hd duds in the clearance pile at my CC

[junglalien]

isn't off topic discussion for worthless threads?

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by junglalien666

I don't think I have added a single bluray to my collection of 70+ BDs because there hasn't been a single sale. No more BOGO means no more BDs for me.

You must not have been paying attention, because in the past few weeks there have been good sales at Amazon and JR.

[skrill]

Originally Posted by Sith

Only problem with that is, what if your hardware breaks and no one will fix it
2-3 years from now.....

I'd just hold on to your hd's, till you can convert them to blu when blanks start being cheaper...

I think both of my HD players will be in fine working order in 2-3 years. Do you expect your BR player to break in 2-3 years? I bought my first DVD player (a Toshiba) in 1999 and it still works great. Toshiba has stated that the will continue to honor warranties and make spare parts for years.

But -- just to be safe -- I bought a 4 year Mack warranty for $45 for the XA2 (because it is such an awesome machine).

The whole -- I won't buy an HD DVD player because it will break in 2 years and there will be no replacement -- argument makes no sense to me.

Edit: I plan to hit CC and see that they have.

[junglalien]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

You must not have been paying attention, because in the past few weeks there have been good sales at Amazon and JR.

I probally had most of those movies already. I did get Simpsons and 3:10 to Yumma at Target BOGO. If my HD DVD player breaks down I'm sure I can find one on Ebay if I need to in the future.

[skrill]

Originally Posted by Sith

no your probably right, even if it's 8 years though, it's still putting money towards a product that isn't being supported....But it is your $$$, go for it...

In 8 years -- I won't care. Something new will be out by then.

[JJ]

All this unwarranted hos-tility. Don't be so hos-tile, be hos-pitable, or else we'll put you in the hos-pital.

PS. Here's my own little unwarranted jab at this conflict, which introduces me as a belligerent party to this little melee - 48 posts a day? Are you mad? Even that nut (I mean that in the nicest way...sen~or post *****) Marcus only has 19-20 a day. Jeez. That's ridiculous!

[WickyWoo]

The next person who continues the feuding will get more than in infaction. What part of "knock it off" wasn't clear?

[owa]

Originally Posted by jwbbud

SO....who walked by the clearance bin and just smiled? I stopped for a peek, My CC only has about 50 titles left, selection sucked, but then again it is HDDVD

I thought they had gotten rid of the HD DVDs the same day BB did but maybe that's all they did (moved them to clearance bins). I didn't think to look in those.

[jw]

Originally Posted by skrill

I think both of my HD players will be in fine working order in 2-3 years. Do you expect your BR player to break in 2-3 years? I bought my first DVD player (a Toshiba) in 1999 and it still works great. Toshiba has stated that the will continue to honor warranties and make spare parts for years.

But -- just to be safe -- I bought a 4 year Mack warranty for $45 for the XA2 (because it is such an awesome machine).

The whole -- I won't buy an HD DVD player because it will break in 2 years and there will be no replacement -- argument makes no sense to me.

Edit: I plan to hit CC and see that they have.

I would upgrade while they are still cheap, I didnt like the A-2 as it wasnt 1080p, which does look alot better than 1080i. I noticed it alot when watching King Kong, which is probably the best PQ HDDVD out there that I have seen and that isnt saying alot for HDDVD. But note that I havent watched that many HDDVDs to be a very good judge.

[skrill]

Originally Posted by jwbbud

I would upgrade while they are still cheap, I didnt like the A-2 as it wasnt 1080p, which does look alot better than 1080i. I noticed it alot when watching King Kong, which is probably the best PQ HDDVD out there that I have seen and that isnt saying alot for HDDVD. But note that I havent watched that many HDDVDs to be a very good judge.

I believe there are no visible differences between 1080i output of HD material and 1080p output of the same material if you are using a 60hz display with decent 3:2 pulldown and deinterlacing.

If you have a good display that deinterlaces well and you are running at 60fps -- there will be virtually no visible difference between 1080p and 1080i output from at any reasonable viewing distance. With 1080i output and 3:2 pull down in the display -- all of the data needed for a complete 1080p picture is there. Your display just does a bit of work and bamm -- you are looking at a pixel for pixel representation of a 1080p picture. There are lots of very good articles about this (do a google for 1080p v 1080i myth -- or something like that).

No offense -- but I believe the differences you saw in King Kong were either differences in the display, or, assuming the same display was used, placebo effect. My A2 is hooked up to a Panasonic 42PZ700u (1080p plasma). It looks fantastic with HD material and I would say would look no different if the XA2 was hooked up to it. The real advantage of the XA2 with HD material is its ability to display at 24hz (it is hooked up to a Sony 60A3000 that displays at 120hz natively) so there is no 3:2 pull down. This helps to smooth the picture in panning shots.

