Does Blu-ray video look better then HD DVD video?

[Rike255]

I don't understand how the video can look better. I know that audio on Blu-Ray often if not always surpasses HD DVD and I understand why an everything, but can someone explain to me how Blu-Ray video looks better then HD DVD? I it about the codecs they use or something?

Also, how can you tell if the only company that makes both is Warner and they make them identical from what I understand.

[BStecke]

Blu-ray is still capable of higher bandwidth than HD-DVD. It's not so much a better video quality issue as it is an overall quality issue. For instance, HD DVD can't support a disc like the Pirates movies with high-quality, high-bitrate video while at the same time offering a PCM, or even lossless, audio track, as evidenced by Transformers. It's a tradeoff that isn't necessary with Blu-ray.

[stockstar1138]

both flags of our fathers and the untouchables were released on blu-ray and hd dvd, paramount used the standard vc-1 low bit codec for hd dvd and high a high bitrate avc codec for the blu-ray version. the overall consensus was that the blu-ray version looked better. warner's should look identical. if you want to know what makes blu-ray look better it is the codec. blu-ray can handle higher bitrates which means more information can be passed through in a given amount of time and most studios used codecs that take advantage of this.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

both flags of our fathers and the untouchables were released on blu-ray and hd dvd, paramount used the standard vc-1 low bit codec for hd dvd and high a high bitrate avc codec for the blu-ray version. the overall consensus was that the blu-ray version looked better. warner's should look identical. if you want to know what makes blu-ray look better it is the codec. blu-ray can handle higher bitrates which means more information can be passed through in a given amount of time and most studios used codecs that take advantage of this.

It's not necessarily the codec, but how it's used. Santa Clause 3 used VC-1, which is usually associated with the Warner smoothies, but since the bitrate on SC3 was high, VC-1 yielded great results. Shooter used MPEG2, which got a bad rep from the earlier Blu-ray releases, but looks rather good. The HD DVD guys will go on and on about how bit rate doesn't matter, but their argument is always from the "good enough" standpoint. Good enough never is.

[95pgtproject]

Originally Posted by Rike255

I don't understand how the video can look better. I know that audio on Blu-Ray often if not always surpasses HD DVD and I understand why an everything, but can someone explain to me how Blu-Ray video looks better then HD DVD? I it about the codecs they use or something?

Also, how can you tell if the only company that makes both is Warner and they make them identical from what I understand.

No, not at this time but its possible in the future they look better but by then the name hd-dvd will be forgotten anyway.

Right now they do sound alot better though and thats a huge plus

[NutsAboutPS3]

Yes, Blu-ray has more capacity, so can have a higher average video bitrate, and can also have a higher peak video bitrate. The video compression is lossy, and there is a visible difference when higher bitrates are used. It's like if you save a photo in jpg format, you can choose the amount of compression, and it looks better with less compression.

[w_tanoto]

HD DVD picture is worse (SLIGHTLY) compared to BD. Not very noticeable, but BD has higher bandwith

[dadkins]

When you go to a website that has video for you to watch, do you choose the 150kbps version or the 700kbps version?
Why?

A well done Blu-ray will have a better picture because of the higher bitrate being displayed.

When a fence-sitter studio uses the same encode for both formats... they usually choose one that will work on the lesser format and slap that on Blu as well(cheaping out).

Both formats in this situation *should* look the same - all things being equal...

It's when a studio produces a video that is designed to take advantage of Blu-ray's capabilities where it really kicks butt!

[reiella]

Originally Posted by Rike255

I don't understand how the video can look better. I know that audio on Blu-Ray often if not always surpasses HD DVD and I understand why an everything, but can someone explain to me how Blu-Ray video looks better then HD DVD? I it about the codecs they use or something?

Also, how can you tell if the only company that makes both is Warner and they make them identical from what I understand.

Other's prolly hit on it,but there are a few titles from paramount that were released on both, that actually had different encodes.

But for the answer, there's alot more bandwidth available for video encodes on Blu, versus HD.

We know that a 35 mbps encode looks better than a 20 mbps.

