Blu-ray and HD DVD Star Rating Breakdown

[Ascended_Saiyan]

This is just a little bit of information to help fight the PQ FUD out there. I have done a breakdown of how many titles are in each star rating category for each format via HighDefDigest.com.

HD DVD...
5 star rating - 6 titles
4 1/2 star rating - 39
4 star rating - 73
3 1/2 star rating - 25
3 star rating - 10
2 1/2 star rating - 4
2 star rating - 2
1 1/2 star rating - 0
1 star rating - 1

Blu-ray...
5 star rating - 6 titles
4 1/2 star rating - 46
4 star rating - 84
3 1/2 star rating - 34
3 star rating - 20
2 1/2 star rating - 2
2 star rating - 2
1 1/2 star rating - 1
1 star rating - 1

This is including the two 4 star ratings on the two versions of Forbidden Planet (just 1 version has more extras...the movie portion was not re-encoded) and the UK import of Harry Potter for HD DVD. This also includes the bad Blu-ray releases during the launch period.

I didn't include the audio ratings because I believe just about everyone in the HD world knows Blu-ray is a good deal better in the sound department.

[nhaase]

Good work.

[Chris Gerhard]

It is good work, but I have seen the opposite proven by looking at other sites. Are these ratings done solely on picture and sound quality? If content is a factor, it has been clear from day one Blu-ray will have a better movie on average. I haven't read the reviews or visited the site, but I believe content is given equal weight.

Best movies released to date, I agree Blu-ray is ahead. Best audio video quality, tiniest of margins still to HD DVD as a result of the poorly done MPEG-2 Blu-ray titles. As I always state when the meaningless picture quality differences are discussed, there are no technical reasons one will be better than the other given the same codecs, same bitrates, same source and same care taken with the transfer.

Chris

[Ascended_Saiyan]

This is just picture quality alone. If there is an average done on overall PQ and AQ from both formats, Blu-ray is leading that as well. If you do a PQ only average from HomeTheaterSpot.com, I believe Blu-ray would have a higher average than from HighDefDigest.com.

[Scorxpion]

Again Chris comments on this thread saying MPEG2 titles has a poor quality comparing it to HD_DVD.Chris this subject has been discussed before and its true enough to conclude that some of the first titles released in July was BAD,But now i would like you to have some revisions of Paramount titles and on opposite side the HD-DVD released at the same time.Its obvious MPEG2 have the same quality as HD-DVD released of the same company.Enough saying MPEG2 is a poor Quality at first it was but now its better and ahead of VC1 done by Microsoft.
Always this sentence you predict and announciate its HD-DVD Fans which is completly and Totally FALSE AND Out of history.Stop throwing unbelievable facts and UNTRUE statements.Enough is enough and if still not understood the reply you have yesterday i think you Should asked AMIR maybe he can help you.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

Again Chris comments on this thread saying MPEG2 titles has a poor quality comparing it to HD_DVD.Chris this subject has been discussed before and its true enough to conclude that some of the first titles released in July was BAD,But now i would like you to have some revisions of Paramount titles and on opposite side the HD-DVD released at the same time.Its obvious MPEG2 have the same quality as HD-DVD released of the same company.Enough saying MPEG2 is a poor Quality at first it was but now its better and ahead of VC1 done by Microsoft.
Always this sentence you predict and announciate its HD-DVD Fans which is completly and Totally FALSE AND Out of history.Stop throwing unbelievable facts and UNTRUE statements.Enough is enough and if still not understood the reply you have yesterday i think you Should asked AMIR maybe he can help you.

I don't think he was talking about ALL MPEG-2 encoded titles. I think he was talking about the MPEG-2 titles that got bad reviews in the beginni

[Scorxpion]

OK but hopefully he will clarify more his statement.

Thanks,

[Chris Gerhard]

Originally Posted by Ascended_Saiyan

I don't think he was talking about ALL MPEG-2 encoded titles. I think he was talking about the MPEG-2 titles that got bad reviews in the beginni

Correct and personally seen my me. I have been using MPEG-2 for years and my comments early on was that I expected it to be the best, but I think it is clear now that other codecs are often better, especially at lower bitrates.

I am aware some MPEG-2 releases look fine.