And for your information -- having owned, rented and watched many titles on both formats -- I do not believe there are any PQ differences between the formats (both look fantastic) that are particular to the format. PQ is more affected by transfer quality, source material and time/effort invested by studio versus the format or bitrate (take Silent Hill for example -- the US release on Blu in MPEG2 is generally panned as horrid is and is pretty poor, the German release on HD DVD with a nicer VC1 encode won an award as one of the 10 best Hi-Def transfers on either format).

[jw]

Originally Posted by skrill

I believe there are no visible differences between 1080i output of HD material and 1080p output of the same material if you are using a 60hz display with decent 3:2 pulldown and deinterlacing.

If you have a good display that deinterlaces well and you are running at 60fps -- there will be virtually no visible difference between 1080p and 1080i output from at any reasonable viewing distance. With 1080i output and 3:2 pull down in the display -- the all of the data needed for a complete 1080p picture is there. Your display just does a bit of work and bamm -- you are looking at a pixel for pixel representation of a 1080p picture. There are lots of very good articles about this (do a google for 1080p v 1080i myth -- or something like that). No offense -- but I believe the differences you saw were either differences in the display, or, assuming the same display was used, placebo effect.

My A2 is hooked up to a Panasonic 42PZ700u (1080p plasma). It looks fantastic with HD material and I would say would look no different if the XA2 was hooked up to it. The real advantage of the XA2 with HD material is its ability to display at 24hz (it is hooked up to a Sony 60A3000 that displays at 120hz natively) so there is no 3:2 pull down. This helps to smooth the picture in panning shots.

well I noticed, so I went 1080p

[skrill]

Originally Posted by jwbbud

well I noticed, so I went 1080p

Again ... you think you noticed ... but there was nothing to notice.

Read this please

Assuming the display is running at 1080p/60hz -- there is no difference between 1080i and 1080p input source if you are viewing HD DVD or Blu Ray. All the data is there -- all the pixels are present and accounted for.

[owa]

Originally Posted by skrill

I
And for your information -- having owned, rented and watched many titles on both formats -- I do not believe there are any PQ differences between the formats (both look fantastic) that are particular to the format. PQ is more affected by transfer quality, source material and time/effort invested by studio versus the format or bitrate (take Silent Hill for example -- the US release on Blu in MPEG2 is generally panned as horrid is and is pretty poor, the German release on HD DVD with a nicer VC1 encode won an award as one of the 10 best Hi-Def transfers on either format).

Meh, I've used and seen both and I don't agree (although, maybe we do and we're just phrasing it differently). I do think HD DVD could be just as good if they had the space and bandwidth but since those are usually issues for HD DVD, they make tradeoffs (with video bitrates or lossless audio, for example). In other words, if HD DVD did have more space and bandwidth, it would essentially be "blu-ray" so they'd be more evenly matched. As it stands, I think HD DVD strived for and satisfied the "good enough" mantra and that's probably fine for some.

Anyway, at this point, HD DVD is essentially a footnote in hi-def history so continuing to discuss/debate it probably does more harm than good. But, in the past, that didn't really seem to matter. People were still discussing/debating betamax years later or even analog vs digital when CDs started taking over. I just need to stop looking at these threads.

[skrill]

Originally Posted by owa

Meh, I've used and seen both and I don't agree (although, maybe we do and we're just phrasing it differently). I do think HD DVD could be just as good if they had the space and bandwidth but since those are usually issues for HD DVD, they make tradeoffs (with video bitrates or lossless audio, for example). In other words, if HD DVD did have more space and bandwidth, it would essentially be "blu-ray" so they'd be more evenly matched. As it stands, I think HD DVD strived for and satisfied the "good enough" mantra and that's probably fine for some.

Anyway, at this point, HD DVD is essentially a footnote in hi-def history so continuing to discuss/debate it probably does more harm than good. But, in the past, that didn't really seem to matter. People were still discussing/debating betamax years later or even analog vs digital when CDs started taking over. I just need to stop looking at these threads.

There may be reasons to ding HD DVDs smaller data size that directly relate to its lack of lossless audio in so many of its titles (i.e., Transformers has no lossless because it ran out of space -- that said, I still think it still sounds awesome). Thus, some will say SQ is an issue with HD DVD when compared to BR (I have yet to see evidence that this issue was actually realized or perceived -- but I understand it in theory).

But as far as PQ -- I have never seen or heard of an HD DVD title that had inferior PQ versus its BR equivalent or competitor. In other words, when/if HD DVD had to cut items for space -- it was not in the video encode. Rather it would be in the audio department.

[owa]

Originally Posted by skrill

There may be reasons to ding HD DVDs smaller data size that directly relate to its lack of lossless audio in so many of its titles (i.e., Transformers has no lossless because it ran out of space -- that said, I still think it still sounds awesome). Thus, some will say SQ is an issue with HD DVD when compared to BR (I have yet to see evidence that this issue was actually realized or perceived -- but I understand it in theory).

