Are there any neutral titles that are technically better on Blu-Ray?

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Oblivion

I appreciate this is a very pro-Blu site, and believe me I want and wish Blu to win this fight, but I'm yet to see a convincing dual format "Blu-ray trounces HD DVD" title. I mean examples like Harry Potter above fall flat on their face because the HD DVD sports PiP and interactivity. Ditto 300.

Obviously that can't happen with Warner's since the encoding is identical. And there were really too few Paramount.

So, it's really an unfair challenge.

Gary

[MOONPHASE]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

Better watch it or you'll have people come tell you that the hard protective coating is somehow a bad thing for Blu-Ray because it's only there because it has to be...

well thats a little to late for me ive had a whole bunch of dudders telling me that

[eat_me_cool]

Originally Posted by Oblivion

Blu-ray can win on specs and quality; so why doesn't it?

Because Warner, for whatever poltical reason, choose not to take advantage of the extra capacity. In fact an Insider (Max) on the insiders thread says it was a WB gentleman's agreement with HD-DVD that they don't bring out certain titles on BD, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar agreement exists with all dual format WB titles. It would seem WB agreed not to embarrass HD-DVD with better BD's.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by richard lichtenfelt

Nature's Journey.
http://www.hidefpreview.com/Exclusive%20Interview.html

this is 100% this movie looked soooo bad when I saw it at a friends house then I took a chance bought it blu and amazing much better and as jaded stated the paramount movies look a ton better via blu like the snow scene in shooter crushes it's blu-ray counterpart(in my opinion)

[CasualCat2001]

BD50 AVC vs. HDDVD VC-1 : advantage Blu-ray

As has become customary with Paramount releases, 'Flags of our Fathers' comes with different encodes depending on which next-gen format you prefer. In a side by side comparison of the film between the the AVC MPEG-4 transfer on this Blu-ray version and the VC-1 transfer on the HD DVD, it does seem that the Blu-ray/AVC encode is the tiniest bit sharper, while the HD DVD/VC-1 is the slightest bit softer. Neither is an advantage to my eyes and each encode is identical otherwise -- fans of both camps should be ecstatic to see this film looking so good.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/737/...urfathers.html

Seeing that one of the reasons for HD is the extra sharpness and clarity of the picture that is an advantage to me. If I want extra softness I can play the DVD version. When Blu-ray is given the proper space and codec I think it can outperform HD-DVD

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BD25 MPEG2 vs HDDVD VC-1 : advantage HD-DVD

However, I was a bit distracted while watching the Blu-ray by more consistently noticeable artifacts. In particular, posterization was more troublesome. Dissolves and large gradations of color often looked a bit more artificial than the HD DVD. I also noticed a slight increase in video noise in the darker scenes. Hardly excessive, and the difference is nowhere near night and day. I'm not sure if this has to do with the fact that the Blu-ray had to be squeezed into a tighter space (a BD-25 25GB single-layer versus an HD-30 30GB dual-layer disc), but the HD DVD version just looked slightly cleaner.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/170/aeonflux.html


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BD25 MPEG2 vs. HDDVD VC-1 : advantage Blu-ray

So, how do the Blu-ray and HD DVD stack up? Perhaps it is the mega-bitrate afforded both transfers -- and I know I might get taken to task by some in the HD DVD camp for even suggesting such a thing -- but this is one comparison that makes a pretty good case for MPEG-2. It seems clear that, with enough bits behind it, the codec isn't ready to be put out to pasture just yet (VC-1 was developed and optimized with low bitrate applications in mind, so is less space-hungry). Compression artifacts, posterization and macroblocking are just not a problem on either version. Black, color reproduction and overall detail are consistently impressive regardless of codec, and of all the dual-format releases I've yet seen, 'M:I III' is probably the best proof that Blu-ray is clearly able to deliver absolutely first-rate video quality when at its best. Yes, I'm sure if there was enough time in the world to go through and compare the entire film frame-by-frame, perhaps there could be some differences noticeable. And there is no telling how 'M:I III' may have looked on Blu-ray had it been encoded with VC-1 (or AVC MPEG-4, for that matter.) But both the Blu-ray and the HD DVD of 'M:I III' packed equal punch for me. If nothing else, 'M:I III' should be great fuel for proponents on both sides as to what their preferred format is capable of.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/195/...ssibleiii.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusions/summary:

Unfortunately, only Paramount seemed to be experimenting with different codec/size combinations.

When they used MPEG2 vs an advanced codec, the results were mixed, but can be indistinguishable; when they used an advanced codec vs a different advanced codec/encode the Blu-ray was superior.

