The first Universal HD DVD release and with an excellent PQ (at the time) helps jumpstart the format among A/V enthusiasts. Fast forward to today and with Blu-ray winning the format battle and with its superior technical specs should offer at least some improvement over PQ or AQ . . . . .

. . . but not so fast. The studio for whatever reason decided to dumb down the PQ by using DNR on some titles (don't think for a second that only The Thing (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1071469&highlight=) or U-571 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1059419&highlight=) or other titles I worked on is affected. There is more. I just don't have time to evaluate all of them.) I have heard excuses after excuses from every side. You know what? This is not helping Blu-ray at all. If you don't demand and expect quality especially on a format that can easily satisfy this requirement then that $30 disc is just a waste if the final product does not even match or rivals the original presentation of the film.

Thankfully, Serenity on Blu-ray is left alone. No added DNR. No added EE. But what is added on this new transfer is higher bitrate and lossless DTS-HD MA. Just like American Gangster, Eastern Promises (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1090230&highlight=), The Hulk (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1070650&highlight=) and Miami Vice (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1060350&highlight=) this one is a worthy "upgrade". I will leave it up to you if you see or hear the difference. But just know that it can't be worse than the HD DVD. Unlike other titles.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/7b8583a4.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/9c10ff94.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/ef5976b8.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/92249468.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/ee880e04.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/58aacf9b.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/0a36abea.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/ed6e4aa2.png

HD DVD File size: 16.40 GB

Bitrate: 16.50 mbps


Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track IME Secondary Audio Track
Serenity VC-1 1:58:54 17,710,434,304*~21,063,445,952 19.86 ~16.50 DDPlus 5.1 1536Kbps No


Blu-ray File size: 31.50 GB

Bitrate: 20.53 mbps


Total Video


Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track

Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------

---------------------
00000.MPLS VC-1 1:59:02 33,824,704,512 41,593,189,872 37.89 20.53 DTS-HD Master 5.1

4309Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


DISC INFO:

Disc Title: SERENITY_G51_GLO
Disc Size: 41,593,189,872 bytes
Protection: AACS
BD-Java: Yes
BDInfo: 0.5.1

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00000.MPLS
Size: 33,824,704,512 bytes
Length: 1:59:02 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 37.89 Mbps
Description:

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
VC-1 Video 20527 kbps 1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / Advanced Profile 3
VC-1 Video 1045 kbps 480p / 23.976 fps / 4:3 / Advanced Profile 2
VC-1 Video 2002 kbps 480p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / Advanced Profile 2

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
DTS-HD Master Audio English 4309 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 4309 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
DTS Audio French 768 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit
DTS Audio French 768 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit
DTS Audio German 768 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit
DTS Audio Italian 768 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit
DTS Audio Japanese 768 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit
DTS Audio Spanish 768 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit
DTS Audio Spanish 768 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 768 kbps / 24-bit
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / Dolby Surround
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / Dolby Surround
DTS Express English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / 24-bit
DTS Express English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / 24-bit

SUBTITLES:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 38.826 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 91.249 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 79.260 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 27.020 kbps
Presentation Graphics Chinese 22.193 kbps
Presentation Graphics Danish 32.354 kbps
Presentation Graphics Dutch 26.238 kbps
Presentation Graphics Finnish 28.034 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 33.246 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 29.491 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 67.355 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 62.623 kbps
Presentation Graphics German 37.613 kbps
Presentation Graphics German 74.187 kbps
Presentation Graphics German 76.212 kbps
Presentation Graphics Greek 32.059 kbps
Presentation Graphics Italian 33.602 kbps
Presentation Graphics Italian 69.883 kbps
Presentation Graphics Italian 63.252 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 18.965 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 41.269 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 39.638 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 17.252 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 41.405 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 0.230 kbps
Presentation Graphics Korean 16.286 kbps
Presentation Graphics Norwegian 27.829 kbps
Presentation Graphics Portuguese 32.144 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 32.150 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 31.786 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 68.185 kbps
Presentation Graphics Swedish 28.523 kbps

FILES:

Name Time In Length Size Total Bitrate
---- ------- ------ ---- -------------
00333.M2TS 0:00:00.000 1:59:02.552 33,824,704,512 37,885

CHAPTERS:

Number Time In Length Avg Video Rate Max 1-Sec Rate Max 1-Sec Time Max 5-Sec Rate Max 5-Sec Time Max 10Sec Rate Max

10Sec Time Avg Frame Size Max Frame Size Max Frame Time
------ ------- ------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------

------- -------------- -------------- --------------
1 0:00:00.000 0:05:01.759 21,026 kbps 34,805 kbps 00:04:53.626 26,168 kbps 00:03:53.983 24,662 kbps

00:03:00.180 109,954 bytes 586,378 bytes 00:04:51.582
2 0:05:01.759 0:04:30.687 20,380 kbps 35,542 kbps 00:07:02.130 25,774 kbps 00:05:08.391 24,955 kbps

00:07:09.637 106,253 bytes 472,048 bytes 00:07:32.034
3 0:09:32.446 0:05:17.650 21,184 kbps 31,046 kbps 00:09:44.667 25,459 kbps 00:09:36.576 24,237 kbps

00:09:36.325 110,446 bytes 371,128 bytes 00:11:12.213
4 0:14:50.097 0:05:00.758 21,208 kbps 33,288 kbps 00:16:09.426 25,864 kbps 00:15:17.374 25,069 kbps

00:15:17.291 110,569 bytes 456,982 bytes 00:16:34.618
5 0:19:50.856 0:09:23.145 21,261 kbps 32,611 kbps 00:21:00.676 25,943 kbps 00:28:46.433 24,146 kbps

00:28:44.848 110,843 bytes 409,581 bytes 00:21:11.478
6 0:29:14.002 0:07:05.258 21,443 kbps 32,308 kbps 00:32:23.149 25,557 kbps 00:31:00.650 24,463 kbps

00:33:47.817 111,795 bytes 391,853 bytes 00:36:05.204
7 0:36:19.260 0:07:51.012 21,039 kbps 30,821 kbps 00:39:34.580 26,264 kbps 00:36:21.512 24,577 kbps

00:40:40.980 109,689 bytes 401,816 bytes 00:39:44.673
8 0:44:10.272 0:05:45.428 21,558 kbps 28,894 kbps 00:44:37.841 25,104 kbps 00:48:34.745 23,917 kbps

00:48:35.078 112,392 bytes 331,939 bytes 00:44:54.274
9 0:49:55.701 0:05:49.349 21,531 kbps 37,344 kbps 00:55:34.622 25,071 kbps 00:53:40.425 24,071 kbps

00:51:30.253 112,252 bytes 464,335 bytes 00:50:27.107
10 0:55:45.050 0:03:44.265 21,663 kbps 33,550 kbps 00:59:28.314 25,107 kbps 00:56:00.273 23,782 kbps

00:55:59.356 112,940 bytes 472,585 bytes 00:59:29.315
11 0:59:29.315 0:05:16.941 21,555 kbps 32,858 kbps 01:03:45.363 25,709 kbps 01:01:12.543 24,182 kbps

01:02:43.384 112,380 bytes 470,475 bytes 00:59:31.317
12 1:04:46.257 0:04:28.476 21,426 kbps 29,302 kbps 01:04:58.019 24,811 kbps 01:04:54.015 23,068 kbps

01:04:49.051 111,704 bytes 536,304 bytes 01:07:50.399
13 1:09:14.733 0:04:20.051 21,447 kbps 30,352 kbps 01:12:32.723 24,320 kbps 01:09:16.026 23,147 kbps

01:09:16.026 111,817 bytes 466,388 bytes 01:13:34.701
14 1:13:34.785 0:09:04.794 21,169 kbps 31,187 kbps 01:14:32.593 25,660 kbps 01:17:11.501 24,463 kbps

01:19:57.042 110,365 bytes 550,899 bytes 01:22:39.579
15 1:22:39.579 0:07:40.001 20,840 kbps 39,188 kbps 01:27:02.091 26,331 kbps 01:27:01.841 24,586 kbps

01:27:01.841 108,648 bytes 540,316 bytes 01:29:41.626
16 1:30:19.580 0:06:38.898 21,348 kbps 32,564 kbps 01:33:01.242 26,670 kbps 01:36:24.987 24,665 kbps

01:36:23.068 111,298 bytes 383,968 bytes 01:36:28.949
17 1:36:58.479 0:08:59.247 21,507 kbps 33,148 kbps 01:41:19.364 25,783 kbps 01:40:42.161 24,138 kbps

01:38:29.361 112,128 bytes 391,546 bytes 01:38:39.330
18 1:45:57.726 0:01:40.391 21,376 kbps 31,998 kbps 01:46:04.566 25,043 kbps 01:46:58.829 23,409 kbps

01:46:16.161 111,444 bytes 392,408 bytes 01:47:25.355
19 1:47:38.118 0:05:44.552 20,686 kbps 30,020 kbps 01:50:23.241 25,927 kbps 01:50:28.580 23,668 kbps

01:50:23.491 107,845 bytes 588,856 bytes 01:53:11.201
20 1:53:22.670 0:05:33.291 6,157 kbps 9,398 kbps 01:55:48.191 8,921 kbps 01:54:16.266 8,790 kbps

01:54:16.057 32,102 bytes 161,737 bytes 01:54:19.727
21 1:58:55.962 0:00:06.589 15,457 kbps 19,949 kbps 01:58:56.879 18,951 kbps 01:58:56.379 0 kbps

00:00:00.000 86,617 bytes 369,337 bytes 01:59:00.133

STREAM DIAGNOSTICS:

File PID Type Codec Language Seconds Bitrate Bytes

Packets
---- --- ---- ----- -------- -------------- -------------- -------------

-----
00333.M2TS 4113 (0x1011) 0xEA VC-1 7142.427 20,528 18,327,269,132

99,707,801
00333.M2TS 4352 (0x1100) 0x86 DTS-HD MA eng (English) 7142.427 4,309 3,847,129,416

22,021,347
00333.M2TS 4353 (0x1101) 0x82 DTS spa (Spanish) 7142.427 768 685,685,760

4,017,690
00333.M2TS 4354 (0x1102) 0x82 DTS fra (French) 7142.427 768 685,685,760

