Blu-ray and HD DVD Star Rating Breakdown

[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

[cdblu]

bd has been attacked so much more than hd-dud. i remember reading that the first bd players werent going to be able to read 50gb discs, and that the first titles released were horrible compared to hd-dud, and that the high price of bd woul cause it to fail and so on. the negatively was everywhere and yet look at bd now! bd's whoopin hd-dud, more than 2:1 ytd. hd-dud is on life support. r.i.p hd-dud, 2006-2007

[Chris Gerhard]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

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

If the HD DVD group determines the greater capacity is needed, the 45 or 51 GB discs will likely be manufactured and the specifications ratified. It won't be suicide and I don't believe anybody knows whether or not the existing players can be updated by firmware to play the discs, I would say it is possible and may very well be likely they can be updated. I am not sure the beyond 30GB capacity is needed, but if it is, HD DVD will likely have the discs. Both formats are in their infancy now, I hope Blu-ray can win because Universal goes neutral, but if it doesn't, the technical merits will not matter much as far as market factors. I didn't buy the claim Blu-ray couldn't do 50 GB discs from HD DVD supporters and I don't buy the claim HD DVD can't do greater than 30 GB discs from Blu-ray supporters. Worst case the much cheaper HD DVD first generation players won't be able to handle some important HD DVD discs and the more expensive first generation Blu-ray players won't be able to decode some important audio codecs or utilize BD-J or other issues. I do not see the lack of features with the early generation players favoring either format even if the HD DVD specs are needed to be changed rendering some early players non-compliant with regards to greater than 30 GB. I read the Blu-ray FAQ here which states all Blu-ray players must support all audio codecs listed, I thought that meant could decode, or pass for decoding by an external decoder, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD and DTS-HD MA, I was sure wrong about that meaning.

You believe that Blu-ray will be shown to have better picture quality because Warner is going to provide the proof with releases on both formats?

Chris

[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.

[Chris Gerhard]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

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

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?

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.

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.


In your opinion, but not in mine.

I stated meaningless, meaning meaningless to the format war and meaningless to me. I haven't seen any Blu-ray discs that use greater capacity and greater bandwidth than would be available on HD DVD. Can you point me to one that wouldn't have been possible on HD DVD with the math that proves it?

I have only seen about a dozen Blu-ray discs and fewer HD DVD discs using a 720p LCD projector with 100" screen, I also own a 1080i CRT, Sony KV-30XBR910. I will wait for the proof that the best Blu-ray will look better than the best HD DVD, but I doubt you are claiming the difference will be a factor in the format war. If you think the technical differences between these two great formats will matter in the format war, I say you are dreaming. It would be fun to get a thorough objective review of the same movie on HD DVD using the maximum bitrate allocated to video and only one lossless audio codec compared to Blu-ray doing the same. I don't buy having mulitple lossless audio tracks is important, I know it isn't to me and doubt it is to a significant market. I think Dolby TrueHD or lossless PCM should be used, DTS-HD MA is too late with too little, including nothing to distinguish DTS from other codecs. Whether or not DTS-HD is worth using for the bandwidth savings, I don't know, but I doubt it.

Chris

[Scorxpion]

Hello Again CHRIS,

A real example is IDENTITY and ROCKY Balboa and movies That Have Higher bandwith MPEG2 titles are Done by sony latley one of them is volver and Layer Cake

The question you keep asking and arguing us with it ,,,yes BD its better than HD-DVD why?

i will tell you why:

Have a look on Identity ,Do you think IDENTITY can be done on HD_DVD with the same technical specs Including TWO PCM Surround sound which is better than DOLBYTHD and extras and different subtitles +A higher bandwith for PQ arrive sometimes to 40mbs and average range is 30 to 35

Sure it is impossible on HD-DVD and dont try to convince me other way.

Yes just i would like you to visit Hometheaterspot and search for this specific titles to conclude what i mean and why BD is far better than HD-DVD

After that if we have a quadruple 45 or 51 GB which still an immagination and hopefully can see light a day before HD-DVD loose this war on the other hand we have 100GB and 200 GB one done by panasonic and the other one done by TDK.

SO as a result we are owning the strong format which is BD.About DTS you are guessing and dreaming too just wait till we have a receiver that can decode DTSHD master audio and we will see if its better or not.Because if DTSHD is useless i dont think so FOX keep upgrading their BD with it.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard

I stated meaningless, meaning meaningless to the format war and meaningless to me. I haven't seen any Blu-ray discs that use greater capacity and greater bandwidth than would be available on HD DVD. Can you point me to one that wouldn't have been possible on HD DVD with the math that proves it?

