Does Blu-ray video look better then HD DVD video?

[kknight]

Originally Posted by Downhere

I don't know about you but both have been identical in the pic department. Both look fantastic and both have their high quality titles. I don't know how anyone cannot be impressed with Kong on the HD DVD side, that film looks fantastic. POTC, on the Blu-ray side, also looks fantastic. Hot Fuzz is amazing and The Patriot is amazing as well.

It will always come down to the compressionist and the quality of the print used.

The movies I've been watching lately, I'm not impress with HD-DVD's PQ. It just isn't up to par with Blu-ray. I own King Kong and yes PQ was very impressive at the time but I haven't seen any other movies beat that since it came out or even up to par with it. Whereas I see Blu-ray PQ constantly getting better and better. I just watched Hairspray and I was like whoa this looks awesome!

If you follow up with High-def digest, Blu-ray PQ have consistently getting higher rating for PQ then HD-DVD.

[Downhere]

Originally Posted by kknight

The movies I've been watching lately, I'm not impress with HD-DVD's PQ. It just isn't up to par with Blu-ray. I own King Kong and yes PQ was very impressive at the time but I haven't seen any other movies beat that since it came out or even up to par with it. Whereas I see Blu-ray PQ constantly getting better and better. I just watched Hairspray and I was like whoa this looks perfect.

If you follow up with High-def digest, Blu-ray PQ have consistently getting higher rating for PQ then HD-DVD.

Reviews are good as a guide only. I like to go by my feeling as to whether the pic quality is up to par. Personally, both have fantastic pic quality. Kong, Hot Fuzz, Transformers, The Mummy films, etc. on the HD DVD side have all been amazing. POTC 1 & 2, The Patriot, Underworld, F4-2, etc. have all been amazing on the Blu-ray side. I think a love for one product over the other can cloud one's judgement, but that's just my honest opinion.

[Neo65]

Originally Posted by Downhere

I don't know about you but both have been identical in the pic department. Both look fantastic and both have their high quality titles. I don't know how anyone cannot be impressed with Kong on the HD DVD side, that film looks fantastic. POTC, on the Blu-ray side, also looks fantastic. Hot Fuzz is amazing and The Patriot is amazing as well.

It will always come down to the compressionist and the quality of the print used.

Kong has an issue I found interesting on people's faces. Look closely. Another thing is to take the segment at night when Kong walks over to the frozen pond. If you single step through that 2nd segment, you see (1) a clear pulsing effect when the beginning of a GOP is very sharp and detailed (an I picture), followed by a very soft filtered image, and then alternating sharp-detailed/soft-filtered beating pattern. (2) there is also a few interesting things happening with the clouds on the top right and the snow on the ground --- the B pictures have filtered these things more heavily but created a different set of artifacts, while the P pictures have filtered less but still show some interesting artifacts.

Single stepping through them you see these things. And the GOP structure is IPBPBPBPB, the compression guy who worked on Kong's VC-1 encode tried to keep motion vector sizes low with a single B, but P pictures are 'less efficient' than Bs. If they can use Bs as reference, they can use 3Bs and save a few more bits and still use the same motion vectors for the Bs, but I don't believe the current VC-1 spec allows that.

Well, you asked about Kong.

[Grisle]

I'd say HD-DVD has lower picture quality just because it seems the studios are ok with "good enough". Now Disney and Fox and Sony are really working towards making great PQ...they can still fall short sometimes, but they're really trying...except for Disney it seems...they are rarely off.

[Neo65]

I'd characterize that under your own ideal viewing conditions, were a properly setup A/B configuration available, with the right stress materials (THIS PART IS IMPORTANT), some will be able to tell within a few minutes of watching a critical section several times - between a peak 28Mbps encode and a peak 40Mbps encode using the same codec where the only difference is the quantization used and everything else (mode, motion vectors) are identical.