4,017,690
00333.M2TS 4355 (0x1103) 0x82 DTS jpn (Japanese) 7142.427 768 685,685,760

4,017,690
00333.M2TS 4356 (0x1104) 0x82 DTS fra (French) 7142.427 768 685,685,760

4,017,690
00333.M2TS 4357 (0x1105) 0x82 DTS deu (German) 7142.427 768 685,685,760

4,017,690
00333.M2TS 4358 (0x1106) 0x82 DTS ita (Italian) 7142.427 768 685,685,760

4,017,690
00333.M2TS 4359 (0x1107) 0x82 DTS spa (Spanish) 7142.427 768 685,685,760

4,017,690
00333.M2TS 4360 (0x1108) 0x81 AC3 eng (English) 7142.427 192 171,421,440

1,116,025
00333.M2TS 4361 (0x1109) 0x81 AC3 eng (English) 7142.427 192 171,421,440

1,116,025
00333.M2TS 4608 (0x1200) 0x90 PGS eng (English) 7142.427 39 34,664,794

199,929
00333.M2TS 4609 (0x1201) 0x90 PGS spa (Spanish) 7142.427 32 28,703,960

165,355
00333.M2TS 4610 (0x1202) 0x90 PGS fra (French) 7142.427 33 29,682,431

170,665
00333.M2TS 4611 (0x1203) 0x90 PGS jpn (Japanese) 7142.427 19 16,932,664

100,808
00333.M2TS 4612 (0x1204) 0x90 PGS fra (French) 7142.427 29 26,329,771

152,488
00333.M2TS 4613 (0x1205) 0x90 PGS deu (German) 7142.427 38 33,581,675

191,905
00333.M2TS 4614 (0x1206) 0x90 PGS ita (Italian) 7142.427 34 30,000,799

172,460
00333.M2TS 4615 (0x1207) 0x90 PGS spa (Spanish) 7142.427 32 28,379,105

163,619
00333.M2TS 4616 (0x1208) 0x90 PGS nld (Dutch) 7142.427 26 23,425,433

136,703
00333.M2TS 4617 (0x1209) 0x90 PGS por (Portuguese) 7142.427 32 28,698,762

165,383
00333.M2TS 4618 (0x120A) 0x90 PGS dan (Danish) 7142.427 32 28,886,569

166,404
00333.M2TS 4619 (0x120B) 0x90 PGS nor (Norwegian) 7142.427 28 24,846,203

144,469
00333.M2TS 4620 (0x120C) 0x90 PGS fin (Finnish) 7142.427 28 25,029,292

145,454
00333.M2TS 4621 (0x120D) 0x90 PGS swe (Swedish) 7142.427 29 25,465,890

147,831
00333.M2TS 4622 (0x120E) 0x90 PGS ell (Greek) 7142.427 32 28,623,018

164,999
00333.M2TS 4623 (0x120F) 0x90 PGS kor (Korean) 7142.427 16 14,540,262

88,295
00333.M2TS 4624 (0x1210) 0x90 PGS zho (Chinese) 7142.427 22 19,814,179

117,083
00333.M2TS 4625 (0x1211) 0x90 PGS eng (English) 7142.427 79 70,765,087

398,950
00333.M2TS 4626 (0x1212) 0x90 PGS jpn (Japanese) 7142.427 41 36,845,618

209,463
00333.M2TS 4627 (0x1213) 0x90 PGS fra (French) 7142.427 67 60,135,871

340,676
00333.M2TS 4628 (0x1214) 0x90 PGS deu (German) 7142.427 74 66,235,603

373,780
00333.M2TS 4629 (0x1215) 0x90 PGS ita (Italian) 7142.427 70 62,393,135

352,955
00333.M2TS 4630 (0x1216) 0x90 PGS eng (English) 7142.427 91 81,468,813

461,408
00333.M2TS 4631 (0x1217) 0x90 PGS jpn (Japanese) 7142.427 40 35,389,962

205,015
00333.M2TS 4632 (0x1218) 0x90 PGS fra (French) 7142.427 63 55,911,226

320,647
00333.M2TS 4633 (0x1219) 0x90 PGS deu (German) 7142.427 76 68,043,965

386,482
00333.M2TS 4634 (0x121A) 0x90 PGS ita (Italian) 7142.427 63 56,472,622

323,667
00333.M2TS 4635 (0x121B) 0x90 PGS spa (Spanish) 7142.427 68 60,876,465

347,625
00333.M2TS 4636 (0x121C) 0x90 PGS eng (English) 7142.427 27 24,123,731

135,822
00333.M2TS 4637 (0x121D) 0x90 PGS jpn (Japanese) 7142.427 17 15,402,645

87,647
00333.M2TS 4638 (0x121E) 0x90 PGS jpn (Japanese) 7142.427 41 36,967,147

214,684
00333.M2TS 4639 (0x121F) 0x90 PGS jpn (Japanese) 7142.427 0 205,243

1,210
00333.M2TS 6656 (0x1A00) 0xA2 DTS Express eng (English) 7142.427 192 171,421,696

1,004,424
00333.M2TS 6657 (0x1A01) 0xA2 DTS Express eng (English) 7142.427 192 171,421,696

1,004,424
00333.M2TS 6912 (0x1B00) 0xEA VC-1 7142.427 1,045 933,108,576

5,188,305
00333.M2TS 6913 (0x1B01) 0xEA VC-1 7142.427 2,002 1,787,649,689

9,818,958



http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/2ad10cdb.png

reserved for future use.

Does the first shot posted over earth that was look more detailed ?

Art

Why does Earth have a piece of Scotch tape running North/ South through the Dominican Republic? It looks like it continues north to Newfoundland as well.

The big earth pics look near-identical to me.

The big earth pics look near-identical to me.
Same here.

From that first shot, the Blu-ray looks just a touch more natural to me.

What I don't get is the stats. With the Blu-ray bitrate at roughly 130% of the HD DVD bitrate, why is the Blu-ray file size almost double the HD DVD file size? Both editions are the same cut, right?

From that first shot, the Blu-ray looks just a touch more natural to me.


Call me crazy, but I think I see more macroblocking in the dark areas on the Blu-ray disc. Paticularly the left side of the planet in the dark areas. (And yes, I was one of the people who wanted HD-DVD to disappear, so no loyalty there.)

In the end, I'm guessing they'll look identical in motion.

Why does Earth have a piece of Scotch tape running North/ South through the Dominican Republic? It looks like it continues north to Newfoundland as well.

Haha, I spotted that too.. Pretty noticeable..

The clouds seem a little whiter in BD.

Only reason I'd get the BD is the DTS-MSTR - maybe.

I can't really draw any conclusions from that first shot. I'm a bit puzzled by the differences, however.

What's the point of comparing HD DVD to Blu anymore anyway? Why put so much effort into analyzing them when HD DVD is dead and buried?

The above pics look IDENTICAL as do all the other HD-DVD to Blu comparisons do.

all ?

What's the point of comparing HD DVD to Blu anymore anyway?
... to show that all of the bitrate nonsense (as applied to PQ) was little more than marketing hot air...?

Why put so much effort into analyzing them when HD DVD is dead and buried?
Because those that own the HD-DVD might wanna evaluate if there is any upgrade in the PQ before they replace their copy? The audio goes without saying, of course.

What's the point of comparing HD DVD to Blu anymore anyway? Why put so much effort into analyzing them when HD DVD is dead and buried?

The above pics look IDENTICAL as do all the other HD-DVD to Blu comparisons do.

Believe it or not, there are many people, like myself, who own many HD DVDs. I, for one, own 111. The only reason I'm going to ditch any of them is if a superior version is released on Blu-ray. Threads like this one give me evidence as to whether or not such an improvement exists. So far, just based on the one screenshot I see at the moment, I see no reason to get rid of my Serenity HD DVD.

Also, based on some other Xylon comparisons, I know that in some cases, like in The Thing or The Mummy, for example, the Blu-ray version is decidedly inferior, so I'm hanging on to my HD DVD copy.

Yes, Blu-ray has won the format war, no one is contesting that. But, if Blu-ray IS in fact the superior format with its high bandwidth and bitrate, it should be capable of bettering any prior HD DVD release. Threads like this show that this, in fact, has not been proven to be the case as of yet. If any Blu-ray release provides a decided improvement over an HD DVD title that I own, I will gladly double dip.

... to show that all of the bitrate nonsense was little more than marketing hot air...?


Because those that own the HD-DVD might wanna evaluate if there is any upgrade in the PQ before they buy? The audio goes without saying, of course.
hahah, how is it hot air if one has lossless audio and the other has DD+ :D:rolleyes:

Kilgore and Vader,

I think it was shown with Miami Vice (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1060350&highlight=miami+vice) that higher bitrates can be advantageous (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14524339#post14524339) especially when no DNR or EE processing is applied.

I am curious to see these comparison pics, but I cant imagine there being a significant dif.

As far as the audio, wasnt the DD+ @ 1.5? If so, I doubt the audio dif will be significant either since the real world dif between DD+ @1.5 and DTS-MA is very little. I wont be upgrading my HD-DVD copy either way as I could not imagine sitting through this whole movie again. The "crash" scene is great demo material for audio however.

From that first shot, the Blu-ray looks just a touch more natural to me.

What I don't get is the stats. With the Blu-ray bitrate at roughly 130% of the HD DVD bitrate, why is the Blu-ray file size almost double the HD DVD file size? Both editions are the same cut, right?

Some of it is probably because of the DTS HD MA track... But it is strange.16.5 mbps video + 1.5mbps for audio takes 16.4 GB (HD DVD) , but 20 mbps video + DTS HD MA takes 31 GB (BD)?

Kilgore and Vader,

I think it was proven with Miami Vice (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1060350&highlight=miami+vice) that higher bitrates can be advantageous (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14524339#post14524339) especially when no DNR or EE processing is applied.
Video encoding is a tricky beast, so there are quite a few variables at work when comparing direct screen grabs, however, "proving" this is about as necessary as proving that 1 is less than 2. It's simple fact.

hahah, how is it hot air if one has lossless audio and the other has DD+ :D:rolleyes:

Read my reply again, slowly this time:

What's the point of comparing HD DVD to Blu anymore anyway?
... to show that all of the bitrate nonsense (as applied to PQ) was little more than marketing hot air...?