Chris

[marine92104]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

Again Chris comments on this thread saying MPEG2 titles has a poor quality comparing it to HD_DVD.Chris this subject has been discussed before and its true enough to conclude that some of the first titles released in July was BAD,But now i would like you to have some revisions of Paramount titles and on opposite side the HD-DVD released at the same time.Its obvious MPEG2 have the same quality as HD-DVD released of the same company.Enough saying MPEG2 is a poor Quality at first it was but now its better and ahead of VC1 done by Microsoft.
Always this sentence you predict and announciate its HD-DVD Fans which is completly and Totally FALSE AND Out of history.Stop throwing unbelievable facts and UNTRUE statements.Enough is enough and if still not understood the reply you have yesterday i think you Should asked AMIR maybe he can help you.

I think what Chris is talking about is MPEG-2 titles on BD-25s. I personally don't like MPEG-2 encoding either but on BD-50s it's a lot better than on BD-25s. If you read his reviews he sees more artifacts when they're put on BD-25s as a lot of other people have said in threads over at avsforum.

Chris you can correct me if I'm wrong. I read all your reviews & am going off of memory of things you've stated. I know it's been discussed at length in threads & neutral people & Blu-ray fans have said the same thing about the encoding hoping more studios would go with AVC.

I'm glad Sony finally stated they would only be using BD-50s now & it seems like they're going with AVC encoding. Disney has always had great transfers.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard

there are no technical reasons one will be better than the other given the same codecs, same bitrates, same source and same care taken with the transfer.

But of course that's true. Nobody is contesting that. They're the same file.
UD and UD II are equal if they use the same file.
Warner HD DVD and Warner BD are equal if they use the same file. They're a HD DVD.


I also have to mention that 2/3rds of the reviewers don't even have 1080p displays

Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard

As I always state when the meaningless picture quality differences are discussed

Picture quality differences are not "meaningless" in this forum

[GoldenRedux]

Absolutely correct Deci. It should be pointed out also that, while the two can be identical given the identical files, they need not be, and as has been pointed out already in a recent thread, clearly, Blu-ray can be and is superior when it used to its fullest potential because of its larger capacity and higher bandwidth. As can be expected, this is often the case with Blu-ray exclusive titles from Sony, Disney and Fox, unlike the crippled releases from Warner which are basically HD DVD ports that use low bit-rate VC-1 encodings. Obviously, these BDs cannot be expected to show any difference in PQ from their identical HD DVD counterparts.

[Chris Gerhard]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

But of course that's true. Nobody is contesting that. They're the same file.
UD and UD II are equal if they use the same file.
Warner HD DVD and Warner BD are equal if they use the same file. They're a HD DVD.


I also have to mention that 2/3rds of the reviewers don't even have 1080p displays




Picture quality differences are not "meaningless" in this forum

The picture quality differences are meaningless to the format war. I own both and have seen both enough to know that isn't going to be even of a minimal concern. Somebody that wants the best HDTV will be delighted with either format and side by side comparisons when both are done right will convince anybody with an open mind, that isn't an issue of importance. I only want one format, that is important to me for the simple reason that means a far greater group of consumers are going to get involved and that will result in a far greater selection of software. Lesser quality releases will be returned to retailers or remain on retailer's shelves or just simply won't sell well. Competition and the market place will give us the controls that require high quality. Both when done right are outstanding, period.

When I stated based on what I have read, HD DVD still has the tiniest of margins overall comparing picture quality according to the reviews I have read, but I don't care because it doesn't mean anything, you tell me I am wrong, Blu-ray is clearly better and Blu-ray can do this and do that. Then we look at some data that shows that what I said might be correct, you say it is based on bias. You guys are passionate about something that means nothing here. Sure, we can identify poor quality releases and discuss that and make general comments about what is being observed and right now based on everything I am seeing, both are doing great and both can do even better.

An issue of importance is why in the world is Universal exclusive HD DVD, because as long as it stays that way, both formats are going to be around for years. HD DVD will run second and profits for the participants of both groups are likely very slim and software suffers. The claim here that disc capacity will win for Blu-ray just doesn't excite me either. I have tried to read if there are technical reasons HD DVD can't increase disc capacity significantly quickly and the conclusion I came to is that HD DVD can and will. I am told I can't mention that because it is vaporware. When HD DVD was released, Blu-ray was vaporware. HD DVD has managed to build players capable of taking advantage of the advance audio codecs quicker than the Blu-ray group. I mention that doesn't mean anything really because the Blu-ray group will build those players and they are coming quickly, long before any significant group buys players. I am told by HD DVD supporters that is vaporware. HD DVD players prices are far less expensive and I state Blu-ray will soon have less expensive players and the gap will be meaningless in the near future. HD DVD supporters claim that is vaporware. Both sides are huffing and puffing about a bunch of hooey.

