I've been looking around here for comparisons between some of the newly released Paramount blurays (Face/Off, Untouchables) after reading the DVDFile.com review of Face/Off that indicated it looked better than the HD-DVD but may still have DNR. Anyone done an in-depth comparison of some of the recent Paramount titles?

I always though Untouchables (waxy looking) and Face/Off (DNR) Hd-DVD transfers were strange looking.

Nope, same transfers, but they improved the bitrate on many.

Here is the deal with the Paramount comparisons. Many of Paramount's early releases look better on HD DVD because they were encoded in VC-1 on a 30 GB HD DVD versus the Blu-rays which were typically MPEG2 on a single 25 GB BD-25. But starting at some point in early 2007 Paramount started doing high bitrate encodes on Blu-ray which almost always beat the HD DVD version. High bitrate AVC on a BD-50 is always going to look better than a HD DVD limited encode(both capacity and bandwidth come into play here) given the same master. Anyone telling you differently is a HD DVD fanboy. The masters used for both formats are all the same by the way for Paramount so source material doesn't differ.

interesting..i own many Paramounts on both formats, i wonder how many of the "superior" and "inferior" titles i have on each...

Face/Off (Paramount) easily ranks among the worst looking title on both HD DVD & Blu-ray. Despite the higher bit rate and AVC the PQ literally sucks due to excessive DNR and artifical sharpening. I bought the Paramount BD to use it as a bonus disc for the import BD which has zero extras. Had BVHE/Touchstone offered extras in SD and divided the movie into 20+ chapters I would have never bought the Paramount disc.

Untouchables is another DNR victim. Sahara, Aeon Flux, Italian Job, MI-1 & MI-2 on BD look inferior to their HD DVD counterparts.

The below titles from Paramount have very good to excellent PQ on BLU.

1) Black Snake Moan
2) Shooter
3) MI-3
4) There will be blood
5) Next (Aliasing)
6) Flags
7) WTC
8) The Warriors

Sleepy Hollow on BD looks very filmlike.

Here is the deal with the Paramount comparisons. Many of Paramount's early releases look better on HD DVD because they were encoded in VC-1 on a 30 GB HD DVD versus the Blu-rays which were typically MPEG2 on a single 25 GB BD-25. But starting at some point in early 2007 Paramount started doing high bitrate encodes on Blu-ray which almost always beat the HD DVD version. High bitrate AVC on a BD-50 is always going to look better than a HD DVD limited encode(both capacity and bandwidth come into play here) given the same master. Anyone telling you differently is a HD DVD fanboy. The masters used for both formats are all the same by the way for Paramount so source material doesn't differ.

Xylon did rollover comparisons of the World Trade Center HDdvd and the BD and the BD had a bit more detail. The Hddvd was "smoother" which some liked but I'd rather have the extra detail.

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/worldtradecenter_bd-vs-hd/01.html

Yeah it's much ado about nothing really. If you're hoping the BD's look appreciably different from Paramount you're basically out of luck on that score. And some of the older titles actually have better audio on HD-DVD than BD.

very true about the audio. The Warriors on BD only had a DD track at 640kps and the HDdvd had I believe a DD+ track encoded at 1.5mps.

Xylon did rollover comparisons of the World Trade Center HDdvd and the BD and the BD had a bit more detail. The Hddvd was "smoother" which some liked but I'd rather have the extra detail.

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/worldtradecenter_bd-vs-hd/01.html

I wonder if it's because the BD is MPEG2. Several of the Paramount BD MPEG2 titles looked slightly more detailed (less soft) compared to the VC-1 HD DVDs, based upon screenshot comparisons I've seen.

I wonder if it's because the BD is MPEG2. Several of the Paramount BD MPEG2 titles looked slightly more detailed (less soft) compared to the VC-1 HD DVDs, based upon screenshot comparisons I've seen.

VC-1 encodes always look 'smoothed', even recent transfers. Unless you crank the bitrate up on VC-1, then it's perfection.

Maybe the MPEG2 retains more grain structurer. Anyway the answer to the OP's question is a resounding - Not really.

BTW- congrats to the thread for surviving this long, I thought it would have been shot down by now.:p

Here is the deal with the Paramount comparisons. Many of Paramount's early releases look better on HD DVD because they were encoded in VC-1 on a 30 GB HD DVD versus the Blu-rays which were typically MPEG2 on a single 25 GB BD-25. But starting at some point in early 2007 Paramount started doing high bitrate encodes on Blu-ray which almost always beat the HD DVD version. High bitrate AVC on a BD-50 is always going to look better than a HD DVD limited encode(both capacity and bandwidth come into play here) given the same master. Anyone telling you differently is a HD DVD fanboy. The masters used for both formats are all the same by the way for Paramount so source material doesn't differ.