But right now, for some strange reason, a lot of exclusive HD DVD encoded movies are not even trying to keep that 28Mbps peak, I think they have to lower the cap in order to accomodate the pip and the rare DTHD audio they get. Kong for example, could have dialed for lower quant and avoided the beating/pulsing effect it ended up with.

A lot of people say --- well, you can't see it when you watch the movie, and you still need to single step or use mathematical tools to find the problems, and that seems to be the thinking in some quarters, even among some professional video people, and that's ok too. But intellectual honesty demands some admission at least that there is a visible difference even it is only visible to golden eyes who look for these things and work as a living in this field.

And artifacts like pulsing --- this is something even the casual viewers can train themselves to spot for. Those used to DVDs and current broadcast HDTV are easily find the the mpeg2 compression artifacts. In time, as people get used to watching the VC-1 and AVC encodes, with lower bitrates, we should start to see the visible less obvious artifacts of deblocking filter, in-loop filter, overlap smoothing. It takes time, but I'd start with people's faces and the surrounding areas around the outlines of the heads. A few places, there's something going on with the difference in filtering between the pores on the faces and the region around the head. If the original was available, narrowing down the problems will be very quick with the right tools.

If I were to use a simple analogy, what would you rather have? MP3 at 128kbps (what hd dvd ended up with) or 192kbps (what hd dvd could be if they wanted better quality) or 320kbps (blu-rays from disney, fox, sony)? You can't really say that they all sound the same if all you have are $1 earphones (an extreme hyperbole, but the principle holds) can you?

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by Neo65

The best analogy is that of mp3. With mp3 files, say you have the 128kbps version, 192kbps version, and the 320kbps version. (We don't have flac lossless though).

Everyone sort of knows the 320kbps version is better than the 192kbps version, but many people don't want to buy the speakers to be able to tell them apart.

Disney/Fox/Sony : 320kbps is the way to go : god, just get better speakers already man!

WB : 192kbps is good enough, and a lot of people can't afford the better speakers to be able to tell them apart, so we should not penalize those who can't afford good speakers by allowing those who can afford better speakers to get the 320kbps encodes. Besides, 128kbps allows us to use smaller disks.

Uni : who cares about the 192kbps or 128kbps? Everyone knows the song is not complete until you have the option of hearing the composer comment about each segment of his composition. That's what people really want : they don't want just the song! They have to hear the extras and be able to buy survival kits from the internet while listening to the song. [turns to his warehouse dude: just hold on to those toys man, the orders will come in any second now. (Crickets chirping). Ok, time to call those Atari dudes and ask about where to clear out warehouses full of stuff noone wants. Hey! is the mic stil on? :&*(#($)!$$##. (silence)]

Redmond ex-something guy : 192kbps is good, but hey, did you realize that with a lot of finetuning in the psycho-acoustic model and doing very careful ROI we should almost probably get 128kbps to sound just as good for 99.9999999999% of the content 4 times out of 5, 6 days out of 7 (honest to god!).

RBFilms : I want to encode 320kbps for those who can listen to 320kbps and I want to encode 192kbps to those who can only listen to 192kbps. I don't want to touch 128kbps because that is cr*p and nobody wants to buy that.

Redmond ex-something guy and 1000 other interested parties : No you can't do that! 320kbps sounds terrible, 192kbps sounds good, 128kbps sounds even better. That's just because you don't believe in the psycho-acoustic model. See - you can't tell them apart, even the grid patterns in the sky from the difference maps are not really there. It all looks good enough. (Except the 320kpbs version, that sounds terrible).

Paramount : (singing) We're in the money, the sky is sunny.....

Best post ever!

[beavis667]

Originally Posted by Rike255

I don't understand how the video can look better. I know that audio on Blu-Ray often if not always surpasses HD DVD and I understand why an everything, but can someone explain to me how Blu-Ray video looks better then HD DVD? I it about the codecs they use or something?

Also, how can you tell if the only company that makes both is Warner and they make them identical from what I understand.

