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."

Comments

compelling (me not to buy)

[yagu]

From the article:

Both of the next-gen high-def formats -- certainly more than DVD -- are very, very sensitive to even the slightest discrepancies in hardware setup and display calibration.

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:

• is it the TV?
• is it the DVD player?
• is it the DVD?
• is it the cable (or lack thereof)?
• is it the video receiver?
• is it the microwave oven?

Also, from the article:

But seeing as the phrase "firmware upgrade" is fast becoming a permanent part of the consumer electronics lexicon, it is clear Darwin would have loved this whole Blu-ray versus HD DVD thing.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Picture quality is a function of the codec used. Format: irrelevant.

Porn Should NEVER Be High Def

[Petersko]

"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.

Re:I'm not buying either

[Phreakiture]

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.