All of the comparisons have been MPEG2 versus VC-1, or VC-1 versus AVC. We need AVC HD DVD versus AVC blu-ray. I mentioned this in another thread, but Blades of Glory is the first one available. If there's a difference, we'll see it here.

I wonder if it's because the BD is MPEG2. Several of the Paramount BD MPEG2 titles looked slightly more detailed (less soft) compared to the VC-1 HD DVDs, based upon screenshot comparisons I've seen.


some of the best looking transfers I've seen were mpeg-2. As long as it has enough bits, can look fab if done well.

.... after reading the DVDFile.com review of Face/Off that indicated it looked better than the HD-DVD.

Um, DVDFile's review said no such thing:

...Not having viewed the HD DVD, I can’t vouch for whether the Blu-ray is better or worse than the HD DVD...

That review of FACE/OFF was done on a very small monitor. I think 43 inches. Reviews on monitors that small are pretty much worthless in my opinion. I'm of the belief trhat DVDfile and thedigitalbits need to have all reviews for BD's done using monitors over 60 inches.

Even on 37" and 50" monitors Face/Off (Paramount BD) looks repulsive.

some of the best looking transfers I've seen were mpeg-2. As long as it has enough bits, can look fab if done well.

I agree 100%.
Cases in point(all mpeg-2):

Alien vs. Predator
Black Hawk Down
Fantastic Four
Ice Age: The Meltdown
Kingdom Of Heaven
Mission Impossibles
Night At The Museum
Secret Window
Space Cowboys
Underworld Evolution

Here is the deal with the Paramount comparisons. Many of Paramount's early releases look better on HD DVD because they were encoded in VC-1 on a 30 GB HD DVD versus the Blu-rays which were typically MPEG2 on a single 25 GB BD-25. But starting at some point in early 2007 Paramount started doing high bitrate encodes on Blu-ray which almost always beat the HD DVD version. High bitrate AVC on a BD-50 is always going to look better than a HD DVD limited encode(both capacity and bandwidth come into play here) given the same master. Anyone telling you differently is a HD DVD fanboy. The masters used for both formats are all the same by the way for Paramount so source material doesn't differ.

I can't remember if it's Paramount or not but The Prestige is AVC/20.99GB on Blu-Ray and VC-1/16.33GB on HD DVD yet both versions look identical at regular 100% and the HD DVD actually looks a few pixels sharper here and there (although only very slightly, so no celebrating) at 200%:

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/theprestige_bd-vs-hd/04.html

All of the comparisons have been MPEG2 versus VC-1, or VC-1 versus AVC. We need AVC HD DVD versus AVC blu-ray. I mentioned this in another thread, but Blades of Glory is the first one available. If there's a difference, we'll see it here.

You mean actually do an apples to apples comparo where the codec is the same but the bitrate is different? Nah, that would be too logical. It's better to just compare diff codecs and assume that if the blu-ray version with say avc looks better it MUST be because of the inferior bandwidth on hd-dvd not that the codec could be the reason why.:D

hehe sorry. Just have to chuckle when i see people make those types of comments which sadly is 97% of the time when people talk about this stuff.

Anyway, I am sure that the BD and hd-dvd versions of paramount films are equal or so close that 99.999999% of the people would not spot the difference. Not like you're going to get a sd to hd difference here. Anyone who says otherwise is no doubt extremely biased.

Um, DVDFile's review said no such thing:

Unfortunately Face/Off does look worse on HD DVD which is a shame since I could get it for £5 but instead I'll wait for a Blu-Ray bargain. (Once I've found out which Blu-Ray version is best that is. I seem to remeber reading something about the Japanese version being the best. If so then that'll probably be hard to get cheap. :()

You mean actually do an apples to apples comparo where the codec is the same but the bitrate is different? Nah, that would be too logical. It's better to just compare diff codecs and assume that if the blu-ray version with say avc looks better it MUST be because of the inferior bandwidth on hd-dvd not that the codec could be the reason why.:D

hehe sorry. Just have to chuckle when i see people make those types of comments which sadly is 97% of the time when people talk about this stuff.

Anyway, I am sure that the BD and hd-dvd versions of paramount films are equal or so close that 99.999999% of the people would not spot the difference. Not like you're going to get a sd to hd difference here. Anyone who says otherwise is no doubt extremely biased.

