply it by 16/9 (the aspect ratio of the screen) to get the X value.
Now, my challenge to you: Which is higher resolution, 1920x1080 or 1600x1200? You may not use a calculator.
By comparison, which is higher resolution, 1080p or 720p? You won't need a calculator.
www.wavefront-av.com
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.