You have to look no further than Benes' great work in his bit rate thread.

There are several there that use more than 30GB (even using VC-1 and AVC).

There are several there that use an average of over 25 Mbps (which means peaks are most certainly over 30Mbps) (even using VC-1 and AVC).

All anyone has to do is open their eyes and look. The evidence is plain for all to see.

[Chris Gerhard]

On second thought, the two lossless audio tracks might be nice since my girlfriend doesn't like subtitles, although I would always choose a lossless audio track with subtitles, she might prefer dubbed. The greater capacity could mean something to me, but nothing to the format war now that I think further about it. She is important to me. Maybe time will show MPEG-2 using higher bitrates and requiring greater capacity looks better than AVC-1, who knows? All I have seen so far and all of the reviews I have read make me still believe the technical differences mean nothing to the market and nothing to the format war. AVC-1 with one Dolby TrueHD soundtrack given the 30 Mbps limit and I doubt anybody anywhere can tell the difference between the two formats. I understand having multiple lossless soundtracks would be problematic now for HD DVD so I concede that difference is important. Of course I could take the position I don't want to watch the stupid dubbed version and want a format that can't have both and favor HD DVD, but I won't.

Chris

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard

On second thought, the two lossless audio tracks might be nice since my girlfriend doesn't like subtitles, although I would always choose a lossless audio track with subtitles, she might prefer dubbed. The greater capacity could mean something to me, but nothing to the format war now that I think further about it. She is important to me. Maybe time will show MPEG-2 using higher bitrates and requiring greater capacity looks better than AVC-1, who knows? All I have seen so far and all of the reviews I have read make me still believe the technical differences mean nothing to the market and nothing to the format war. AVC-1 with one Dolby TrueHD soundtrack given the 30 Mbps limit and I doubt anybody anywhere can tell the difference between the two formats. I understand having multiple lossless soundtracks would be problematic now for HD DVD so I concede that difference is important. Of course I could take the position I don't want to watch the stupid dubbed version and want a format that can't have both and favor HD DVD, but I won't.

Chris

Wow, imagine if there was such a codec as AVC-1, we wouldn't have MS crapping all over AVSF!

[Chris Gerhard]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Wow, imagine if there was such a codec as AVC-1, we wouldn't have MS crapping all over AVSF!

I assume you mean "never" was such a codec. I like the codec and think a great job was done with it and I assume you mean that Amir guy crapping all over? I like him too but I want Blu-ray to survive and HD DVD to go bye bye and for Blu-ray to use AVC-1 when it is the best option.

Chris

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard

I assume you mean "never" was such a codec. I like the codec and think a great job was done with it and I assume you mean that Amir guy crapping all over? I like him too but I want Blu-ray to survive and HD DVD to go bye bye and for Blu-ray to use AVC-1 when it is the best option.

Chris

Well AVC-1 would be the mythical blend of AVC and VC-1, AVC is championed by Panasonic Hollywood and Sony amongst others, while VC-1 is MS through and through.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Through my eyes, I like going with the side that has put the most thought into creating a format for the future. In the end, Blu-ray is clearly the format with the most thought about the future.

Blu-ray is still going along according to plan. They've had to move faster than they expected, but the process was well thought out. HD DVD would have to make all these changes to their final plans to try to make it work in a futureproofing capacity. Hell, they couldn't even provide King Kong with a lossless audio track due to bandwidth issues and that was within the first couple of months of launch! Then, space is a issue with HD DVD. They can't fit LOTR:RoTK EE on a disc. To be on a side where the creators didn't even see this coming is chilling.

It makes you think about what else HD DVD creators forgot about that hasn't been brought to light, yet.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard

On second thought, the two lossless audio tracks might be nice since my girlfriend doesn't like subtitles, although I would always choose a lossless audio track with subtitles, she might prefer dubbed. The greater capacity could mean something to me, but nothing to the format war now that I think further about it. She is important to me. Maybe time will show MPEG-2 using higher bitrates and requiring greater capacity looks better than AVC-1, who knows? All I have seen so far and all of the reviews I have read make me still believe the technical differences mean nothing to the market and nothing to the format war. AVC-1 with one Dolby TrueHD soundtrack given the 30 Mbps limit and I doubt anybody anywhere can tell the difference between the two formats. I understand having multiple lossless soundtracks would be problematic now for HD DVD so I concede that difference is important. Of course I could take the position I don't want to watch the stupid dubbed version and want a format that can't have both and favor HD DVD, but I won't.