Why put so much effort into analyzing them when HD DVD is dead and buried?
Because those that own the HD-DVD might wanna evaluate if there is any upgrade in the PQ before they replace their copy? The audio goes without saying, of course.
EDIT: I was updating my post (10:10) as you were typing yours (10:11).... queue "strangers in the night"...:o

Kilgore and Vader,

I think it was shown with Miami Vice (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1060350&highlight=miami+vice) that higher bitrates can be advantageous (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14524339#post14524339) especially when no DNR or EE processing is applied.

... which is the only Universal "catch up" title to be able to make this claim. The only problem is that you have two variables: bit rate and the application of DNR or EE. Based on all of the other comparisons we have seen (most notably "Transformers" or "Nature's Journey"), it's pretty clear that bitrate alone does have a lot to do with it. The HD-DVD of "Miami Vice" was clearly DNR'd, while the Blu Ray was not (or at least not as much). Before any conclusion as to the advantage of increased bitrate can be drawn, all other factors must be equal.

Video encoding is a tricky beast, so there are quite a few variables at work when comparing direct screen grabs, however, "proving" this is about as necessary as proving that 1 is less than 2. It's simple fact.
Far from it. Perhaps you can point me to a statistically valid double blind test....? As I have stated before in gaming terms, of course you can tell the difference between 15FPS and 30FPS. The difference between 150FPS and 250FPS is another story altogether (law of diminishing returns). By the way, in your example, "2" is 200% of "1", but 1,000,001 is only 0.0001% greater than 1,000,000... big difference despite the fact that both differ by "1".

I kept my BD of Serenity because it has more features then my HD DVD...otherwise I would have dumped it. Its the first title I own on both HD/BD.

I have the HD-DVD and Blu Ray versions, just finished watching the Blu Ray version. The picture looks essentially the same to me, but the Blu Ray's DTS-HD Mstr track has little more punch to it ( I always thought the HD-DVD DD+ track was pretty damn good).

What's the point of comparing HD DVD to Blu anymore anyway? Why put so much effort into analyzing them when HD DVD is dead and buried?

The above pics look IDENTICAL as do all the other HD-DVD to Blu comparisons do.

Well the shot of the young girl is clearly more detailed on the Blu Ray edition so saying they are identical is misleading.

The HD DVD edition shows DNR work if you look at the face of the person opposite the girl and on the Blu edition we have fine grain and more detail present and indeed the girls face is actually slightly smeary looking in that shot on the HD DVD edition.

I gave my HD DVD to one of my good friends, he was ecstatic as he didn't own it in any format. I'm glad to have the BD, the PQ is virtually indistinguishable from the HD DVD,(unless you take placebo pills...), but the upgrade in audio and now having all the extras, well worth the double-dip.

Well the shot of the young girl is clearly more detailed on the Blu Ray edition so saying they are identical is misleading.

The HD DVD edition shows DNR work if you look at the face of the person opposite the girl and on the Blu edition we have fine grain and more detail present and indeed the girls face is actually slightly smeary looking in that shot on the HD DVD edition.

It looks to me to be rather the difference in bitrates, than DNR on the HD DVD.

yeah i'd agree that the difference in that shot would be from them being different encodes instead of DNR... because if it was DNR it would not be in just one of the 3 comparisons we've seen

Well, with more pics up now, all I feel the need to say is that Serenity looks great on Blu-ray. I can't wait until Tuesday. The shot with young River looks very good.

Peak video bitrates are still relatively low on the Blu-ray. I would love to see a comparison with an AVC encode done Paramount or Fox style with the average near 30 Mbps and peaks in the 50's. The average video bitrate for this Blu-ray edition is still too low for my tastes.

In this case I have to give the edge to BD. The difference in the detail in the captains face (forget his name) detail in is quite noticeable.

Both look pretty good to me. Perhaps a slight edge to Blu-Ray with regards to detail but it is very close. I will probably pick this up on Blu-Ray when I can find it under $10 as I will also be picking up Firefly on BD. This was the first movie I ever watched on HD DVD. Very entertaining.

Well the shot of the young girl is clearly more detailed on the Blu Ray edition so saying they are identical is misleading.

The HD DVD edition shows DNR work if you look at the face of the person opposite the girl and on the Blu edition we have fine grain and more detail present and indeed the girls face is actually slightly smeary looking in that shot on the HD DVD edition.

Lack of grain ≠ DNR

There simply wasn't enough bitrate for that frame to resolve all the grain on the HD DVD.

It appears to me that the BD is more detailed than the HDDVD but it is subtle.

Art

The similarity is quite impressive considering that Serenity was one of, if not, the first encodes done by Universal. Given the improvements in encoding since it was first released and that the bitrate is fairly conservative for HD DVD you'd think there would be a more noticeable difference.

Of the current pics posted I think the BR actually wins out by just a smidge.
Pic #3 of the girl looks cleaner, more detailed, and less compression. Look closely at the grass on the HD-DVD cap and you'll notice blocking as well check out her face and you'll observe her face is a tad softer/blurry with a little bit of blocking as well.

From those caps, so far, I think we may have a winner here!
BR for me, now must wait till Firefly has a more reasonable price tag.

Best Regards
KvE

Of the current pics posted I think the BR actually wins out by just a smidge.
Pic #3 of the girl looks cleaner, more detailed, and less compression. Look closely at the grass on the HD-DVD cap and you'll notice blocking as well check out her face and you'll observe her face is a tad softer/blurry with a little bit of blocking as well.

From those caps, so far, I think we may have a winner here!
BR for me, now must wait till Firefly has a more reasonable price tag.

Best Regards
KvE
The Firefly Blu-ray set was available at around $30 in the past week, though you might have to wait quite a while to see that price again. The price on Amazon right now is $50.

There simply wasn't enough bitrate for that frame to resolve all the grain on the HD DVD.

Is this a fact or speculation? The reason I ask is because, to me it looks like grain removal/smoothing. If the bit-rate wasn't sufficient wouldn't we see blocking artifacts rather than smoothing -- unless of course it's a "feature" of VC-1...

I do agree though, the BD appears to have a slight advantage because of bit-rate. Not sure if it's double-dip worthy yet, but the lossless sound and a B2G1 may have me buy this...though I dont remember seeing many Universal titles in B2G1 sales anytime recently.

I kept my BD of Serenity because it has more features then my HD DVD...otherwise I would have dumped it. Its the first title I own on both HD/BD.

Gizmo, did you mean you kept the HD DVD because it has more features? Saying you "kept the BD" sounds like you've owned the BD for a long time. I'm not sure which has more special features. Does the HD DVD have IME? Ugh too many titles to keep up with.

Perhaps a more effective approach to this comparison (if one is indeed interested in dissecting the "bitrate effect" would be to take that bitrate trace chart into account, locate the scene where a suitable peak occurs (or the commensurate scene near that time point that would have been responsible for the bitrate peak), and then pull the corresponding scene from the hdvd. Otherwise, the selection of scenes guided by visually acquired content is really not that far from taking a shot in the dark. Maybe you hit a critical scene that really tests bitrate (where the differences could be substantial), maybe you hit one that would have been easily encoded, regardless of available bitrate (where the differences are minor, if any).

It appears that there are quantifiable differences identified already in the samples provided (and that is a good sign), but I simply offer the above strategy to more effectively pinpoint the scenes we really should be studying if the premise is "does the extra bitrate of br help".

Some of it is probably because of the DTS HD MA track... But it is strange.16.5 mbps video + 1.5mbps for audio takes 16.4 GB (HD DVD) , but 20 mbps video + DTS HD MA takes 31 GB (BD)?

I'm guessing it is all of those extra language audio tracks that add to the size considerably- essentially 10 Mb/s of aggregate audio for the entire movie?! :eek: On the br, it is simply putting that audio-only allocated bandwidth to full use, so there is probably nothing to really fault from the respect of compromising video bandwidth. The max pk hits around 38 Mb/s, which is still quite respectable, no?

I'm guessing it is all of those extra language audio tracks that add to the size considerably- essentially 10 Mb/s of aggregate audio for the entire movie?! :eek: On the br, it is simply putting that audio-only allocated bandwidth to full use, so there is probably nothing to really fault from the respect of compromising video bandwidth. The max pk hits around 38 Mb/s, which is still quite respectable, no?
There are also 2 PIP video streams. Not sure if the HDDVD has them also?

I can definitely see an improvement in some of the shots. It's an easy repurchase for me especially since I no longer own my old HD DVDs. Thanks Universal :)

There's a difference to me and it's slight. The BR PQ appears to be slightly brighter. Whites pop a little more.

... to show that all of the bitrate nonsense (as applied to PQ) was little more than marketing hot air...?
To you. There are a ton of people(including a post I see above) that shows that there are some people who really care how high the bitrate meter goes. I wouldn't be surprised to know if people get wood over how high the bitrate meter goes sometime. You'd think so the way they obsess over it.

To you. There are a ton of people(including a post I see above) that shows that there are some people who really care how high the bitrate meter goes. I wouldn't be surprised to know if people get wood over how high the bitrate meter goes sometime. You'd think so the way they obsess over it.
God forbid someone wants the best out of their HD formats :eek:

the bd version is a must buy for me considering i only have a copy of the dvd version

Well the shot of the young girl is clearly more detailed on the Blu Ray edition so saying they are identical is misleading.

Seconded.

This is a case where I can tell the difference between the blu and HD-DVD version.

Id say the blu version def has more detail.

Is this a fact or speculation? The reason I ask is because, to me it looks like grain removal/smoothing. If the bit-rate wasn't sufficient wouldn't we see blocking artifacts rather than smoothing -- unless of course it's a "feature" of VC-1...

I think it is a feature of VC-1. VC-1 and AVC have a block filter algorithm, unlike MPEG-2.

I would love to see a comparison with an AVC encode done Paramount or Fox style with the average near 30 Mbps and peaks in the 50's.

:confused: I thought the maximum bitrate for Blu-ray was 48 Mbps?

:confused: I thought the maximum bitrate for Blu-ray was 48 Mbps?
I think the maximum average video bitrate is 40mbps, but it can peak considerably higher than that.

The BD clearly has less blocking and keeps more detail. The only "questionable" shot is the one which is 80% pitch black and computer animated anyways.

