Are there any neutral titles that are technically better on Blu-Ray?

[Maxell]

It seems as if all "neutral" titles are the same specs for both hddvd and blu-ray (mostly hddvd ports it seems). Are there any that are technically better on blu-ray, such as bitrate, sound options, extra features, etc?

It sux to know that many movies could've turned out better blu-ray versions instead of cutting costs and "copying over" hddvd maximum capabilities.

[richard lichtenfelt]

Nature's Journey.
http://www.hidefpreview.com/Exclusive%20Interview.html

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by richard lichtenfelt

Nature's Journey.
http://www.hidefpreview.com/Exclusive%20Interview.html

this is 100% this movie looked soooo bad when I saw it at a friends house then I took a chance bought it blu and amazing much better and as jaded stated the paramount movies look a ton better via blu like the snow scene in shooter crushes it's blu-ray counterpart(in my opinion)

[CasualCat2001]

BD50 AVC vs. HDDVD VC-1 : advantage Blu-ray

As has become customary with Paramount releases, 'Flags of our Fathers' comes with different encodes depending on which next-gen format you prefer. In a side by side comparison of the film between the the AVC MPEG-4 transfer on this Blu-ray version and the VC-1 transfer on the HD DVD, it does seem that the Blu-ray/AVC encode is the tiniest bit sharper, while the HD DVD/VC-1 is the slightest bit softer. Neither is an advantage to my eyes and each encode is identical otherwise -- fans of both camps should be ecstatic to see this film looking so good.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/737/...urfathers.html

Seeing that one of the reasons for HD is the extra sharpness and clarity of the picture that is an advantage to me. If I want extra softness I can play the DVD version. When Blu-ray is given the proper space and codec I think it can outperform HD-DVD

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BD25 MPEG2 vs HDDVD VC-1 : advantage HD-DVD

However, I was a bit distracted while watching the Blu-ray by more consistently noticeable artifacts. In particular, posterization was more troublesome. Dissolves and large gradations of color often looked a bit more artificial than the HD DVD. I also noticed a slight increase in video noise in the darker scenes. Hardly excessive, and the difference is nowhere near night and day. I'm not sure if this has to do with the fact that the Blu-ray had to be squeezed into a tighter space (a BD-25 25GB single-layer versus an HD-30 30GB dual-layer disc), but the HD DVD version just looked slightly cleaner.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/170/aeonflux.html


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BD25 MPEG2 vs. HDDVD VC-1 : advantage Blu-ray

So, how do the Blu-ray and HD DVD stack up? Perhaps it is the mega-bitrate afforded both transfers -- and I know I might get taken to task by some in the HD DVD camp for even suggesting such a thing -- but this is one comparison that makes a pretty good case for MPEG-2. It seems clear that, with enough bits behind it, the codec isn't ready to be put out to pasture just yet (VC-1 was developed and optimized with low bitrate applications in mind, so is less space-hungry). Compression artifacts, posterization and macroblocking are just not a problem on either version. Black, color reproduction and overall detail are consistently impressive regardless of codec, and of all the dual-format releases I've yet seen, 'M:I III' is probably the best proof that Blu-ray is clearly able to deliver absolutely first-rate video quality when at its best. Yes, I'm sure if there was enough time in the world to go through and compare the entire film frame-by-frame, perhaps there could be some differences noticeable. And there is no telling how 'M:I III' may have looked on Blu-ray had it been encoded with VC-1 (or AVC MPEG-4, for that matter.) But both the Blu-ray and the HD DVD of 'M:I III' packed equal punch for me. If nothing else, 'M:I III' should be great fuel for proponents on both sides as to what their preferred format is capable of.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/195/...ssibleiii.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusions/summary:

Unfortunately, only Paramount seemed to be experimenting with different codec/size combinations.

When they used MPEG2 vs an advanced codec, the results were mixed, but can be indistinguishable; when they used an advanced codec vs a different advanced codec/encode the Blu-ray was superior.

I honestly believe if Warner were to use different encodes, optimized AVC on BD50's vs optimized VC-1 on HDDVD 30, we'd have more examples in which the bitrate difference shows its advantage on Blu-ray. It is too bad Warner hasn't done this seeing they've been willing to use HD-DVD's differences when only HD-DVD had pip.

It is pretty clear that there can be a noticeable difference in MPEG2 when the bitrate and/or space is increased. It seems to me that eventhough the advanced codecs are newer and "advanced" that they too can/will benefit from higher bitrates as well. Maybe they are "good enough" at lower bitrates that they don't have artifacts, banding, etc., but it seems with higher bitrates they can gain some very important sharpness.

[darkedgex]

Yeah, I was really annoyed when Paramount ditched Blu-ray: not because I was necessarily disappointed about Transformers or Shrek the Third, but because they actually optimized their encodes for each format. I mean the only way things could have been better with Paramount back then would be if they'd released raw footage so we could see which one came closest to the source material.