As far as PQ, I think a lot of the blu-ray titles look sharper than HD DVD but it's probably more about what they did during the encoding. It's also not a direct comparison so it doesn't really prove anything. The problem with comparing titles on both is that they've been encoded with HD DVD in mind so you won't see the titles taking advantage of blu-rays better specs. I was really looking forward to comparing New Line's blu-ray optimized titles versus the HD DVD version but things happend so quickly, all that went out the window.

Anyway, as far as SQ, there's a pretty good example of the improvements possible.

From the blu-ray Beowulf import review where Warner used lossless instead of Dolby Digital Plus....

Unbelievable. I was already struck with awe by the amazing Dolby Digital Plus track Paramount included on the domestic HD DVD release of 'Beowulf,' but Warner Brothers stops the show with a lossless Dolby TrueHD 5.1 surround mix that's, quite frankly, a sonic revelation. Boasting improved fidelity, subtly increased stability, and more nuanced bass, the TrueHD track featured on this import makes me wish I could bump my score higher than a five.

[Beta Man]

I have an A-35 in the bedroom and use it mostly to up-convert, and I'll get a catalog title on HD DVD if it's really cheap, but I couldn't tell you the last time I got an HD DVD. I'm waiting patiently now for them to hit the $5 mark!


My observations:

I play both on displays that are 720p and both 37" screens, so I don't notice a difference in PQ in HD DVD or Blu ray. My blu-ray is on my "nice" setup, so I can't compare audio quality (because there is no comparison, one is an expensive system, the other I run the T.V. sound on!!!)

Both upconvert just fine, so I don't see the big deal.

I purchased the HD DVD player the day after I purchased my PS3

NO REGRETS!!!!!

[skrill]

Originally Posted by owa

As far as PQ, I think a lot of the blu-ray titles look sharper than HD DVD but it's probably more about what they did during the encoding. It's also not a direct comparison so it doesn't really prove anything. The problem with comparing titles on both is that they've been encoded with HD DVD in mind so you won't see the titles taking advantage of blu-rays better specs. I was really looking forward to comparing New Line's blu-ray optimized titles versus the HD DVD version but things happend so quickly, all that went out the window.

Anyway, as far as SQ, there's a pretty good example of the improvements possible.

From the blu-ray Beowulf import review where Warner used lossless instead of Dolby Digital Plus....

Actually there are a few instances where the same studio put out the same titles on BR and HD in different video codecs. The differences are mild to non-existent. The early Paramount movies are good examples:

Shooter was MPEG2 on BR and VC1 on HD
MI:III was the same way.

The PQ differences were negligible. However, both of those titles contained DD+ audio tracks with 1.5mbs bitrate on HD than the 640k DD on the BR. So the HD in those cases is generally considered the better disk. In the case of Shooter, this is due to the studio's decision to pack the movie onto a single layer BD25 for BR and a dual layer HD30 for HD version. Since MI:III was a two-disc set -- I don't know what Paramount was thinking there.

Again -- I have see brilliant PQ on both, and horrid PQ on both. But I don't think HD DVD has inherently lower PQ. For example, on the Beowulf import disk -- the PQ was the same (or possibly slightly lower -- due to banding) than the HD DVD version. Regardless -- they are probably about the same.

[owa]

Originally Posted by skrill

Actually there are a few instances where the same studio put out the same titles on BR and HD in different video codecs. The differences are mild to non-existent. The early Paramount movies are good examples:

Shooter was MPEG2 on BR and VC1 on HD
MI:III was the same way.

Yeah, there are some early titles, such as the ones you listed, where you could compare PQ but one issue with that, is that the PQ has improved since the early titles were released. There are some good titles PQ-wise from the early batch of mpeg-2 encodes (Kingdom of Heaven, for example), and mpeg-2 in general is fine if the bitrate is high enough, but a lot of the early ones didn't provide that.

Originally Posted by skrill

But I don't think HD DVD has inherently lower PQ. For example, on the Beowulf import disk -- the PQ was the same (or possibly slightly lower -- due to banding) than the HD DVD version. Regardless -- they are probably about the same.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the issue here is that it's difficult for HD DVD to accommodate both PQ and AQ so it would require tradeoffs. It would be interesting to see how blu-ray optimized titles from Fox and Disney, such as I, Robot (average bitrate around 30 mbps and has lossless audio) and No Country for Old Men (average bitrate around 27 mbps and LPCM for audio), would look on HD DVD. What I think you're saying is that if those encodes were reduced to a level that HD DVD could handle, it would still look/sound the same. I guess I'm saying that I don't think it would look/sound the same but of course, I could be wrong. I am by no means, an expert.

If the rumors about a high bitrate AVC encode and lossless sound for Transformers pans out, maybe that title will provide a comparison (if we get it in our lifetime, that is).