IMO the video will be better on BD because we have better electronics. All toshiba has is Toshiba, and they are limited to the quality that Tosh puts out. BD has a variety of different players competing against each other. That's comparable to the 20 some years that Apple competed with only itself in computer hardware falling behind to Intel based hardware which had many OEM's trying to make better hardware.

Of course, bitrate is everything when it comes to media. The HD-DVD folks would like to tell you that it somehow doesn't apply to bd/hd-dvd where it applies everywhere else.

[chrisshea]

personaly I LOVE MY BLU-RAYS!!!!!!!!!!!
Il never get hd-dvd no matter what
even if ceo of tosh shows up at my door i wont take it

from all the releases of hd-dvd the only a fiew titles that id like but i wouldnt settle for the lower quality hd-dvd
i got a 12 000$ home theather setup i wont play cheap shit on it

[Scorxpion]

i still cant believe one argue about the PQ of BD if it is better or not...BD is superior whatever HD-DVD can conclude or think about it.

AVC compression ,MPEG2, VC-1 ,Higher bit rate codecs improve the PQ if the disc has been authored carefully.

HD-DVD can do that but they cant attend the bandwidth of BD which is even higher...

If HD-DVD want to improve the PQ ,they have to compromise the SQ or vice versa.even if TL51 one day exist they still need the bandwidth of BD which is another criteria and cant be done now on HD-DVD because of its technical specs and we already know about it.

Another title prove that higher bit rate codec is the standard

http://www.hometheaterspot.com/fusio...hp?tid/139507/


video:

"At Panasonic’s labs and Fox studios members of the press from around the country (and Canada) recently got to see several BD films blown up to near movie theater sized proportions. Rise of the Silver Surfer was one, Master and Commander, ID4, Day After Tomorrow, POTC 2, etc. It was very impressive to see how well the BD discs demoed held up in resolution and clarity at even those immense screen sizes. It was also interesting to see that most were being driven by a gaming console, the PS3 rather than a standalone player. Pathfinder is another that should hold up well even on the largest of screens."

So ladies and gentelmen do you still think or behave that both format are equally.

the answer is no and HD-DVD is a loser format

[CptGreedle]

You know we can argue all we want about this and get no where. They look so similar that it is really hard to see the difference for most people.

But what you can find is the average ratings of each format. I don't have the links or exact numbers with me, but i remember seeing them around 8.5 of 10 for BD, and 7.9 of 10 for HD-DVD.... i am not sure so don't quote me on that, but I know there was a difference in reviews in favor of Blu-ray.

[thegland]

Gee,99.9 % of posters on BD.com say BD looks better than HD DVD,it must be true.CAn anybody on this site show a little honesty and say that both formats look outstanding and pretty much equal on the best titles?(besides me of course).It is true,deny it all you want.

[Paden]

Originally Posted by thegland

Gee,99.9 % of posters on BD.com say BD looks better than HD DVD,it must be true.CAn anybody on this site show a little honesty and say that both formats look outstanding and pretty much equal on the best titles?(besides me of course).It is true,deny it all you want.

I think you ought to actually read the thread before commenting on it.

[mdm1699]

Originally Posted by Rike255

I don't understand how the video can look better. I know that audio on Blu-Ray often if not always surpasses HD DVD and I understand why an everything, but can someone explain to me how Blu-Ray video looks better then HD DVD? I it about the codecs they use or something?

Also, how can you tell if the only company that makes both is Warner and they make them identical from what I understand.

You have to look at the format overall. It is easy to choose one or two movies from each format and effectively argue for either. You have to look at the bigger picture, and hd-dvd does have its limitations. If you already believe one way vs the other, then no one will convince you otherwise. Likewise, the responses that you are getting.

[quexos]

it's better THAN and not better "then"
Please, I have seen that many times. When you compare two things and one has something that qualifies as better or higher you use "THAN"
whereas "then" has a totally different meaning.