I would say the HD DVD as far as PQ.

I would say the HD DVD as far as PQ.
Based on what, exactly?

Looking at the 3 pictures, the Earth looks a LITTLE bit better on the HD-DVD
(a little bit more detailed), but the 2 other shots look much better on Blu-ray,
because it has less compression artifacts (macroblocks), meaning more details.
The bitrate should have been upped even more because there are still too
many blocks. The hair on the 3rd shot looks *horrible* on the HD-DVD!

God forbid someone wants the best out of their HD formats
And those that don't care about the bitrate don't?

blu-ray looks easily better from the shots so far ;)

-Gary

And those that don't care about the bitrate don't?

I do care about the bit rates to an extent, as higher the number lesser the compression / encoding artifacts. Psychologically keeps us in a comfort zone to put the blame on the source elements.

Hey, there are times I skipped the bit rate meter. For instance, I didn't care about the bit rate when Fox showed her butt in Wanted.:D

Based on what, exactly?

My eyes and in the end thats all that matters...

And those that don't care about the bitrate don't?
That's the only conclusion I can draw... video averaging below 20mbps is visibly overcompressed from my viewing distance and is unacceptable IMO.

That's the only conclusion I can draw...
And quite illogical.

It looks to me to be rather the difference in bitrates, than DNR on the HD DVD.

Well in this case i would say they did some DNR work to that particular scene and lowered the bitrate. Thats not a VC-1 issue. It's not smoothed over because they used VC-1 as that codec can preserve fine grain nicely when used right and for evidence i suggest people go play Mad Max 2 - The Road Warrior. It's smoothed over because someone got their DNR tools out and did that to the scene.

The question if you own the HD DVD edition is how many other scenes did they do DNR work on or is it just that scene ?

Is this like The Mummy where some scenes look better on HD DVD while other shots look slightly better on Blu Ray - Where extra DNR work was applied to some shots on Blu Ray while other scenes had less applied....Xylon tell us please.

I burned this HDDVD out. I'd never seen it before and it is a very good film and being in the first set of movies out in HDM I used it as demo material. It still holds up well but nice to see that the BD is slightly better at least.


Art

Well the shot of the young girl is clearly more detailed on the Blu Ray edition so saying they are identical is misleading.

The HD DVD edition shows DNR work if you look at the face of the person opposite the girl and on the Blu edition we have fine grain and more detail present and indeed the girls face is actually slightly smeary looking in that shot on the HD DVD edition.
I had to copy the images, crop them, and put them side by side to see the difference. The BD (the girl) does have more detail and may be a teeny-weenie tad "lighter/brighter". I doubt I'll buy the BD, already having the HD-DVD. Maybe when it gets cheaper down the road.

larry

I'd like to see a comparison against the supposedly superior UK release of Serenity. I remember the hubbub about it back in the HD DVD days

I simply cant see any diferences between the HD-DVD and BR in these shots. They both look great.

The BD shots look slightly sharper, but you really have to look for it. I'm guessing that's a bitrate thing, since sharpness is one of the first things to go when you compress video.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/1f38f6d7.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/b425368b.png

HiDef Digest and DVD Beaver both comment audio is the greater improvement. May change my mind. I'm looking forward to audio improvement in BD Kong.

Well the frame of the girl is the only one so far which shows a huge difference and all these other shots look just too similar to call and i would imagine especially so when in motion.

If this is representative of the differences then it's very subtle if at all on most of the film and perhaps noticeable only on that one shot unless there are other instances yet to be posted ?

So i guess it's down to audio differences and once again i think people need to level match before drawing conclusions on the audio as DTS-HD Master is always louder than Dolby and louder can all too often be perceived as better.

DTS-HD Master is always louder than Dolby and louder can all too often be perceived as better.

That hasn't been my experience. :)

Just a thought but if the only reason for posting BR v HD DVD shots is to please those that bought the HD DVD version for their comparison shouldn't they be posted in the HD DVD thread instead of the Blu Ray thread. Those of us who never bought into HD DVD will be comparing it to SD DVD if anything.
I think the reason Xylon posted such is to compare the BD to the best available iteration to date.

Art

I think the maximum average video bitrate is 40mbps, but it can peak considerably higher than that.

Curious. I don't understand why there would be a cap on the average bitrate, if there's a higher capacity for peak bitrate. Why wouldn't the peak bitrate be indefinitely sustainable and simply limit available running time?

Guess I need to do a little more research into the Blu-ray spec.

I don't think there is any cap on average bitrate. There is a cap on maximum bitrate (I'd imagine, to maintain hardware compliance) which, with a designated quantization criteria and vbr behavior, will result in the emergence of an avg bitrate. The avg bitrate is simply the consequence/outcome of wherever the max bitrate is set (and the data needs of the content, naturally).

I don't think there is any cap on average bitrate. There is a cap on maximum bitrate (I'd imagine, to maintain hardware compliance) which, with a designated quantization criteria and vbr behavior, will result in the emergence of an avg bitrate. The avg bitrate is simply the consequence/outcome of wherever the max bitrate is set (and the data needs of the content, naturally).

Theoretically, the average bitrate cannot exceed the maximum bitrate, in the same way that a digital representation of a sine wave can never be truer than the sine wave itself (and then, can only equal it with an infinite sampling rate).

I may not have been clear on that point, specifically, but it was never intended to imply the avg could exceed the max, in saying that it doesn't have a cap. It is somewhat implied that the inherent meaning of avg dictates that it will be some value below the max. Otherwise, it would not longer be avg, now would it? It would be the max, and hence be subject to whatever cap is applied to the max.

Wikipedia lists the specs I had previously understood: maximum video bitrate of 40 Mbps and maximum combined video and audio bitrate of 48 Mbps. The only time anything over 50 Mbps comes into it is for raw (non-video) data transfer.

...in the same way that a digital representation of a sine wave can never be truer than the sine wave itself (and then, can only equal it with an infinite sampling rate).

This part opens a whole different can of worms, as you should be sure to note that even a sine wave occurring in the analog physical domain cannot be "truer" than a theoretical mathematical sinewave (i.e., it doesn't really "exist" in any natural world that our senses are able to interpret, so it's really a moot point to hold digital up to that standard). The best that we can achieve in the analog world is a sinewave signal bound by a s/n and bandwidth domain. In that sense, digital is fully able to duplicate that phenomenon- a sinewave with a finite s/n and bandwidth. Once you have duplicated the s/n and bandwidth, anything within that regime is for all sakes and purposes as "true" and indistinguishable as the analog signal itself.

Curious. I don't understand why there would be a cap on the average bitrate, if there's a higher capacity for peak bitrate. Why wouldn't the peak bitrate be indefinitely sustainable and simply limit available running time?

To answer your question a bit more directly, it is simply up to the encoder configuration to exploit the max. sustainable bitrate of the playback hardware. It could be cbr right at the max or vbr with peaks at a set cap. As for why/when to use cbr over vbr...that is a whole new scope of academics on the video encoding subject. ;) To put it as shortly as possible, vbr is quite adequate for the task at hand in deciding when to throw bitrate at the problem as the content demands, given a few input parameters. :)

Sometimes even the max. bitrate off the disc can be momentarily exceeded (as referenced by 42041) via the interaction of onboard cache. I don't know how "official" that capability is, and that is probably good reason why most encodes attempt to stay below this threshold as a matter of max. compatibility.

No need for it to be "painfully" obvious, unless you are absolutely torn out over spending a mere $25 in this day and age, and/or were completely blindsided by the notion that your purchase 2 yrs ago might-just might lead up to possible outcome that you face today. If you are, then it is time to realize that this really isn't the hobby for you. Sooner or later, it is simply time to jump into the pool. If it doesn't turn out the way you intended, chalk it up to a lesson learned (to have more reasonable expectations about what may/may not happen).

What the hell are you even talking about, LOL!! Xylon should not post comparison pics anymore because people that aren't willing to blindly shell out $25 without comparing anything shouldn't be "in the hobby"? Dude, are you on glue?

I have owned BOTH formats from Day 1. Who got "blindsided"? LMAO! Who's torn over $25 and what does that have to do with anything? The guy asked why it was relevant to include an HD DVD comparison and I, along with others gave the reason why it was PAINFULLY obvious why it was relevant and useful for some people.

Maybe the hobby isn't for YOU when you're more worried about other people than the discs you actually own yourself?


ROFLCOPTER. Blu-police everywhere. They don't even differentiate from Blu-supporters these days, ha ha!

no, the fact that an HD DVD launch title holds up extremely well to one with a substantially higher bitrate that was mastered several years later for Blu-Ray. Based on all of the stuff the BDA (and various fanboys) constantly spouts about the strengths of "the winning format", I would have expected more...?

The way the propaganda machines were spinning it, once movies previously exclusive to that "other format" were released on "the winning format" we would see a revelation in video perfection. Except in the wild imaginations of the fanboys, this has yet to happen. Up to now, the only title that boasts a significantly better transfer is "Miami Vice", and I debate whether that is due to bitrate or the lack of DNR.

Feel better?

Feel better?

(deep breath...in...exhale) Yes, thank you...:)

What does that even mean? ROFL..

I guess that was a bit vague, wasn't it? I meant to suggest that, to my eyes, it appears a little less "digital" or "electronic".

What does that even mean? ROFL..

"I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar..." - Wash ;)

What the hell are you even talking about, LOL!!

Calm your tone (or please leave). No one is attacking you. Additionally, no one is putting derogatory labels upon you (as opposed to your "Blu Police" remark). My comment simply cites that there should be no great quandary to decide if you should buy this movie or not. Either you like the movie enough to buy it in a living-format going forward or not.

The very fact that some people here seem to elevate such a choice to staring over the edge of a cliff (if they should or shouldn't) just because they bought another version some time ago really speaks volumes about their psyche. They seem to be under some impression that this grandiose decision is of great importance such that others must be kept absolutely up to date as to if they will take the plunge or not. The reality is that no one cares and no one should care. You buy stuff to serve yourself, not to make some statement to others. At the very least, it is remotely of interest to other die hard hdvd consumers...in which case it is even less of interest to the general public and of small number to even bother worrying about in the Big Picture of home video history. Just take this weird discussion to the hdvd forum about how you bought the red version and still feel nothing else is worth buying (or rebuying). We've heard it once, it's no secret, the info is of no tangible value to anyone else, move along...