The key and important battlegrounds are studio support, hardware manufacturer support, support in specific countries with China being big, and the discussion of why it is better to have only one. Of course the facts now are that HD DVD can't win quickly and likely can't win at all, either Blu-ray wins and HD DVD goes away or both continue for whatever life the products have with both going away as a result of the next and greatest something. I don't think DVD goes bye bye until that time regardless, it is too popular and can't be displaced by basically the same thing with better video and audio. I believe a successful market, much smaller than DVD can thrive if only one of these two exist and it would work with either. Both exist and I don't know what happens, likely two small unprofitable formats, maybe very similar to SACD and DVD-A.

I know the video quality comparison and disc capacity discussions will go on and on, but I sure don't get it.

Chris

[GoldenRedux]

The claim here that disc capacity will win for Blu-ray just doesn't excite me either.

Why do you keep saying that people are claiming disc capacity will 'win'? I haven't seen anybody say that. What people have said is that Blu-ray has the advantage of larger disc capacity, and what's more higher bandwidth. Why do you keep ignoring this last point?

I have tried to read if there are technical reasons HD DVD can't increase disc capacity significantly quickly and the conclusion I came to is that HD DVD can and will.

And what about bandwidth?

I am told I can't mention that because it is vaporware.

It is vapourware, as it hasn't even been tested, it exists only on paper, it is nowhere in the specs, and is not compatible with any players currently in production. However, if you insist on bringing up the mythical triple-layered 51GB HD DVD disc, then I am obliged to mention the quadruple layered 200GB Blu-ray disc which, unlike the TL51GB disc, was actually physically demonstrated and exists somewhere other than on paper.

When HD DVD was released, Blu-ray was vaporware.

Uh, no it wasn't. Blu-ray was actually in development before HD DVD and already being tested. Considering they launched merely two months after HD DVD, how do you quantify your statement that Blu-ray was vapourware when HD DVD was released? That is hardly vapourware.

HD DVD has managed to build players capable of taking advantage of the advance audio codecs quicker than the Blu-ray group.

See the PS3. See the Panasonic DMP-BD10.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Chris,

I think I understand why you are saying PQ doesn't matter. But, I think you may not realize all the things that has to happen in the background to equal good PQ (I don't either but I just might be a little ahead of you on this one).

Of course, the film source is a big piece of the end result. The bandwidth and space available from the format spec is a big piece as well. Codecs help to maximize the bandwidth and space available, but it is a much smaller piece of the PQ pie. But, when the codecs and film source are the same, bandwidth and capacity jump to the forefront for PQ. Have you seen the posts for LOTR EE running times? Up to 250 mins. will be required to fit on a single disc (if we are to progress technology wise). HD DVD does not have the space or capacity to give us good PQ in that case. The bandwidth/throughput required to provide lossless audio and a great picture in not within it's limits. This is evident in HD DVD's King Kong. They could not give their viewers lossless audio and maintain the great PQ so they left it off. I don't know about you, but a next-gen format should not have those limitations in the now. If they do, they are not even now-proof...no less future-proof.

BTW, specs are what seperates Blu-ray from HD DVD. So, if HD DVD changes their specs, they are no longer considered HD DVD. It would have to be called something else. That's why they are not going to change the bandwidth/throughput for their movie specs. I think people holding out hope for a TL 51GB disc from HD DVD when there aren't even TL 45GB disc are passionate (and not thinking logical) about HD DVD.

[dobyblue]

My signature shows that HD DVD currently holds a 1% advantage in PQ and Blu-ray holds a 5% advatage in SQ.

Keep in mind that there are reviews from a number of the 5 sites (not 6 Chris) that also reviewed T5E and HOFD. Some people on HDD suggest that certain titles have been left out by me in that spreadsheet to give Blu-ray more high ratings, which is absolute bollocks. Every single scored review from those 5 sites is on there. One of the sites even has a review of Robocop, which never ended up being released.

If you were to look at the titles that have come out since November you would see Blu-ray having the advantage in all categories, but that would not be fair to exclude the great start that HD DVD had.

Currently it's as follows, but I really do need to do an update as it's been over a week since I went through and added the new reviews.

