Stardust review @ HDD

[Razzy]

Wow Paramount, what gives?

PQ: 3 stars
AQ: 3.5 stars

yeesh.


http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1188/stardust.html

[Toxa]

Not a great loss for the Blu-ray clan

[fronn]

That's actually pretty disappointing. This was the one movie I actually wanted on HD DVD... at this point I think I'll just save a few dollars and get the DVD for my GF -- I wouldn't mind a mediocre transfer of a movie I really liked on a format that I think will survive, but not on one that'll likely be dead in a few months.

[Spankey]

Was this another AVC encode?

It sure was. I love how Bracke does not want to comment on what he believes to be the cause. Filtering, photography, ecoding. Wouldn't want to find HD-DVD as the culprit now, would we?

[UlicBelouve]

My wife and I really enjoyed this movie, but will just get it on DVD (yes, I did hesitate to even get it on DVD). I can see it doing well in sales, but not enough to run against Simpsons, T3, and Blade Runner.

Hopefully over time we'll get it on Blu. I still think it was better than Transformers, since transformers had special efects and little else in the way of a story.

[Chris Beveridge]

I can understand the video rating based on the photography and style; that doesn't bother me and as long as it's clean and accurate, I'll ignore most ratings. What surprises me is that even with what appears to be a pretty basic movie and slate of extras, Paramount STILL went only with DD+ 5.1 for the audio. Throw transformers at me all you want, but that's still NOT "high definition" audio no matter how you smoke it. Very disappointing to me.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Spankey

Was this another AVC encode?

It sure was. I love how Bracke does not want to comment on what he believes to be the cause. Filtering, photography, ecoding. Wouldn't want to find HD-DVD as the culprit now, would we?

This review is by Joshua Zyber.

Gary

[Downhere]

Originally Posted by Chris Beveridge

Throw transformers at me all you want, but that's still NOT "high definition" audio no matter how you smoke it. Very disappointing to me.

Sure, it's no lossless, but to say it's not "High Definition" sound also wouldn't be correct. It's 1.5MBPS DD+ which is higher than anything on DVD and therefore would be considered High Def, but not lossless or uncompressed.

[sj001]

My GF and I enjoyed the movie, too bad it's Paramount.
Now to me, if a movie does not include PCM, Dolby TrueHD, or DTS-MA (though I still can't play it), then I am annoyed. I want TRUE hi-definition audio, Dolby Digital Plus is not different enough for me to make it worth it.

[Chris Beveridge]

Originally Posted by Downhere

Sure, it's no lossless, but to say it's not "High Definition" sound also wouldn't be correct. It's 1.5MBPS DD+ which is higher than anything on DVD and therefore would be considered High Def, but not lossless or uncompressed.

How about PCM or 1.5MBPS DTS on DVD?

DD+ is "next gen" audio, but it's not in the same league in my opinion as full uncompressed PCM, TrueHD or DTS-MA.

[Downhere]

Originally Posted by Chris Beveridge

How about PCM or 1.5MBPS DTS on DVD?

DD+ is "next gen" audio, but it's not in the same league in my opinion as full uncompressed PCM, TrueHD or DTS-MA.

Never said it was in the same league, but it is very good as well. I just get annoyed when people act like it's total crappy quality because it's only DD+ at 1.5 MBPS. At least it's not just regular DD or anything.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Downhere

Sure, it's no lossless, but to say it's not "High Definition" sound also wouldn't be correct. It's 1.5MBPS DD+ which is higher than anything on DVD and therefore would be considered High Def, but not lossless or uncompressed.

I guess it depends on what constitutes HD audio. 640Kbps DD isn't available on anything but Blu-ray. Is that high def?

Lines in the sand?

Originally Posted by Richard Dressler

It is not necessary in our view to use even 1 Mbps until 7.1-ch is available, but it’s their choice to make, and it certainly will not hurt the sound.

Originally Posted by Richard Dressler

I’m sure we can find some challenging program material that will show 1.5 Mbps has some subtle advantage over 640 kbps in a clinical situation, but that does not mean 640 doesn’t sound transparent on most material, most of the time, for most users. When it comes to use of perceptual audio or perceptual video, these issues do come into play. It is not practical to take what sounds good or looks good and then double the bitrate “just to make sure.”

There's no indication that the extra bits over 1Mbps (or even 640Kbps) actually amount to anything. DD and DD+ are always lossy, unlike DTS which tries to be lossless and then degrades when it can't be.

Gary

[fronn]

I'm sure 640kbps sounds absolutely transparent when you're using TV speakers... it doesn't mean that studios should cater to what most people may have, when it likely doesn't cost them much extra to give everyone lossless (which can still be used by those that haven't invested much or anything into their sound systems).

I wish Warner, Paramount and Universal would understand that... if, god forbid, we are stuck with HD DVD, then I hope they get their act together; and if they do all go to the Blu side, then I especially hope they get their act together.

[Monkey]

Wasn't this supposed to be one those titles that would give HD DVD a win at Nielsen? "next week".. I meant "next week" we'll win.

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

This review is by Joshua Zyber.

Gary

Oh, Mr. Traffic himself

[Spankey]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

This review is by Joshua Zyber.

Gary

WHAT?! Then I am even more shocked. I thought I saw Bracke's name, but Zyber knocking an HD-DVD is surprising.

[glenn22]

This is pretty disappointing. Stardust is a great movie and deserves a good transfer. I also doubt that they'll make a new transfer for Blu-ray once HD-DVD dies.