(If your intent is to simply rehash old debates/arguments about bitrate, then you definitely should not be posting- unless Xylon wishes to speak up if that WAS the intent to creating this topic? Appreciation/criticism of the production value of the title is completely understandable. Exploiting an avenue to incite and reinvigorate old hostilities should really just be taken to the troll bin ASAP, imo.)

Calm your tone (or please leave). No one is attacking you. Additionally, no one is putting derogatory labels upon you (as opposed to your "Blu Police" remark). My comment simply cites that there should be no great quandary to decide if you should buy this movie or not. Either you like the movie enough to buy it in a living-format going forward or not.

The very fact that some people here seem to elevate such a choice to staring over the edge of a cliff (if they should or shouldn't) just because they bought another version some time ago really speaks volumes about their psyche. They seem to be under some impression that this grandiose decision is of great importance such that others must be kept absolutely up to date as to if they will take the plunge or not. The reality is that no one cares and no one should care. You buy stuff to serve yourself, not to make some statement to others. At the very least, it is remotely of interest to other die hard hdvd consumers...in which case it is even less of interest to the general public and of small number to even bother worrying about in the Big Picture of home video history. Just take this weird discussion to the hdvd forum about how you bought the red version and still feel nothing else is worth buying (or rebuying). We've heard it once, it's no secret, the info is of no tangible value to anyone else, move along...

(If your intent is to simply rehash old debates/arguments about bitrate, then you definitely should not be posting- unless Xylon wishes to speak up if that WAS the intent to creating this topic? Appreciation/criticism of the production value of the title is completely understandable. Exploiting an avenue to incite and reinvigorate old hostilities should really just be taken to the troll bin ASAP, imo.)

Your view on this is certainly different from all other posters in this thread. No one else has called for moving this thread or made up such diagnosis of the psychological underpinnings guiding purchasing decisions of the participants.

You may not be aware of the full record of posts that have appeared in this topic. You should also be sure to note that my comments were NOT suggesting to move this topic. It was suggesting for certain individuals popping into this discussion to take it back to red-town, IF their agenda is to rehash bitrate arguments. It does not belong here. That is the subtle context that you evidently missed.

You may not be aware of the full record of posts that have appeared in this topic.
I must have missed it. I read the whole thread.

You should also be sure to note that my comments were NOT suggesting to move this topic.
Oh, good. Missed that too.
It was suggesting for certain individuals popping into this discussion to take it back to red-town, IF their agenda is to rehash bitrate arguments. It does not belong here. That is the subtle context that you evidently missed.
I think it does belong here. I'm very pleased to see a BR release that is as good, if not better than the HD DVD counterpart. I was an HD DVD early adopter and have been more disappointed in the PQ of BR than I would like.

BR is a technically better format. But my transition to BR has been very frustrating. Bitrate can't make up for over-use of DNR and EE. I think a thread like this is a hopeful light... a BR title that may have less DNR than the HD DVD. I'd like people (and studios) to realize that bitrate is not a panacea for pq while the evils of DNR lurk. A thread like this brings that to light by showing how close disks of differing bit rates can be.

If BR could stop hobbling itself with DNR, all those bits could really shine and I wouldn't mourn HD DVD so much... Tremors notwithstanding. :D

I must have missed it. I read the whole thread.

You seem to have missed my meaning, once again. Just leave it, if you can't figure it out.


I think it does belong here.

No, not really- bitrate discussions are simply not productive, here, and you very well should know that. There's absolutely zero productive discussion to be had by rehashing bitrate x vs. bitrate y for movie z, especially when one of the formats in dispute is pretty much dead. No amount of reminiscing is going to bring it back to life. That pretty much leaves the intent down to reinvigorating old hostilities just for the pleasure of taking a few potshots.

The only legitimate room for bitrate discussion in this topic is simply to complain that it was shorted, at the expense of pq. That's pretty much it.

Similarly, this is not the topic to rehash the laundry list of complaints concerning prior bad productions, unless you feel those factors are at work in this movie title. Is that the case? If yes, then state so.

These would be examples of off-topic laundry list style digressions:

I was an HD DVD early adopter and have been more disappointed in the PQ of BR than I would like.

That's very nice, but are their aspects of the encode for THIS movie that are relevant to that point?

BR is a technically better format. But my transition to BR has been very frustrating. Bitrate can't make up for over-use of DNR and EE. I think a thread like this is a hopeful light... a BR title that may have less DNR than the HD DVD. I'd like people (and studios) to realize that bitrate is not a panacea for pq while the evils of DNR lurk.

Why should we be concerned if your transition has been frustrating? Perhaps, that is fodder for another topic other than this (like one that should be started in the hdvd forum, perhaps)?

Is this disc suffering from dnr or ee? If people are saying it looks near identical, then that would suggest that the hdvd must be suffering as well. If so, why did they not complain about that encode? Is it ok for that format?

There have been reports of subtle pq improvements for the improved bitrate. So do we discount those remarks, since the improvement was not "startling" in your assessment? If it is a better looking picture (even by just a bit), I'll take it, but that's just me. I'm not going to argue something silly like they should have cut the bitrate just because the improvement was not overt. :rolleyes:

If BR could stop hobbling itself with DNR, all those bits could really shine and I wouldn't mourn HD DVD so much... Tremors notwithstanding. :D

Why do we care if you are mourning? Get over it, and move on (or don't but just keep it to yourself- which brings me back to my earlier comment that some hdvd owners seem to feel self-important such that others should be kept up to date about how smooth their transition has been going and how they are dealing with the death of hdvd). Has this disc been "hobbled" with dnr? Seems like the things you are complaining about have nothing to do with the state of this release of Serenity.

Well the shot of the young girl is clearly more detailed on the Blu Ray edition so saying they are identical is misleading.

The HD DVD edition shows DNR work if you look at the face of the person opposite the girl and on the Blu edition we have fine grain and more detail present and indeed the girls face is actually slightly smeary looking in that shot on the HD DVD edition.


It's not misleading when they actually look identical

Seems like the things you are complaining about have nothing to do with the state of this release of Serenity.

This is true. Serenity is an example of BR I could not only live with but be excited about.

Unfortunately the "prior bad productions" you mention are joined with too many "current bad productions".

There is much to be learned from this comparison thread about the potential high pq of BR and we'll discuss it if we like. And apparently we like.

I guess that was a bit vague, wasn't it? I meant to suggest that, to my eyes, it appears a little less "digital" or "electronic".

That makes sense. I can see that. What display are you using?

It's not misleading when they actually look identical

Would you please point out where you see that they look identical and/or where one looks superior or inferior to the other?

The reality is that no one cares and no one should care. You buy stuff to serve yourself, not to make some statement to others.


Exactly. Why I and everyone else here buys or doesn't buy stuff is of no business of yours. So if we want to discuss the merits of said product, we can do so as we see fit. We are not bashing on a format (at least I am not), nor am I re-hashing some infantile ancient arguement like you say I am. So if you don't like our discussion about whether we want another copy of Serenity or not, then maybe you should leave. If not, then how about participating in the discussion instead of taking supposed pot-shots at people you think are from "red-town"?

LMAO.

Are you guys arguing over how much better the BD looks than the HD-DVd, or if the the BD looks better at all?

Either way, the MA track is an improvement over the DD+, which I already thought was pretty solid. Anyone that says otherwise is lying. And it is a very impressive audio track.

Who would have thought that we would have both Serenity and Firefly on Blu-ray so quickly?:eek: Both with 5.1MA tracks too. It's crazy, and I had a total nerdgasm this weekend.

Between the audio on Serenity and U-571, and Hulk, I'm anxious to give the BD versions of King Kong(I'm pretty sure this one will have a pretty noticeable difference in audio) and Children of Men a spin.

Are you guys arguing over how much better the BD looks than the HD-DVd, or if the the BD looks better at all?

Either way, the MA track is an improvement over the DD+, which I already thought was pretty solid. Anyone that says otherwise is lying. And it is a very impressive audio track.

Who would have thought that we would have both Serenity and Firefly on Blu-ray so quickly?:eek: Both with 5.1MA tracks too. It's crazy, and I had a total nerdgasm this weekend.

Between the audio on Serenity and U-571, and Hulk, I'm anxious to give the BD versions of King Kong(I'm pretty sure this one will have a pretty noticeable difference in audio) and Children of Men a spin.

King Kong on Blu should be great! Universal has really stepped up to the plate IMO. My favorite studio for home video so far.

It's not misleading when they actually look identical

The shot of the young girl is not identical. The Blu edition shows more detail in that one frame that Xylon has posted. In fact for that one frame the improvement is huge when viewed as a still - How it appears in motion is something you will have to ask Xylon about. Are other scenes as improved ? well going by most of the screenshots it appears most of the film is identical or at least looks too close to call.

As i said above the rest of the frames look pretty identical to me but that one frame shows improvement. If you can't see it then don't worry as some of us can so i stand by my original comments and hope you will give the images another closer inspection.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/ef5976b8.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/92249468.png

Debating whether or not screen shots look different is almost a lost cause. Most people look at them on computer monitors. How many are calibrated properly? How many don't have sufficient resolution? How many monitors have to scale up or down to show a 1920x1080 capture? (It isn't until recently that computer monitors are being made in 16:9 format.)

larry

Well my monitor is calibrated, I can see the whole 1920x1080 capture, and the above shot has quite a bit more depth on the BD side. The other shots? Not so much but this is interesting and puzzling:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/8379/serenitypo7.png

Here is a screencap from the EU version (That is a different encode from what I have heard)

2 things first, can be a slight different frame, and since I dont have free webbspace, its jpg.

http://i409.photobucket.com/albums/pp171/MovieSwede/serenity1.jpg

I did a bit of looking. If you strip out the two picture in picture streams and all the audio tracks and subs and just leave the DTS-HD MA stream and the main video the file size left is 21.7Gb.

So 9.8Gb was used for extra audio tracks, subs and Picture In Picture

I saw the size and wondered if they had improved it but there was not alot. I was actually wondering if they had ported over one of the encodes (UK or US).

I wanted to check out the size and see how much was being used on PIP and audio tracks. I did not see a big improvment over the UK HD-DVD version I had.

For audio the DTS-HD MA sound seemed better.