HD DVD

 PQ 	 SQ 	 TOTAL 	HD DVD
 3.92 	 3.67 	 3.80 	HighDef
 4.02 	 3.89 	 3.96 	HTSpot
 3.67 	 3.51 	 3.59 	DVDTalk
 4.02 	 3.86 	 3.94 	Upcoming Discs
 4.14 	 3.76 	 3.95 	Home Theater Forum
 3.90 	 3.71 	 3.80 	Totals

Blu-ray

 PQ 	 SQ 	 TOTAL 	Blu-ray
 3.91 	 3.85 	 3.88 	HighDef
 3.95 	 4.25 	 4.10 	HTSpot
 3.57 	 3.69 	 3.63 	DVDTalk
 3.99 	 4.16 	 4.08 	Upcoming Discs
 4.21 	 4.12 	 4.16 	Home Theater Forum
 3.85 	 3.96 	 3.91 	Totals

And by studio

PQ

PQ	Studio
 4.15 	Buena Vista
 3.94 	Paramount
 3.93 	Warner
 3.89 	Weinstein
 3.86 	Universal
 3.83 	Fox
 3.76 	Sony
 3.68 	Lionsgate

SQ

SQ	Studio
 4.34 	Buena Vista
 4.08 	Fox
 4.05 	Sony
 3.97 	Paramount
 3.88 	Lionsgate
 3.72 	Universal
 3.62 	Warner
 3.55 	Weinstein

Total

Total	Studio
 4.24 	Buena Vista
 3.95 	Fox
 3.95 	Paramount
 3.91 	Sony
 3.79 	Universal
 3.78 	Lionsgate
 3.78 	Warner
 3.72 	Weinstein

The total is 608 Blu-ray reviews and 522 HD DVD reviews.

[Chris Gerhard]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

Why do you keep saying that people are claiming disc capacity will 'win'? I haven't seen anybody say that. What people have said is that Blu-ray has the advantage of larger disc capacity, and what's more higher bandwidth. Why do you keep ignoring this last point? And what about bandwidth? It is vapourware, as it hasn't even been tested, it exists only on paper, it is nowhere in the specs, and is not compatible with any players currently in production. However, if you insist on bringing up the mythical triple-layered 51GB HD DVD disc, then I am obliged to mention the quadruple layered 200GB Blu-ray disc which, unlike the TL51GB disc, was actually physically demonstrated and exists somewhere other than on paper. Uh, no it wasn't. Blu-ray was actually in development before HD DVD and already being tested. Considering they launched merely two months after HD DVD, how do you quantify your statement that Blu-ray was vapourware when HD DVD was released? That is hardly vapourware.

See the PS3. See the Panasonic DMP-BD10.

I haven't ignored the higher bandwidth, I haven't seen any evidence if both use the highest posible bandwidth that there will be any discernible difference using the same codecs, or different codecs for that matter. I didn't believe Blu-ray was vaporware, I only used that example in response to your claim anything that HD DVD doesn't have on the market yet is vaporware. If you want to state, anything not yet on the market is vaporware, then we couldn't discuss Blu-ray until a couple of months after HD DVD launched. That wasn't my definition of vaporware, I considered it yours. My statement that there is no technical explanation showing how HD DVD can not increase disc capacity and the fact I have read both 45 GB and 51 GB discs have been manufactured and are being tested for feasibility means I have concluded there will be much higher capacity HD DVD discs in the future and the temporary claim that HD DVD has disc capacity limitation problems isn't meaningful, except for now. The quadruple layered discs may or may not be valid, but wouldn't surprise me. Theoretical disc capacity limitations were shown to be minor issues in the past and will be again. Beyond around 40 or 50 GB capacity is likely not necessary for consumer Blu-ray software or HD DVD software unless I am missing something meaningful.

Has Panasonic provided the firmware updates for the first generation player to allow the advanced audio codecs? Has Sony provided the same for the PS3? I only stated the HD DVD had earlier support for the advanced codecs, and any discussion of the fact Blu-ray would eventually have support is talking about something that isn't yet on the market.

All of the discussion about the technical merits as a reason to choose one format over the other are only meaningful to the tiniest percentage of the market, maybe quite a few members here consider it an issue of importance, I know I don't. I have primarily stated the technical merits will be meaningless to the format war and the if the technical differences can actually provide anything we will eventually hear or see, that remains to be seen, since Blu-ray hasn't used the higher bandwidth or greater capacity to any significant noticeable difference to this point.

Chris

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard

I haven't ignored the higher bandwidth, I haven't seen any evidence if both use the highest posible bandwidth that there will be any discernible difference using the same codecs, or different codecs for that matter.

The only evidence you're likely to see will come from either Paramount or Warner, both of which have opted to use the same video encode for their BD and HD-DVD releases. So while technically you're right that you "haven't seen any evidence" since there is no evidence to be had, but you're also wrong in that the bandwith advantage of BD IS THERE.

It's not like you know people in the video encoding industry who has produced BD and HD-DVD titles. Or do you?