Yes, and even with comparative screenshots, most of the time we need to flip back and forth between the images to notice a difference. The argument is that on a bigger screen, it becomes more noticeable. At that point, I hook up my pc to my projector, and set it up so the images fill up the screen 100 percent (1:1 pixel matching). And even on a 106" screen, sitting 10 feet back, flipping the images back and forth, it's extremely hard to make out any differences. Now if the movie is in motion, will it be easier or harder?

Don't get me wrong, if I had the choice between the two Blades of Glory, I'd choose the blu-ray version because it has lossless sound (a subject of another debate, but..). If you gave me a choice "Do you want this encoded at 15 mbps or 30?" I'd choose 30. I like it to have the potential to look better, but I know that they typically don't. Problem is, I saw Blades of Glory and didn't like it enough to buy it for $20+. If i could get both versions for 30, i'd do the comparison pics myself.


Unfortunately Face/Off does look worse on HD DVD


I thought that the domestic Paramount blu-ray version of the movie was just as bad with DNR... people are saying the blu-ray looks worse:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13965627#post13965627


Other notes (directed towards others who have posted):
I am pretty sure DVDFile uses a Sony SXRD projector at 100+" (the VW50)... I could be wrong.

A review for Blades of Glory: http://hometheatermag.com/moviereviews/052208blades/ <- has seen the HD DVD version

Also, I dont think anyone believes MPEG-2 is "always" inferior. They just believe the bit-rate needs to be high enough in order to avoid artifacting. Click had an average bit-rate in the 30s, but unfortunately the material wasn't eye candy. Even so, it was a solid transfer.

That review of FACE/OFF was done on a very small monitor. I think 43 inches. Reviews on monitors that small are pretty much worthless in my opinion. I'm of the belief trhat DVDfile and thedigitalbits need to have all reviews for BD's done using monitors over 60 inches.

... I was merely pointing out that the OPs assertaion that DVDFile had done any kind of comparison and reached any conclusion about which looks better was false.


... domestic Paramount blu-ray version of the movie...

... which is what we're discussing (not the import, which had no - or significantly less - DNR applied).

I thought that the domestic Paramount blu-ray version of the movie was just as bad with DNR... people are saying the blu-ray looks worse:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13965627#post13965627


Oh yeah, I didn't realise it was just the import version that looked better than HD DVD. Although I'm in the UK so the USA version is still an import to me, lol! (We've probably got the same versions of the HD DVD and Blu-Ray Face/Off as America though, then again we do get different versions sometimes.)

... I was merely pointing out that the OPs assertaion that DVDFile had done any kind of comparison and reached any conclusion about which looks better was false.



... which is what we're discussing (not the import, which had no - or significantly less - DNR applied).

OP here...i mis-read the dvdfile.com review. Vader is correct, the reviewer hadn't seen the hd-dvd. i took the reviews comments of improvements over the dvd as improvements over the hd-dvd which it clearly was not stating now that i have read the review more closely.

that being said, there was some great info in the responses to my initial post so thanks for everyone who chimed in.

I have several of the titles just released on BD and will compare them to my HD copies when I get back in the USs. It should make for some interesting commentary.

Face/Off (Paramount) easily ranks among the worst looking title on both HD DVD & Blu-ray. Despite the higher bit rate and AVC the PQ literally sucks due to excessive DNR and artifical sharpening. I bought the Paramount BD to use it as a bonus disc for the import BD which has zero extras. Had BVHE/Touchstone offered extras in SD and divided the movie into 20+ chapters I would have never bought the Paramount disc.

Untouchables is another DNR victim. Sahara, Aeon Flux, Italian Job, MI-1 & MI-2 on BD look inferior to their HD DVD counterparts.

The below titles from Paramount have very good to excellent PQ on BLU.

1) Black Snake Moan
2) Shooter
3) MI-3
4) There will be blood
5) Next (Aliasing)
6) Flags
7) WTC

You should toss The Warriors in that pile as well

You should toss The Warriors in that pile as well

Shooting at the walls of heartache, BANG BANG...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jv7_YC5yFU

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

"cos I am The Warri..."

;)

Yes, The Warriors looks pretty dang good. Shame they couldn't give us the original cut as well.

That review of FACE/OFF was done on a very small monitor. I think 43 inches. Reviews on monitors that small are pretty much worthless in my opinion. I'm of the belief trhat DVDfile and thedigitalbits need to have all reviews for BD's done using monitors over 60 inches.

Maybe so....but then you take like 75% of the flat panel market out of the equation and you cater to a pretty small minority. Hey, the bigger the better....but reality says most of us are gonna have screens smaller than 60 inches.

As for Paramount titles.... I dunno, I have seen instances where an HD DVD version is slightly better and then instances where the BD version is slightly better. Who knows?