Sorry for digressing but that one feels very wrong when misused

[Downhere]

Originally Posted by Neo65

Kong has an issue I found interesting on people's faces. Look closely. Another thing is to take the segment at night when Kong walks over to the frozen pond. If you single step through that 2nd segment, you see (1) a clear pulsing effect when the beginning of a GOP is very sharp and detailed (an I picture), followed by a very soft filtered image, and then alternating sharp-detailed/soft-filtered beating pattern. (2) there is also a few interesting things happening with the clouds on the top right and the snow on the ground --- the B pictures have filtered these things more heavily but created a different set of artifacts, while the P pictures have filtered less but still show some interesting artifacts.

Single stepping through them you see these things. And the GOP structure is IPBPBPBPB, the compression guy who worked on Kong's VC-1 encode tried to keep motion vector sizes low with a single B, but P pictures are 'less efficient' than Bs. If they can use Bs as reference, they can use 3Bs and save a few more bits and still use the same motion vectors for the Bs, but I don't believe the current VC-1 spec allows that.

Well, you asked about Kong.

Hmm, sorry, I don't watch a movie in frames, I watch it in motion and try to watch the film to actually enjoy it. Going frame by frame is being a little too nitpicky. At least in my honest opinion.

I've watched the best from both formats and honestly, in motion they are both very similar. Now if you want to watch a movie frame by frame then that's your choice, but for 99% of the people in the world they watch it in real time and therefore both are similar in PQ quality.

[noi375]

Originally Posted by Downhere

Hmm, sorry, I don't watch a movie in frames, I watch it in motion and try to watch the film to actually enjoy it. Going frame by frame is being a little too nitpicky. At least in my honest opinion.

I've watched the best from both formats and honestly, in motion they are both very similar. Now if you want to watch a movie frame by frame then that's your choice, but for 99% of the people in the world they watch it in real time and therefore both are similar in PQ quality.

Then the point is this then - why in the world are we buying HD-DVD instead of Blu-ray, when Blu-ray can store more of the "great quality video", and it cost the consumer basically the same over the long run? I don't think I ever got a response on this, guess there is no answer...

[reiella]

Originally Posted by Downhere

Hmm, sorry, I don't watch a movie in frames, I watch it in motion and try to watch the film to actually enjoy it. Going frame by frame is being a little too nitpicky. At least in my honest opinion.

I've watched the best from both formats and honestly, in motion they are both very similar. Now if you want to watch a movie frame by frame then that's your choice, but for 99% of the people in the world they watch it in real time and therefore both are similar in PQ quality.

And in motion, upscaled DVDs are similar in PQ.

Just like when listening to music, CDs are similar to Vinyl... Or MP3s to CDs...

[oscar_in_fw]

Originally Posted by noi375

Then the point is this then - why in the world are we buying HD-DVD instead of Blu-ray, when Blu-ray can store more of the "great quality video", and it cost the consumer basically the same over the long run? I don't think I ever got a response on this, guess there is no answer...

The biggest reason folks continue to support HD DVD is because they've already made the investment (hardware and software) in the format and don't want to see that investment wasted. A possible secondary reason (or excuse) is the temporary advantage HD DVD has in terms of "frills" (e.g. IME, PIP, HDi).

[Downhere]

Originally Posted by noi375

Then the point is this then - why in the world are we buying HD-DVD instead of Blu-ray, when Blu-ray can store more of the "great quality video", and it cost the consumer basically the same over the long run? I don't think I ever got a response on this, guess there is no answer...

This thread is about if Blu-ray's PQ quality is better than HD DVD. My response was they both offer great PQ.

Originally Posted by reiella

And in motion, upscaled DVDs are similar in PQ.

Really? You may need glasses sir. Blu-ray and HD DVD are miles ahead of upscaled DVD.

[reiella]

Originally Posted by Downhere

This thread is about if Blu-ray's PQ quality is better than HD DVD. My response was they both offer great PQ.



Really? You may need glasses sir. Blu-ray and HD DVD are miles ahead of upscaled DVD.

In motion are they? See, I'd also contend that a 20mbps encode is miles ahead of a 30 mbps encode, but then again, I'm the one who needs glasses, neh?