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

[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.

[BStecke]

Blu-ray is still capable of higher bandwidth than HD-DVD. It's not so much a better video quality issue as it is an overall quality issue. For instance, HD DVD can't support a disc like the Pirates movies with high-quality, high-bitrate video while at the same time offering a PCM, or even lossless, audio track, as evidenced by Transformers. It's a tradeoff that isn't necessary with Blu-ray.

[stockstar1138]

both flags of our fathers and the untouchables were released on blu-ray and hd dvd, paramount used the standard vc-1 low bit codec for hd dvd and high a high bitrate avc codec for the blu-ray version. the overall consensus was that the blu-ray version looked better. warner's should look identical. if you want to know what makes blu-ray look better it is the codec. blu-ray can handle higher bitrates which means more information can be passed through in a given amount of time and most studios used codecs that take advantage of this.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

both flags of our fathers and the untouchables were released on blu-ray and hd dvd, paramount used the standard vc-1 low bit codec for hd dvd and high a high bitrate avc codec for the blu-ray version. the overall consensus was that the blu-ray version looked better. warner's should look identical. if you want to know what makes blu-ray look better it is the codec. blu-ray can handle higher bitrates which means more information can be passed through in a given amount of time and most studios used codecs that take advantage of this.

It's not necessarily the codec, but how it's used. Santa Clause 3 used VC-1, which is usually associated with the Warner smoothies, but since the bitrate on SC3 was high, VC-1 yielded great results. Shooter used MPEG2, which got a bad rep from the earlier Blu-ray releases, but looks rather good. The HD DVD guys will go on and on about how bit rate doesn't matter, but their argument is always from the "good enough" standpoint. Good enough never is.

[95pgtproject]

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.

No, not at this time but its possible in the future they look better but by then the name hd-dvd will be forgotten anyway.

Right now they do sound alot better though and thats a huge plus

[NutsAboutPS3]

Yes, Blu-ray has more capacity, so can have a higher average video bitrate, and can also have a higher peak video bitrate. The video compression is lossy, and there is a visible difference when higher bitrates are used. It's like if you save a photo in jpg format, you can choose the amount of compression, and it looks better with less compression.

[w_tanoto]

HD DVD picture is worse (SLIGHTLY) compared to BD. Not very noticeable, but BD has higher bandwith

[dadkins]

When you go to a website that has video for you to watch, do you choose the 150kbps version or the 700kbps version?
Why?

A well done Blu-ray will have a better picture because of the higher bitrate being displayed.

When a fence-sitter studio uses the same encode for both formats... they usually choose one that will work on the lesser format and slap that on Blu as well(cheaping out).

Both formats in this situation *should* look the same - all things being equal...

It's when a studio produces a video that is designed to take advantage of Blu-ray's capabilities where it really kicks butt!

[Sonny]

PQ is pretty close but Blu has the edge, its all about the transfer really , how good of a job did the compresioner do??? This is my observation on the matter...

[Clark Kent]

Aside from the identical encodes done by Warner Brothers for both formats, Blu-ray in general will look better than the equivalent HD DVD. On smaller screens the differences are not as noticeable, but the difference is apparent after careful inspection on screens 50" and over. And on large screens with projectors(100" and over) HD DVD gets killed by Blu-ray. The inherent capacity and bandwidth advantages Blu-ray has really show at those sizes, everything else being equal. The best example of this is the dual format release "Nature's Journey", where the producer maxed out each format to its potential. The Blu-ray won in a head to head comparison for both picture quality and audio quality. It's all about trying to duplicate the original source as close as possible and Blu-ray will always have an edge in that regard.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Sonny

PQ is pretty close but Blu has the edge, its all about the transfer really , how good of a job did the compresioner do??? This is my observation on the matter...

I agree but from watching potc v. hddvd king kong the POTC crushes

[oscar_in_fw]

Originally Posted by supersix14

I agree but from watching potc v. hddvd king kong the POTC crushes

Unfortunately, You'll see the exact opposite argument from the HD DVD fanboys; it's pretty subjective.

I will admit "Transformers" on HD DVD looks very good (certainly better than "King Kong") so HD DVD is capable of steller video transfers; unfortunately at the expense of lossless audio way too often.


The best of both formats rivals what you see even in the digital cinemas. They've gotten very good at the encoding. "Reference quality" video transfers still occur far more often on Blu ray than on HD DVD (and usually better then the best of HD DVD but again, that's a subjective opinion - I haven't bought very many HD DVDs because of PQ/SQ issues)

[savage1984]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Aside from the identical encodes done by Warner Brothers for both formats, Blu-ray in general will look better than the equivalent HD DVD. On smaller screens the differences are not as noticeable, but the difference is apparent after careful inspection on screens 50" and over. And on large screens with projectors(100" and over) HD DVD gets killed by Blu-ray. The inherent capacity and bandwidth advantages Blu-ray has really show at those sizes, everything else being equal. The best example of this is the dual format release "Nature's Journey", where the producer maxed out each format to its potential. The Blu-ray won in a head to head comparison for both picture quality and audio quality. It's all about trying to duplicate the original source as close as possible and Blu-ray will always have an edge in that regard.

very informative... thanks

[reiella]

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.

Other's prolly hit on it,but there are a few titles from paramount that were released on both, that actually had different encodes.

But for the answer, there's alot more bandwidth available for video encodes on Blu, versus HD.

We know that a 35 mbps encode looks better than a 20 mbps.

It's been covered and beaten to death in this thread though .

[atomik kinder]

Originally Posted by supersix14

I agree but from watching potc v. hddvd king kong the POTC crushes

I am not crazy then! I wasn't impressed at all with the King Kong HD DVD!

[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.....

[richard lichtenfelt]

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?opt...k=view&id=6326 check the charts for a scoring of the video quality of each format using the same encodes. HiDef Digest, Home Theater Spot, DVD Talk, Upcoming Discs, and Home Theater Forum all gave blu-ray the nod for better video quality.
In regards to technical superiority besides the extra 20gb of space on the disc; POTC runs at about 40mbps for the video alone throughout much of the movie while hd dvd has a total of 30mbps available for audio and video combined.
http://www.hidefpreview.com/Exclusive%20Interview.html

[Maxell]

Think of it compared to MP3's. HD-dvd is like 128kbps encode while Blu-ray goes about 256kbps, much greater quality. Or think of cameras: all 8mp cameras are different, some actually look better than others.

[kknight]

I own both formats, I rent HD-DVD movies and buy/rent Blu-ray movies. I can tell you that Blu-ray consitently looks and sound better then HD-DVD. HD-DVD movies I notice noise and grain more then I do with Blu-ray.. At the beginning it is true that HD-DVD PQ was a little better then Blu-ray but that was just the beginning, Blu-ray have surpass that long ago...

[Downhere]

Originally Posted by kknight

I own both formats, I rent HD-DVD movies and buy/rent Blu-ray movies. I can tell you that Blu-ray consitently looks and sound better then HD-DVD. HD-DVD movies I notice noise and grain more then I do with Blu-ray.. At the beginning it is true that HD-DVD PQ was a little better then Blu-ray but that was just the beginning, Blu-ray have surpass that long ago...

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.