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

[Chris Gerhard]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

OK but hopefully he will clarify more his statement.

Thanks,

I said poorly done MPEG-2, meaning only that, not all MPEG-2. I wouldn't have needed the adjective if was discussing all MPEG-2. I hope that is clearer.

Chris

[Chris Gerhard]

I haven't confirmed the math, but dobyblue shows this in the signature used:

HD DVD PQ SQ TOTAL Blu-ray PQ SQ TOTAL
HighDef 3.92 3.67 3.79 HighDef 3.91 3.85 3.88
HTSpot 4.02 3.88 3.95 HTSpot 3.94 4.26 4.10
DVDTalk 3.67 3.52 3.59 DVDTalk 3.57 3.69 3.63
HTForum 4.11 3.72 3.92 HTForum 4.21 4.10 4.16
UpDisc 4.02 3.86 3.94 UpDisc 4.03 4.20 4.11
Totals 3.89 3.71 3.80 Totals 3.85 3.97 3.91

Shows 4 of 6 sites slightly rate HD DVD picture quality higher and average of the 6 sites slightly favors HD DVD for picture quality.

Chris

[Scorxpion]

If you have watched BD and compare it to these results ,you conclude that many websites has been unfair with BD and are forward with HD_DVD as a superior format Which is a loosing Format.They gives them i mean HD-DVD points higher than they Deserve.Again BD is Superior to HD-DVD in technical specs,PQ AND SQ and many of these has been discussed in this Forum.Again i recommend you to Read all over again the thread discussed in General discussion subject HD-DVD:What's all bad about it??? and you will have your own answer

[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.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard

I haven't confirmed the math, but dobyblue shows this in the signature used:

HD DVD PQ SQ TOTAL Blu-ray PQ SQ TOTAL
HighDef 3.92 3.67 3.79 HighDef 3.91 3.85 3.88
HTSpot 4.02 3.88 3.95 HTSpot 3.94 4.26 4.10
DVDTalk 3.67 3.52 3.59 DVDTalk 3.57 3.69 3.63
HTForum 4.11 3.72 3.92 HTForum 4.21 4.10 4.16
UpDisc 4.02 3.86 3.94 UpDisc 4.03 4.20 4.11
Totals 3.89 3.71 3.80 Totals 3.85 3.97 3.91

Shows 4 of 6 sites slightly rate HD DVD picture quality higher and average of the 6 sites slightly favors HD DVD for picture quality.

Chris

The other thing that needs to be taken into account is the fact that on of those sites only reviewed 60+ BDs. Hell, a third of the active members here have seen that many BDs. Plus, I would be willing to bet that most of those were from the beginning of Blu-ray's launch.

Personally, it looks like the BD titles known for their quality have not even been reviewed by some of those sites. HDDigest has even started reviewing HD DVD UK titles (Harry Potter). Is this fair...of course not. But, in spite of all this Blu-ray's overall score is clearly leading. It also seems that were the most titles are reviewed in both formats Blu-ray is about even in PQ.

[Deciazulado]

PQ HD DVD 3.89, BD 3.85



3.85/3.89 = 98.97% 1% difference.

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

PQ HD DVD 3.89, BD 3.85



3.85/3.89 = 98.97% 1% difference.

Yes, and one can only presume that the initial HD DVD bias (that is still somewhat prevalent) on a lot of review sites and the first batch of so-called 'bad' BD titles hampers the BD score somewhat; that and the fact that, as someone else pointed out, a lot of the sites haven't even reviewed many of the top rated (amongst actual users and enthusiasts) BD titles.

[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.