It's been covered and beaten to death in this thread though .

[beavis667]

Originally Posted by Rike255

I don't understand how the video can look better. I know that audio on Blu-Ray often if not always surpasses HD DVD and I understand why an everything, but can someone explain to me how Blu-Ray video looks better then HD DVD? I it about the codecs they use or something?

Also, how can you tell if the only company that makes both is Warner and they make them identical from what I understand.

IMO the video will be better on BD because we have better electronics. All toshiba has is Toshiba, and they are limited to the quality that Tosh puts out. BD has a variety of different players competing against each other. That's comparable to the 20 some years that Apple competed with only itself in computer hardware falling behind to Intel based hardware which had many OEM's trying to make better hardware.

Of course, bitrate is everything when it comes to media. The HD-DVD folks would like to tell you that it somehow doesn't apply to bd/hd-dvd where it applies everywhere else.

[chrisshea]

personaly I LOVE MY BLU-RAYS!!!!!!!!!!!
Il never get hd-dvd no matter what
even if ceo of tosh shows up at my door i wont take it

from all the releases of hd-dvd the only a fiew titles that id like but i wouldnt settle for the lower quality hd-dvd
i got a 12 000$ home theather setup i wont play cheap shit on it

[Scorxpion]

i still cant believe one argue about the PQ of BD if it is better or not...BD is superior whatever HD-DVD can conclude or think about it.

AVC compression ,MPEG2, VC-1 ,Higher bit rate codecs improve the PQ if the disc has been authored carefully.

HD-DVD can do that but they cant attend the bandwidth of BD which is even higher...

If HD-DVD want to improve the PQ ,they have to compromise the SQ or vice versa.even if TL51 one day exist they still need the bandwidth of BD which is another criteria and cant be done now on HD-DVD because of its technical specs and we already know about it.

Another title prove that higher bit rate codec is the standard

http://www.hometheaterspot.com/fusio...hp?tid/139507/


video:

"At Panasonic’s labs and Fox studios members of the press from around the country (and Canada) recently got to see several BD films blown up to near movie theater sized proportions. Rise of the Silver Surfer was one, Master and Commander, ID4, Day After Tomorrow, POTC 2, etc. It was very impressive to see how well the BD discs demoed held up in resolution and clarity at even those immense screen sizes. It was also interesting to see that most were being driven by a gaming console, the PS3 rather than a standalone player. Pathfinder is another that should hold up well even on the largest of screens."

So ladies and gentelmen do you still think or behave that both format are equally.

the answer is no and HD-DVD is a loser format

[CptGreedle]

You know we can argue all we want about this and get no where. They look so similar that it is really hard to see the difference for most people.

But what you can find is the average ratings of each format. I don't have the links or exact numbers with me, but i remember seeing them around 8.5 of 10 for BD, and 7.9 of 10 for HD-DVD.... i am not sure so don't quote me on that, but I know there was a difference in reviews in favor of Blu-ray.

[thegland]

Gee,99.9 % of posters on BD.com say BD looks better than HD DVD,it must be true.CAn anybody on this site show a little honesty and say that both formats look outstanding and pretty much equal on the best titles?(besides me of course).It is true,deny it all you want.

[mdm1699]

Originally Posted by Rike255

I don't understand how the video can look better. I know that audio on Blu-Ray often if not always surpasses HD DVD and I understand why an everything, but can someone explain to me how Blu-Ray video looks better then HD DVD? I it about the codecs they use or something?

Also, how can you tell if the only company that makes both is Warner and they make them identical from what I understand.

You have to look at the format overall. It is easy to choose one or two movies from each format and effectively argue for either. You have to look at the bigger picture, and hd-dvd does have its limitations. If you already believe one way vs the other, then no one will convince you otherwise. Likewise, the responses that you are getting.

[quexos]

it's better THAN and not better "then"
Please, I have seen that many times. When you compare two things and one has something that qualifies as better or higher you use "THAN"
whereas "then" has a totally different meaning.

Sorry for digressing but that one feels very wrong when misused