Here is a screencap from the EU version (That is a different encode from what I have heard)


From what I read the Universal UK did a new encode with (at the time) the more refined VC1 codec.

The US version I belive was the first to be released on HD-DVD which used the VC1 codec before microsoft made the improvments.

I did notice though the UK versions of universal HD-DVD movies had more language tracks on the UK releases then the US.

But the overseas HD DVD release got stripped off the DTS track to accommodate multiple spoken language tracks. Most parts of Serenity looked great except for the climax which was too dark for my taste.

But the overseas release got stripped off the DTS track.

With 1,5mbs DD+, the need for a DTS track isnt very big.

Well, this is just yet another case where the screen caps posted in this forum do not equate to real world experience for me. On my screen, the Blu-ray looks slightly softer than the HD DVD in motion.

However, the difference is very small. I must also admit that by the time I ejected the HD DVD, inserted the Blu-ray, and waited the five freakin' minutes for the Java-crippled Blu-ray to load and start playing, that short-term visual memory is probably not entirely reliable.

The take-away from this? There is no real significant visual difference between the two discs in actual playback, and the DTS-MA track sounds identical to the DD+ track, but the Blu-ray has more bonus features and better cover art. For that reason, the Blu-ray is the better option.

Well said Jozh. I thought Godfather III looked excellent in motion than the screencaps but there are many instances where these pic threads offers interesting insight on other aspects of PQ.

But the overseas HD DVD release got stripped off the DTS track to accommodate multiple spoken language tracks.

As far as I am aware serenity in the US HD-DVD did not get a DTS track. Only English, French and Spanish tracks DD+ tracks.

The UK version did get more audio tracks then the US release.
But used the more refined VC1 codec to lower disk space used for video to add the extra tracks.

However, the difference is very small. I must also admit that by the time I ejected the HD DVD, inserted the Blu-ray, and waited the five freakin' minutes for the Java-crippled Blu-ray to load and start playing, that short-term visual memory is probably not entirely reliable.

I don't trust my memory more than about 250ms. :)

larry

Here's the lowdown on the little girl shot:

hdvd HFview
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=127895&stc=1&d=1230572945

br HFview
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=127896&stc=1&d=1230572945


While certainly not completely free from artifacting, the br does manage to push the strength down just a bit further, while keeping the nature of background noise and fine detail in the scene more intact.

Subjectively, the images are still very close...close enough that it is likely there will be "give and take" between the 2 encodes depending on the scene and even portions of a given scene.

I ejected the HD DVD, inserted the Blu-ray, and waited the five freakin' minutes for the Java-crippled Blu-ray to load and start playing

Well if it is really that bad then stop buying BD and stick with HD-DVD.

I will be so glad when the catch up titles are all caught up. Then maybe some people will let the war end.

Debating whether or not screen shots look different is almost a lost cause. Most people look at them on computer monitors. How many are calibrated properly? How many don't have sufficient resolution? How many monitors have to scale up or down to show a 1920x1080 capture? (It isn't until recently that computer monitors are being made in 16:9 format.)

larry

Great point, except I can see diferences with most of these comparison threads, just not this one.

Well, this is just yet another case where the screen caps posted in this forum do not equate to real world experience for me. On my screen, the Blu-ray looks slightly softer than the HD DVD in motion.

However, the difference is very small. I must also admit that by the time I ejected the HD DVD, inserted the Blu-ray, and waited the five freakin' minutes for the Java-crippled Blu-ray to load and start playing, that short-term visual memory is probably not entirely reliable.

The take-away from this? There is no real significant visual difference between the two discs in actual playback, and the DTS-MA track sounds identical to the DD+ track, but the Blu-ray has more bonus features and better cover art. For that reason, the Blu-ray is the better option.

Great post, thanks.

Here's the Mal beauty shot: ;)

hdvd HFview:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=127897&stc=1&d=1230575159


br HFview:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=127898&stc=1&d=1230575159

Hrm, I was searching for BoB comparisons on google and I stumbled across this website which does image compare better than I have seen before. It has 3 modes which is really good. I know the page loads to BoB shots but it seems the creator is a lurker because they have preloaded some of those Serenity shots. I don't know how to get those to load here, although it seems like it can be done via URL.

http://www.gmontrone.com/bdcompare/default.html?url1=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/3ed8e35b.png&url2=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/ac0c28a4.png

Hrm, I was searching for BoB comparisons on google and I stumbled across this website which does image compare better than I have seen before. It has 3 modes which is really good. I know the page loads to BoB shots but it seems the creator is a lurker because they have preloaded some of those Serenity shots. I don't know how to get those to load here, although it seems like it can be done via URL.

http://www.gmontrone.com/bdcompare/default.html?url1=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/3ed8e35b.png&url2=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/ac0c28a4.png

I love the way that works and it makes comparing easier than ever before.

Well if it is really that bad then stop buying BD and stick with HD-DVD.

I will be so glad when the catch up titles are all caught up. Then maybe some people will let the war end.

It has nothing to do with the past format war, but the fact that, in their infinite wisdom, the idiot BDA selected a crap software platform to base Blu ray on. Once BD drops Java and implements the much more stable and quick loading HDi, we will have the format that we should have had since the beginning...

I love the way that works and it makes comparing easier than ever before.

Wow... now it's obvious that the BD version of the little girl is sharper. But the planet scene is more debatable. Perhaps it's just the way the pixels fall but look at the difference on the circular part of the right-most ship. Very subtle if any difference in favor of HD DVD.

So... obvious BD win in one scene vs. perhaps a slight HD DVD edge in another.

I don't think I've ever had BD-J loading time longer than 5-10 seconds :confused:
now, all the title cards and trailers and other crap are a different matter, but if it's taking you 5 minutes to load a disc... :eek: good thing I got a PS3.

good thing I got a PS3.

Yep... PS3 is perhaps the best BD player. It's got the required horsepower to make it a snap.

I don't think I've ever had BD-J loading time longer than 5-10 seconds :confused:
now, all the title cards and trailers and other crap are a different matter, but if it's taking you 5 minutes to load a disc... :eek: good thing I got a PS3.

Agreed. I suspect a lot of the people complaining about the slow bd-j times, are probably actually stuck at the bd-live downloading screen, but don't realize the difference. It's ironic, because those are probably the same people who were so very concerned about a "bd-live experience", in the first place. Just desserts, eh? ;)

Well, this is just yet another case where the screen caps posted in this forum do not equate to real world experience for me. On my screen, the Blu-ray looks slightly softer than the HD DVD in motion.

However, the difference is very small. I must also admit that by the time I ejected the HD DVD, inserted the Blu-ray, and waited the five freakin' minutes for the Java-crippled Blu-ray to load and start playing, that short-term visual memory is probably not entirely reliable.
If the Blu-ray version actually is softer than HD-DVD version when you're watching them, then I would say that your player is likely at fault, as the captures show that one version is absolutely not softer than the other.

Spending five minutes waiting for the disc to load is pretty damned awful. I'm not sure that Java is at fault, however. I'd say it's more likely that either your player doesn't like the latest copy protection or the disc is trying to download some BD Live stuff before it'll bring the menu up - much like the issue with Iron Man on Blu-ray.

I appreciate the efforts of Xylon as it does provide some dicey discussion. I'll have my BD copy here 2moro and can do some A/B myself. The HD-DVD Serenity was always a fantastic disc and one of that formats A titles. The DD + audio was immersive & rich and the Reavers landing sequence and chase scene ranks on par with any lossless track yet released IMO. :)

It will be fun comparing these in the next few days.

It doesn't make a lot of sense that the screen caps show a sharper BD but motion shows the reverse.

Art

Art, didn't you have the UK Serenity HD-DVD version at one time? Might have been someone else here but I thought you? stated it looked the same as the US version?

My apologies if I have this mistaken. :)

It doesn't make a lot of sense that the screen caps show a sharper BD but motion shows the reverse.

Art

It's possible that a slight difference in encoder settings will sacrifice more detail under high motion scenes as opposed to hard blocking, while retaining more detail under near-static scenes (where the viewer will have a far greater opportunity to appreciate the HF detail).

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/5b1a032d.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/b67795bb.png

http://www.gmontrone.com/bdcompare/default.html?url1=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/5b1a032d.png&url2=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/b67795bb.png

Wow!...I'm shocked how the 100" projection screen users (with all that resolving capability and 0 lum goodness?) didn't pick this movie apart to the bone for muddled shadow/extreme-black detail when it was first released on hdvd. ;)

Art, didn't you have the UK Serenity HD-DVD version at one time? Might have been someone else here but I thought you? stated it looked the same as the US version?

My apologies if I have this mistaken. :)

As best as I could tell yes that was my take. I ,however ,wasn't scrutinizing it to the level here. Honestly ,IMO we are seeing only a couple of percent difference here between the US HDDVD and the new .

After hearing that the UK HDDVD was better I expected a sunstantial difference which there was not.

Art

Of the current pics posted I think the BR actually wins out by just a smidge.
Pic #3 of the girl looks cleaner, more detailed, and less compression.

Of the first three caps, the one you mentioned was the only one where I could notice a difference. It would be nice to have some Blind A/B Mousovers for this one.

Edit: that gmontrone website shows the difference pretty clearly. Look at the pattern of the little girl's shirt behind her hair which is laying over her left shoulder.

Brandon

Wow, that gmontrone website is something else. Going over that picture again, I almost think that the HD-DVD was filtered a bit... at least in that one scene. How very, very strange - it certainly doesn't appear that way in the other shots so far.

I'd equate it more to standard Warner filtering (though not even that bad) than a traditional DNR scrub however.

Wow!...I'm shocked how the 100" projection screen users (with all that resolving capability and 0 lum goodness?) didn't pick this movie apart to the bone for muddled shadow/extreme-black detail when it was first released on hdvd. ;)

I am more shocked at how people that think comparing the HD DVD is "useless info" are still comparing it.

Wow!...I'm shocked how the 100" projection screen users (with all that resolving capability and 0 lum goodness?) didn't pick this movie apart to the bone for muddled shadow/extreme-black detail when it was first released on hdvd. ;)
I searched this thread for reference to "muddled shadow" and found nothing. You must have this thread confused with another.

I searched this thread for reference to "muddled shadow" and found nothing. You must have this thread confused with another.