I honestly believe if Warner were to use different encodes, optimized AVC on BD50's vs optimized VC-1 on HDDVD 30, we'd have more examples in which the bitrate difference shows its advantage on Blu-ray. It is too bad Warner hasn't done this seeing they've been willing to use HD-DVD's differences when only HD-DVD had pip.

It is pretty clear that there can be a noticeable difference in MPEG2 when the bitrate and/or space is increased. It seems to me that eventhough the advanced codecs are newer and "advanced" that they too can/will benefit from higher bitrates as well. Maybe they are "good enough" at lower bitrates that they don't have artifacts, banding, etc., but it seems with higher bitrates they can gain some very important sharpness.

[Oblivion]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

So, it's really an unfair challenge.

But that's it isn't it? It's not about challenge or tests? Merely the fact we want the best PQ and AQ on our screens.

[Farout777]

Originally Posted by Downhere

I think this has been blown way out of proportion, in the same way the rot on some Blu-ray discs has been with HD DVD fans. I have a good amount of combo discs and have yet to have a problem. The only problem I had was with Superman Returns and I returned it to Warner Bros. and they sent me a brand new one that now works perfectly. Even Children of Men has worked perfectly without boiling or updating the firmware. So, therefore, it would have to be a very small minority that have to boil or even have problems playing combo discs.

I have quite a few combos and never had a problem with any of them. I have a combined total of approx 110 BD and HD DVD and have only had one problem, The Reaping on BD due to a very small crack on the outside edge of the disc. One thing that I do prefer on BD is that I love the PCM audio tracks!

[darkedgex]

Yeah, I was really annoyed when Paramount ditched Blu-ray: not because I was necessarily disappointed about Transformers or Shrek the Third, but because they actually optimized their encodes for each format. I mean the only way things could have been better with Paramount back then would be if they'd released raw footage so we could see which one came closest to the source material.

But yes, on AVC vs. VC1 encodes where a BD50 was used, the Blu-ray Disc almost always looked better than the HD DVD. Despite what many Microsofties and HD DVD luddites claim about "more bits not mattering". (And from a mathematical perspective, claiming more bits won't help simply doesn't make sense: these are lossy compression algorithms, unless you're encoding a perfectly black screen, or a still photo ran for two hours, there's hardly a situation where MORE bitrate WON'T help).

[sonicbox]

Originally Posted by darkedgex

(And from a mathematical perspective, claiming more bits won't help simply doesn't make sense: these are lossy compression algorithms, unless you're encoding a perfectly black screen, or a still photo ran for two hours, there's hardly a situation where MORE bitrate WON'T help).

You haven't worked with advanced codecs, have you? There is a fairly early point of diminishing returns. This is not MPEG-2. No, 'more bitrate' generally can't hurt, but often it does nothing. The point of a variable bitrate compression encode is to adjust the bitrate as necessary to the specific scene. If you see compression artifacts in playback on a calibrated set, the compressionist hasn't done his job. Automated tools, as well as humans, make mistakes.

[Downhere]

it does seem that the Blu-ray/AVC encode is the tiniest bit sharper, while the HD DVD/VC-1 is the slightest bit softer.

I think this would fall under the negligible category, as most of those reviews mentioned only state there being a tiniest bit of extra sharpness. Honestly, I've compared Flags of our Fathers on both formats on a 110" screen and they looked identical.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Oblivion

Having recently gone dual I dispute this, I am yet to find any difference between the two. Indeed I am now campaigning for Warner to give us True-HD and PCM on the Blu-ray editions as we are moving towards receiver side decoding meaning our discs will need to re-brought for our future setups whereas the HD DVD ones won't. Warner need a slap here; they gave us True-HD and PCM on 300 so why not on all titles.

You can dispute it but you would be wrong. The use of DialNorm on Dolby TrueHD tracks makes the track slightly inferior to the original PCM soundtrack. Warner does this on every Dolby TrueHD track they have ever released on both formats. Blame their encoders if you want. This is not debateable, it's a cold hard mathematical fact. All studios keep their original movie soundtracks in PCM form. The PCM master is what every other home sound format is derived from(Dolby Digital, DTS, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, etc).

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by CasualCat2001

BD50 AVC vs. HDDVD VC-1 : advantage Blu-ray

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/737/...urfathers.html

BD25 MPEG2 vs HDDVD VC-1 : advantage HD-DVD

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/170/aeonflux.html

BD25 MPEG2 vs. HDDVD VC-1 : advantage Blu-ray

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/195/...ssibleiii.html

I would take the reviews from High Def Digest with a grain of salt. They would be one of the last places I'd pick as the final arbiter of picture quality between Blu-ray and HD DVD. This is the site that gave Mr. Brooks a 3.5 for video quality when it's near reference quality and Transformers audio a perfect score for a lossy soundtrack.