But yes, on AVC vs. VC1 encodes where a BD50 was used, the Blu-ray Disc almost always looked better than the HD DVD. Despite what many Microsofties and HD DVD luddites claim about "more bits not mattering". (And from a mathematical perspective, claiming more bits won't help simply doesn't make sense: these are lossy compression algorithms, unless you're encoding a perfectly black screen, or a still photo ran for two hours, there's hardly a situation where MORE bitrate WON'T help).

[sonicbox]

Originally Posted by darkedgex

(And from a mathematical perspective, claiming more bits won't help simply doesn't make sense: these are lossy compression algorithms, unless you're encoding a perfectly black screen, or a still photo ran for two hours, there's hardly a situation where MORE bitrate WON'T help).

You haven't worked with advanced codecs, have you? There is a fairly early point of diminishing returns. This is not MPEG-2. No, 'more bitrate' generally can't hurt, but often it does nothing. The point of a variable bitrate compression encode is to adjust the bitrate as necessary to the specific scene. If you see compression artifacts in playback on a calibrated set, the compressionist hasn't done his job. Automated tools, as well as humans, make mistakes.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by CasualCat2001

BD50 AVC vs. HDDVD VC-1 : advantage Blu-ray

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/737/...urfathers.html

BD25 MPEG2 vs HDDVD VC-1 : advantage HD-DVD

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/170/aeonflux.html

BD25 MPEG2 vs. HDDVD VC-1 : advantage Blu-ray

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/195/...ssibleiii.html

I would take the reviews from High Def Digest with a grain of salt. They would be one of the last places I'd pick as the final arbiter of picture quality between Blu-ray and HD DVD. This is the site that gave Mr. Brooks a 3.5 for video quality when it's near reference quality and Transformers audio a perfect score for a lossy soundtrack.

[JadedRaverLA]

Ironically, many of the Paramount releases (prior to their being bought out by the dark side) had better video on the BD version -- though the HD DVDs often had the better audio.

Warner's the only other "neutral" studio, and they use Microsoft's conversion tool to take their HD DVD VC-1 encodes and convert them to Blu-ray. I think there's a few Warner titles with better audio on Blu-ray, but not many, and it's late and I'm too tired to look back up what they are.

[jd213]

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix has extras in HD that are in SD on the HD DVD, and it has a documentary that the HD DVD doesn't. It and the 2nd-4th movies (and some other recent WB Blu-rays, I think) also have many more foreign language dubs than the HD DVD versions.

[stockstar1138]

300 has the same video quality but better sound quality on blu-ray.

Flags of our Fathers has a "sharper" look on the blu-ray, because paramount used an avc encoding instead of the vc-1 on the hd dvd. i believe the term "sharper" was used in the hidefdigest review.

The Untouchables also has an AVC on blu-ray vs. VC-1 on HD DVD, but I don't know how much better the picture is.

Others have already been mentioned above.

[bhampton]

All of them are better on Blu.

None of the Blu Rays have to be boiled to make them work.

And the Red cases will look like crap in a year when 80% or more of your movies have those nice Blu cases.

I certainly relate to you notion that it's sad that many films are prepaired for HD DUD and then dumped onto Blu Ray with the lower capabilities of DUD still intact. I hate that. That would be the main reason I want WB to go Blu because maybe then they will encode for the better specs of Blu Ray instead of just porting. That's kind of a problem when you have the best. Popular games also get ported from the inferior X-Box console onto PS3 with similar type of shortchanging.

-Brian

[Tulsa]

Sorry for the dumb question but...

What is this story on the boiling? I must have come into this after whatever the reference is about. Having seen this many many times here referenced, doing a search of boiled would only yield hundreds of results, so I thought it much easier to simply ask.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by bhampton

All of them are better on Blu.

None of the Blu Rays have to be boiled to make them work.

And the Red cases will look like crap in a year when 80% or more of your movies have those nice Blu cases.

I certainly relate to you notion that it's sad that many films are prepaired for HD DUD and then dumped onto Blu Ray with the lower capabilities of DUD still intact. I hate that. That would be the main reason I want WB to go Blu because maybe then they will encode for the better specs of Blu Ray instead of just porting. That's kind of a problem when you have the best. Popular games also get ported from the inferior X-Box console onto PS3 with similar type of shortchanging.

-Brian

A BIG +1 ON THAT

[sj001]

Originally Posted by bhampton

All of them are better on Blu.

None of the Blu Rays have to be boiled to make them work.

And the Red cases will look like crap in a year when 80% or more of your movies have those nice Blu cases.

I certainly relate to you notion that it's sad that many films are prepaired for HD DUD and then dumped onto Blu Ray with the lower capabilities of DUD still intact. I hate that. That would be the main reason I want WB to go Blu because maybe then they will encode for the better specs of Blu Ray instead of just porting. That's kind of a problem when you have the best. Popular games also get ported from the inferior X-Box console onto PS3 with similar type of shortchanging.