You must not have bothered interpreting what I was saying in my post. You didn't find any reference, and I did not cite any reference in this topic. In fact, I was noting the particular absence of any concern on this matter when the hdvd encode became available for examination. If people were really on their game wrt judging reference quality encodes, they should have noticed this 2 years ago, and keen to find out today if the same particular issue is present on this new br encode.

Please read closely and slowly next time, before issuing a similarly irrelevant statement to my remark.

You must not have bothered interpreting what I was saying in my post. Mind reading's not my forte'... at least at a distance.

You didn't find any reference, and I did not cite any reference in this topic. In fact, I was noting the particular absence of any concern on this matter when the hdvd encode became available for examination. If people were really on their game wrt judging reference quality encodes, they should have noticed this 2 years ago, and keen to find out today if the same particular issue is present on this new br encode.

As I was in fact, noting the particular absence of any concern on this matter when the BD encode became available for examination. No one mentioned it when the HD DVD came out. No one's mentioning it now as a problem.
Please read closely and slowly next time, before issuing a similarly irrelevant statement to my remark.
Reading closely and slowly won't help. As my 8 year old nephew would say, "You're not the boss of me!"

Hence, your comment really did not address the remark that you quoted from me. It was not a case of me confusing this topic with another. You simply misinterpreted it, and then posted incorrectly in response to your misinterpretation.

Hence, your comment really did not address the remark that you quoted from me. It was not a case of me confusing this topic with another. You simply misinterpreted it, and then posted incorrectly in response to your misinterpretation.

Well, this has been fun... much more fun than work, I'll tell you. But now my little tiny mind is totally confused and it's time to move on. Goodnight!

What just happened here?

:p

Brandon

They didn't like the ramifications I brought to light (no pun intended) regarding Xylon's latest screenshot posting. ;)

Wow!...I'm shocked how the 100" projection screen users (with all that resolving capability and 0 lum goodness?) didn't pick this movie apart to the bone for muddled shadow/extreme-black detail when it was first released on hdvd. ;)
Is this something that can actually be laid at the feet of the encode? That's just the way the movie looks, isn't it? Sure, I see macroblocking in that HD-DVD shot but I don't see a loss of shadow detail.

Where it gets dark, it [hdvd] breaks into a serious mess. For whatever reasons, the br encode seems to avoid this, entirely- admirably maintaining detail down to the grain, regardless of the light level. I don't expect most people to pick this up (it is very subtle, I fully admit), but I imagine the most attentive viewers (who would be very particular about their shadow detail) watching a large projection in a pitch black room should have seen something "funny" going on in that area to inquire about it, at least.

I'm not trying to blow this issue up, really- just poking a little fun at how little scrutiny and critical assessment was invested on this movie the first time around, but now that it is br's turn, the theme is "how well does it measure up" to the supposedly "reference" release on a different format. :o

Where it gets dark, it [hdvd] breaks into a serious mess. For whatever reasons, the br encode seems to avoid this, entirely- admirably maintaining detail down to the grain, regardless of the light level.

OK... done with work! Seriously, I'd be very interested in where you see this. Noisy blacks drive me CRAZY on my 10' wide screen-in-a-bat-cave. If the BD version improves on that I'd be very interested in double-dipping.

Glad Xylon got the screencaps up for this, I was worried initially that Universal was going to do one of their grain scrubs on this reissue, glad to see it looks fantastic. Great new encode, lossless audio and more features = double dip on this one :)

I think we can rest easy with this one. ;) It's a solid release (in its own right and compared to past releases). If you are eying this title for your collection, it's worth the purchase, imo. I'll be cashing in the last part of my gift card at Target the soonest I see it on their shelf. :)

I love the way that works and it makes comparing easier than ever before.

http://www.gmontrone.com/bdcompare/default.html?url1=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/3ed8e35b.png&url2=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/ac0c28a4.png

Let's keep in mind that this excellent comparison utility was developed by an AVSForum Member.:)

Those can be done here if I have complete permissions in my threads. Lots of stuff disabled.

OK... done with work! Seriously, I'd be very interested in where you see this. Noisy blacks drive me CRAZY on my 10' wide screen-in-a-bat-cave. If the BD version improves on that I'd be very interested in double-dipping.
Look at the picture above with River in the bar watching the Fruity Oaty Bar commercial. Then look at the far right side of the image and you'll see sections where the HD-DVD breaks into blocking while the Blu-ray encode maintains image clarity.

Certainly not something you'd be likely to notice in motion as the focus of the shot is on River, not the shadows of the bar.

http://www.gmontrone.com/bdcompare/default.html?url1=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/3ed8e35b.png&url2=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/BoB/ac0c28a4.png

Let's keep in mind that this excellent comparison utility was developed by an AVSForum Member.:)

If you have an instruction manual for this feature i'd love to see it so i can add this to my own site as i can think of a few uses for it which would be beneficial to my own site.

You must not have bothered interpreting what I was saying in my post. You didn't find any reference, and I did not cite any reference in this topic. In fact, I was noting the particular absence of any concern on this matter when the hdvd encode became available for examination. If people were really on their game wrt judging reference quality encodes, they should have noticed this 2 years ago, and keen to find out today if the same particular issue is present on this new br encode.

I pointed out the overly contrasty image and poor shadow detail on the HD DVD in my review originally published 4/18/06.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/21292/serenity/

This is an issue with the film-to-video transfer, not the encode. The Blu-ray looks absolutely identical in that respect. Both discs (as well as all DVD releases) are too damn dark.

Look at the picture above with River in the bar watching the Fruity Oaty Bar commercial. Then look at the far right side of the image and you'll see sections where the HD-DVD breaks into blocking while the Blu-ray encode maintains image clarity.

Certainly not something you'd be likely to notice in motion as the focus of the shot is on River, not the shadows of the bar.

IC... thanks. Now that would be a great pair to have up on the bdcompare site.

This is an issue with the film-to-video transfer, not the encode. The Blu-ray looks absolutely identical in that respect. Both discs (as well as all DVD releases) are too damn dark.


Then we are referring to 2 different things. No worries. In that context (that thing I'm trying to convey), they are most certainly not "identical".

If you have an instruction manual for this feature i'd love to see it so i can add this to my own site

It would be preferable to have it written in some thing more universal that Silver Light.

If you look closely at Summer's lips from the last set of pics, you'll see the HD DVD has some blocking going on. Also, if you look at her teeth there are also some problems as well. Blu-ray looks better. Of course, from a normal viewing distance, I dont know how noticeable this would be, but close-up, the bit-rate helps more than I would have expected.

Good eye, stumlad! ;)

Well, this is just yet another case where the screen caps posted in this forum do not equate to real world experience for me. On my screen, the Blu-ray looks slightly softer than the HD DVD in motion.

However, the difference is very small. I must also admit that by the time I ejected the HD DVD, inserted the Blu-ray, and waited the five freakin' minutes for the Java-crippled Blu-ray to load and start playing, that short-term visual memory is probably not entirely reliable.

The take-away from this? There is no real significant visual difference between the two discs in actual playback, and the DTS-MA track sounds identical to the DD+ track, but the Blu-ray has more bonus features and better cover art. For that reason, the Blu-ray is the better option.

I've found having both versions playing simultaneously (or rewinding clips or chapter skipping) and just flipping back and forth on the HDMI inputs helps and cuts down tremendously on time.

Well I got my copy today and gave it a spin tonight. It seemed slightly sharper than the HD-DVD version I had watched previously but that was on a 1080i player. The screenshots shown here make it very clear that there's no significant differences in the image.

I was wrong about the location of that last screenshot however... that's River in the bank, right before she identifies the would-be hero. In my defense, there's a very similar shot as her trigger is activated by the Fruity Oaty Bar commercial.

Josh mentioned that he thought the film was too dark in general. I thought so at first but at the same time I remember it looking just like this in the theater. Large sections of Serenity are shot in dark locations with cool colors and the contrast is high throughout the movie. The outdoor scenes where it's bright out don't change in contrast at all (except for the flashbacks and intentionally on Miranda) but they look very natural.

I think that this is just how the movie was shot. I don't believe there was any error made when transferring from film to disc - though wouldn't this film have a DI, anyways?

IC... thanks. Now that would be a great pair to have up on the bdcompare site.

http://gmontrone.com/bdcompare/default.html?url1=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/5b1a032d.png&url2=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/b67795bb.png&rl=1394&rt=105&rb=958&rr=1901

There's a predefined box if you scroll to the right with that comparison.

http://gmontrone.com/bdcompare/default.html?url1=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/5b1a032d.png&url2=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/b67795bb.png&rl=1394&rt=105&rb=958&rr=1901

There's a predefined box if you scroll to the right with that comparison.

"Install Microsoft Silverlight..."

What the hell is microsoft silverlight?!?!?

"Install Microsoft Silverlight..."

What the hell is microsoft silverlight?!?!?

Their version of flash. The comparison runs off of it. Don't worry, it won't install junk and works fine in Firefox.

"Install Microsoft Silverlight..."

What the hell is microsoft silverlight?!?!?

Why, it is the latest and greatest thing that you really, really need if you aren't some nobody! :p ;)

Why, it is the latest and greatest thing that you really, really need if you aren't some nobody! :p ;)

*zombie voice*Everyone's brains*/zombie voice*... oh wait excuse me. It's their version of flash, yes. It doesn't seem too bad. I was watching the Summer Olympics MTB races via it, but it's got that MS vibe about it where they want to supplant everything with it and then bloatware it as fast as they can.

Their version of flash. The comparison runs off of it. Don't worry, it won't install junk and works fine in Firefox.

As long as you run windows and only certain versions of windows.

Both discs (as well as all DVD releases) are too damn dark.

I think the proper grammatical term is "too damned dark." :)

There's a predefined box if you scroll to the right with that comparison.
Thanks again. Cool

I would say the HD DVD as far as PQ.

I absolutely agree. The HD DVD looks a bit better to me, especially with the frame of the little girl.

I go with appearance over stats any day. (They are darn close though.)

Their version of flash. The comparison runs off of it. Don't worry, it won't install junk and works fine in Firefox.

That's ok. I really don't need more crap on the computer. Especially to look at some pic. comp...