My statement that there is no technical explanation showing how HD DVD can not increase disc capacity and the fact I have read both 45 GB and 51 GB discs have been manufactured and are being tested for feasibility means I have concluded there will be much higher capacity HD DVD discs in the future and the temporary claim that HD DVD has disc capacity limitation problems isn't meaningful, except for now. The quadruple layered discs may or may not be valid, but wouldn't surprise me.

I'm just puzzled by the last sentence. But anyways.

A bit of format war historical perspective. A few months after BD was launched, Microsoft courtesy of a certain VP, managed to convince AVSFers that the rumor he heard about BD50 being vaporware is true. Trumpeting HD-DVD30's capacity and practically saying that with VC-1, HD-DVD did not need more than 30GB, the HD-DVD bandwagon went on its merry way.

However, BD50 did NOT turn up to be vaporware. More importantly, BD50 was supported from the very first BD player out there - the Samsung. Subsequent players from Panasonic, Sony, the PS3, the Pioneer and lastly the LG has proved that BD50 was playable to the first BD Profile 1.0 spec.

So now let's get back to your conclusion that there WILL be a HD-DVD45/51 discs made. It is not a matter of Toshiba engineers may or may not be able to produce the production methods to press the disc in volume for mass production. It's about HD-DVD45/51 is not part of the HD-DVD spec to begin with.

The implication of HD-DVD45/51 not being in the current HD-DVD spec is HUGE. Supposing that the HD-DVD45/51 spec can be ratified in the Fall/Winter of 2007, it would take at least three more months for the first HD-DVD45/51 players to come out.

But the most important thing here is CONTENT. If by 2008 there are HD-DVD30 and HD-DVD45/51 in the market, to which consumer should Warner, Paramount or Universal will author their HD-DVDs for? 90% for the HD-DVD30 and 10% of the HD-DVD45/51? Or would current HD-DVD players be able to play the first TWO layers of a HD-DVD45/51 disc, leaving the studios to author movies to occupy 30GB and the rest unaccessible to older HD-DVD players?

All of this is supposing that the HD-DVD spec changes doesn't touch upon the bandwith limit of 30Mbps. What if the DVD Forum DID increase the bandwith limit to the same as BD? How would those HD-DVD45/51 discs affect older players since older players could not process that kind of bandwith?

Basically, HD-DVD45/51 IS POSSIBLE, but it would be a format war suicide for the DVD Forum to even contemplate of ratifying the spec. Hence for HD-DVD45/51, its technical merits is VERY IMPORTANT.


fuad

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard

I haven't ignored the higher bandwidth, I haven't seen any evidence if both use the highest posible bandwidth that there will be any discernible difference using the same codecs, or different codecs for that matter.

How many titles have you seen on either format? What size television do you have and what is your viewing distance? Bandwidth, BTW, doesn't just affect the picture quality (which it certainly can) but also the audio quality and how many and what sorts of audio audio programs you can fit on a disc without adversely affecting picture quality.

HD DVD 30Mb/s total for audio and video combined

Blu-ray 48Mb/s for audio and video with up to 40Mb/s allowed for video alone.

I didn't believe Blu-ray was vaporware, I only used that example in response to your claim anything that HD DVD doesn't have on the market yet is vaporware.

I never mentioned anything about market. You're reading into my posts.

The quadruple layered discs may or may not be valid

You keep arguing about TL51 discs that aren't even in the spec and then say that the 200GB disc 'may or may not be valid' when they have already been physically demonstrated and are actually in the white paper for Blu-ray?

Has Panasonic provided the firmware updates for the first generation player to allow the advanced audio codecs?

It is coming this month, but you said 'capable of', which it clearly is. It's worth pointing out that the Toshiba A1 when it first shipped only decoded 2-channel Dolby TrueHD, which is pretty much useless, until a firmware update months later, and none of the HD DVD players currently decode any of the new DTS codecs at all.

Has Sony provided the same for the PS3?

The PS3 decoded Dolby TrueHD right out of the box and is set to be firmware upgraded to decode DTS-HD MA.

It's also worth pointing out that, because of the 'meaningless' superior bandwidth, Blu-ray titles are able to use uncompressed PCM (all the way up to 8 channels of 192/24, if need be) soundtracks, so the advanced audio codecs have not been needed as much. There are more lossy compressed soundtracks on HD DVD than on Blu-ray.

since Blu-ray hasn't used the higher bandwidth or greater capacity to any significant noticeable difference to this point.

In your opinion, but not in mine.