We simply can't know about the benefit of the higher bandwidth on PQ until we have a sizeable collection of titles:

(a) Available on BOTH formats
(b) Optimized for each format

So far only Paramount titles can be considered. And as far as I can tell they have reviewed at least as good on Blu-ray as HD DVD. With some examples of reviewers PREFERING the MPEG-2 encodings for Blu-ray.

The differences won't be blindly obvious. It will be a scene here and scene there. And since these are foremost a videophile format that people hope will become mass adopted (which I very much doubt), these subtle differences ARE important for those adopting now.

As you point out the audio issue is the major issue:

- Multiple lossless tracks
- Lossless on most releases
- General audio issues with HD DVD players and Xbox

I think it can be agreed that Blu-ray is kicking HD DVD's ass audio-wise.

Gary

[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.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

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

I'm surprised Weinstein is beating Universal in PQ.

AQ:

4.34 (BVHE) - 3.72 (UNI) = 0.62
4.34 (BVHE) - 3.62 (WB) = 0.72

That's pretty HUGE for an average.

Gary

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

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.

I agree. But, can you post the results since November anyway.

One of the arguments BD supporters use is that the format can improve steadily over time, and that HD DVD peaked right at the start.

Gary

[Chris Gerhard]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Well AVC-1 would be the mythical blend of AVC and VC-1, AVC is championed by Panasonic Hollywood and Sony amongst others, while VC-1 is MS through and through.

Of course, I meant VC-1, I didn't even notice my mistake the second time. I wish AVC had been called MPEG-4 then I wouldn't have the problem. The problems that come with age.

Chris

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard

Of course, I meant VC-1, I didn't even notice my mistake the second time. I wish AVC had been called MPEG-4 then I wouldn't have the problem. The problems that come with age.

Chris

It is infact VC-1 that should have a different name, AVC has been around for much longer.

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard

I stated meaningless, meaning meaningless to the format war and meaningless to me. I haven't seen any Blu-ray discs that use greater capacity and greater bandwidth than would be available on HD DVD. Can you point me to one that wouldn't have been possible on HD DVD with the math that proves it?

I have only seen about a dozen Blu-ray discs and fewer HD DVD discs using a 720p LCD projector with 100" screen, I also own a 1080i CRT, Sony KV-30XBR910. I will wait for the proof that the best Blu-ray will look better than the best HD DVD, but I doubt you are claiming the difference will be a factor in the format war. If you think the technical differences between these two great formats will matter in the format war, I say you are dreaming. It would be fun to get a thorough objective review of the same movie on HD DVD using the maximum bitrate allocated to video and only one lossless audio codec compared to Blu-ray doing the same. I don't buy having mulitple lossless audio tracks is important, I know it isn't to me and doubt it is to a significant market. I think Dolby TrueHD or lossless PCM should be used, DTS-HD MA is too late with too little, including nothing to distinguish DTS from other codecs. Whether or not DTS-HD is worth using for the bandwidth savings, I don't know, but I doubt it.

Chris

Everyone else has done a great job pointing you to the titles and showing you the maths, so I just want to add a couple of comments. First off, you're correct that I'm not claiming technical merits will be a determining factor in this format war, but they are a determining factor amongst we video and technophiles, for sure. I don't think you can disagree with that, can you?

Multiple lossless audio tracks: it's not important to me, but it is surely important to the studios, and the ability to support this sort of thing without damaging picture quality is where Blu-ray has a clear advantage over HD DVD. I really don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. I'm with you, I don't need a lossless dubbed audio track either, but the studio may feel the need to put it on there for certain markets. Just take a look at the Identity release that has already been mentioned. It's important to remember also that, when speaking about bandwidth and audio, it's not just the main audio soundtrack we're talking about here, but any additional audio commentaries, etc. all of that adds to the total mux-rate and takes up bandwidth.

I agree with you about using Dolby TrueHD and uncompressed PCM when it comes to movie soundtracks. DTS screwed up by changing the specs too much and arriving too late in the game. I don't really see any advantage to using DTS-HD MA over TrueHD, unless maybe it uses less bandwidth (does anyone know if it does?). The only use I see for DTS-HD MA is possibly for music-only Blu-ray releases as it can do 192/24 all the way up to 8 channels, which I believe TrueHD cannot - someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.