-Brian

100% man.

I hated crappy ports, hopefully this will end SOON.

[JasonR]

Originally Posted by bhampton

All of them are better on Blu.

None of the Blu Rays have to be boiled to make them work.

And the Red cases will look like crap in a year when 80% or more of your movies have those nice Blu cases.

I certainly relate to you notion that it's sad that many films are prepaired for HD DUD and then dumped onto Blu Ray with the lower capabilities of DUD still intact. I hate that. That would be the main reason I want WB to go Blu because maybe then they will encode for the better specs of Blu Ray instead of just porting. That's kind of a problem when you have the best. Popular games also get ported from the inferior X-Box console onto PS3 with similar type of shortchanging.

-Brian

+1

[Downhere]

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

Flags of our Fathers has a "sharper" look on the blu-ray, because paramount used an avc encoding instead of the vc-1 on the hd dvd. i believe the term "sharper" was used in the hidefdigest review.

Having compared the two different versions of the movie I would say the difference was negligible.

Originally Posted by bhampton

Tulsa,

Apparently from what I've read (because I never owned any HD DUD stuff) lots of problems with combo discs could be solved by boiling the discs. I think it had to do with epoxy of different layers of the disc not setting properly at the factory. At first the info was everywhere but the DUD-ers realized how embarrassing it was and starting trying to hide it. So,.. you don't see it mentioned that much anymore.

Shame too because I still read about people organizing a movie night when something new comes out and having people over only to have problems with the combo disc and after several tries they wind up watching the DVD side.

-Brian

I think this has been blown way out of proportion, in the same way the rot on some Blu-ray discs has been with HD DVD fans. I have a good amount of combo discs and have yet to have a problem. The only problem I had was with Superman Returns and I returned it to Warner Bros. and they sent me a brand new one that now works perfectly. Even Children of Men has worked perfectly without boiling or updating the firmware. So, therefore, it would have to be a very small minority that have to boil or even have problems playing combo discs.

[Clark Kent]

All Warner titles that have PCM on the Blu-ray and Dolby TrueHD on the HD DVD are better on Blu-ray because Warner uses DialNorm on their Dolby TrueHD tracks which makes the audio track not bit for bit identical.

As others have said many of the later Paramount titles have video encodes done to the maximum specs of Blu-ray, easily outshining the bandwidth limited HD DVD copy on larger screens.

The best apples to apples comparison is the Nature's Journey disc, which was authored to the limits of each format. The BD easily trounces the HD DVD version.

And a huge difference is the protective coating on all BDs. HD DVDs get scratched and have playback problems even easier than dvds due to how densely packed the data is on the disc. For problem free playback always buy Blu-ray.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Downhere

I think this has been blown way out of proportion, in the same way the rot on some Blu-ray discs has been with HD DVD fans. I have a good amount of combo discs and have yet to have a problem.

There was no rot. It was a contaminated top coat in one production run of one title.

Why is it everyone uses "I have had no problem" as if it proves anything?

I have no repeat disc in Blade Runner.
I have no HD DVD disc in the Harry Potter box set.

Can I conclude these problems are being blown out of proportion? No. They exist in sufficient numbers to be an issue.

There have been enough reports for many combos to conclude there is a systemic problem with combo-discs. A problem may be scarce for the current number of units sold, but this is 10-year old technology that is failing. What happens if it were scaled up to a million units instead of 10K-100K?

The tech is supposed to be reliable NOW. That's one of the points the HD DVD side keeps pushing. And, it would seem clear that either the HD DVD production QA is wholly deficient, or it is actually Blu-ray that is more reliable.

Gary

[Farout777]

Originally Posted by Downhere

I think this has been blown way out of proportion, in the same way the rot on some Blu-ray discs has been with HD DVD fans. I have a good amount of combo discs and have yet to have a problem. The only problem I had was with Superman Returns and I returned it to Warner Bros. and they sent me a brand new one that now works perfectly. Even Children of Men has worked perfectly without boiling or updating the firmware. So, therefore, it would have to be a very small minority that have to boil or even have problems playing combo discs.

I have quite a few combos and never had a problem with any of them. I have a combined total of approx 110 BD and HD DVD and have only had one problem, The Reaping on BD due to a very small crack on the outside edge of the disc. One thing that I do prefer on BD is that I love the PCM audio tracks!

[jorg]

Originally Posted by Maxell

It seems as if all "neutral" titles are the same specs for both hddvd and blu-ray (mostly hddvd ports it seems). Are there any that are technically better on blu-ray, such as bitrate, sound options, extra features, etc?

It sux to know that many movies could've turned out better blu-ray versions instead of cutting costs and "copying over" hddvd maximum capabilities.

also teh harry potter series on blu-ray has many other audio options