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/9de8491f.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/1e0943dd.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/39179420.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Serenity/0aaf97f7.png

After watching part of this BD last night, my reaction is that the lack of significant differences between the HD DVD and BD shots shown here is not a testament to high quality in the HD DVD, but rather to the entirely mediocre quality of the BD.

I haven't any high expectation for this BD though I expected a slight bump in PQ which is proven correct by these screencaps.

However, I have set King Kong expectations for King Kong.

I absolutely agree. The HD DVD looks a bit better to me, especially with the frame of the little girl.

Based on what?

I go with appearance over stats any day. (They are darn close though.)

What about it's appearance is better?

Brandon

http://www.seriouspc.com/artsim/6.jpg

Xylon,
Please post a cap of this scene.

re: the last Xylon screen capture

When you tab back and forth her hair is slightly finer on the BD encode so in still shots the BD kicks ass but when there's lot of movement the detail falls apart:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/8379/serenitypo7.png

Bummer.

C'mon, can it really be described as "falling apart" (implying the hdvd isn't falling apart, as well)? ;) This is a good example of give and take, imo. Both of them are going a bit dodgy in that motion scene, depending on where in the shot you are looking. There are regions where one is hard-blocking while the other is soft-blocking, one has detail, whereas the other one is smeared.

I don't think you can fault one and not the other (though there may be a preference for one kind of breakup over another). Truth be told, this is probably one of those shots that simply would have benefited from more encoder tweaking (for either format) to achieve a better result for that short segment.

i got the hd dvd from ebay (for $8) yesterday because i never seen serenity before and didn't want to spend a lot in case i didn't like it. it was new but the case was in pretty bad shape so i ordered the blu ray today. i do like the cover art better on the blu ray. if the case was in perfect shape on the hd dvd i would have kept it, even though the cover art on the blu ray is better.

I absolutely agree. The HD DVD looks a bit better to me, especially with the frame of the little girl.

I go with appearance over stats any day. (They are darn close though.)
Except that they look the same. With the exception of the Blu-ray encode cleaning up some of the blocking errors in the HD-DVD version by simply having a higher bit-rate, these are encodes of the exact same transfer using the same codec.

Exactly how does the HD-DVD version look better to you? Because without some sort of justification I'm tempted to label you either as someone looking to stir up an argument or as a bitter HD-DVD user.

There were similar comments made about two other Universal HD-DVD titles that came to Blu-ray recently in the form of American Gangster and Eastern Promises. People showed up claiming that the HD-DVD versions were "clearly superior" when they were demonstrably not so.

C'mon, can it really be described as "falling apart" (implying the hdvd isn't falling apart, as well)? ;)

Well when a black line in the HD-DVD encode become a smudge in the BD encode then yes it's falling apart. Almost looks like a scratch removal artifact.

re: the last Xylon screen capture

When you tab back and forth her hair is slightly finer on the BD encode so in still shots the BD kicks ass but when there's lot of movement the detail falls apart:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/8379/serenitypo7.png

Bummer.

Yes, but you're still not looking at this in motion; you're still looking at single frames. In regards to this scene, I bet both of the encodes in real motion (i.e, such as watching the movie) will be indistinguishable. For all we know, the issue might only exist on a couple of frames which you would NOT be able to see in real motion.

Let me put my .02 in. :)

Watched the BD of Serenity last night. Serenity was one of HD-DVD's A titles back in mid 2006 and I say it's more of a testament in just how truly good this disc was from an image and audio point of view. The fact that the BD is virtually indistinguishable is not a mark against the BD. The HD-DVD was and remains pretty damn good.

I'm guilty of drinking the koolaid myself and sometimes getting caught up in the 'superior' specs or space or whatever. Those can and often do taint the reality. I have the Sony VW 50 "Pearl" 1080p projector....both the Sony 2000ES BD & Pioneer 51 BD players. I also still have the Toshiba A-35.

Doing some A/Bing, I did find the Blu-ray to be a tad sharper. Slight...but noticeable. The scene where I noticed it the most is the first Reavers scene when Wash informs Kaylee 'we got reavers'. The piping in the background is clearer and more defined in the BD. It's inconsistently so but enough moments that point to the Blu having better image. I suppose one can pause/rewatch every frame but then the popcorn will get stale. :D

I'm also a believer in the Hardware effect; specifically standalones. There's just been too many times that the Blu-ray version of a dual format release just looked a tad sharper to me. Even when the encode was 'inferior'. I think there are things going on in our players perhaps that does some processing even when using HDMI...

The other issue is the audio. This is kind of where some of the rhetoric comes to play. It's a good rule to usally stay away from comments like..."this track blows away this track etc..." because in reality, that often is just hyperbole meant to lure you in.

I've got a pretty good audio setup:
Onkyo 805 THX Ultra 2 receiver
Acurus 200x3 amp
Klipsch Heresy III's
Dual SVS PB 12 Plus/2 subwoofers. (my preciouses)

The 1.5 DD PLus track on the HD-DVD remains stellar. It's dowright scary how good this is and holds up. The new DTS-MA track is also stellar and a little stronger overall. At first, I even thought it was a tad on the bright side?The biggest difference I noticed was the LFE track. IMO, it's a little hot for my tastes but some tweaking made it sound more natural. We can debate on other threads about the real audio differences between a high bitrate lossy encode and a lossless one. I'm hear to say that quite often the difference is very slight.

I think it's good to remember somewhere in the middle between expectations, specs, and hyperbole stands the real truth.

Sorry for the thesis. :)

I'm also a believer in the Hardware effect; specifically standalones. There's just been too many times that the Blu-ray version of a dual format release just looked a tad sharper to me. Even when the encode was 'inferior'. I think there are things going on in our players perhaps that does some processing even when using HDMI...



Hey Tim,

I definitely agree with this and it's my experience too.

I do see value in these type of screenshot comparisons, but hardware plays such a practical role.

Agreed. The screencaps are useful for sure. And fun!

Well when a black line in the HD-DVD encode become a smudge in the BD encode then yes it's falling apart. Almost looks like a scratch removal artifact.

No doubt, this will now become the mantra for the hdvd owners of the movie...to see that black line on the rocket nozzle on frame 235534, ftw! :p ;) There's simply no experiencing Serenity any other way!

Satire aside, let's keep perspective that samples from both encodes are looking a bit dodgy with artifacts in this scene. No doubt, it should be considered a low point in pq for either release, not just the br.

I've found having both versions playing simultaneously (or rewinding clips or chapter skipping) and just flipping back and forth on the HDMI inputs helps and cuts down tremendously on time.

I would love to, but I lose the HDCP handshake when I do that, and my Blu-ray player automatically stops playback. :(

I'm still waiting on Children of Men, Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick from Universal, now that the Bourne trilogy has been announced. I don't expect any major differences in those releases either.
A man after my own heart. I put off buying those so I could get the eventual Blu releases.

I just started watching Serenity. I paused for a while because there's a screen that comes up and asks which language you want the menus in. The list is like 2 dozen long! Can't say I've seen that before. I'm looking forward to digging into all the extras on this too, I put off buying the DVD because I knew:
a) other regions got more extras
b) they released it on HDDVD, so it would be coming to Blu eventually.
I'm so happy this day has come!

I hope UNI have corrected the black/gamma levels in the climax sequences which was too dark for my taste.

Looks fine on a calibrated display ;)

Looks fine on a calibrated display ;)

Yes, but we all know it's what the bit-meter says it is, not what it actually looks and sounds like on nice equipment. ;)

After watching both formats of Serenity last night, by far the most consistently noticeable difference for me between the 2 "versions" is the soundtrack.
The DTS-MA is WAY hotter(shocking) than the DD+, both in LFE level and in overall reference volume level. I can watch the HD DVD at -2 no problem, where the BD was -7.5.
I did not notice any fidelity issues. The dialog sounded identical. A bit closed in in certain places but still pretty good on both sides.

The BD at times, appeared at times to have a bit more detail than the HD DVD.
I switched back and forth several times, but as I was unable to sync the 2 exactly it got a bit tiresome and I ended up just watching the BD.

A number of off-topic and bickering posts have been removed. Stick to the topic, please.

After watching both formats of Serenity last night, by far the most consistently noticeable difference for me between the 2 "versions" is the soundtrack.
The DTS-MA is WAY hotter(shocking) than the DD+, both in LFE level and in overall reference volume level. I can watch the HD DVD at -2 no problem, where the BD was -7.5.

DTS tracks are always set for a louder default volume than Dolby. Always. It's the company's policy.

After volume matching, they sounded the same to me. They both have punishingly deep LFE.

DTS tracks are always set for a louder default volume than Dolby. Always. It's the company's policy.

After volume matching, they sounded the same to me. They both have punishingly deep LFE.
I was not shocked by this as in my experience DTS tracks are always hotter but I've never noticed quite this much difference before in the reference volume.

Very interesting,

on the last 2 caps the HD-DVD looks slightly less filtered, but on the previous caps (with the exception noted by Kram Sacul the BD looked better e less filtered, specially so on the little girls face.

Now the question is, what kind of frame is more usual on the BD. The slightly more filtered or the much less filtered one?

I was not shocked by this as in my experience DTS tracks are always hotter but I've never noticed quite this much difference before in the reference volume.

Nevertheless, once you level-match them, the dynamics of both tracks are identical.

That would seem to be a sketchy speculation, until it is substantiated with an actual waveform sample comparison.

We hope it would be identical. The logic is that it should be the identical. However, it doesn't seem like anybody has done the real footwork to actually confirm it is identical. Until that time, it is only an assumption that they are identical. It could just as well be "different", for all we know. If you have already have done the level-match and auditioned the result, the best you can really say is that they "sound" the same. It would not be unreasonable to suspect a great deal of potential error is still involved in that process (whereas examining waveforms would be FAR more objective, if you really want to be definitive about it).

Far from it. Perhaps you can point me to a statistically valid double blind test....? As I have stated before in gaming terms, of course you can tell the difference between 15FPS and 30FPS. The difference between 150FPS and 250FPS is another story altogether (law of diminishing returns). By the way, in your example, "2" is 200% of "1", but 1,000,001 is only 0.0001% greater than 1,000,000... big difference despite the fact that both differ by "1".
It's common sense that more bitrate means better PQ (unless what you're compressing is overly simple). And this will always remain true (again, with few exceptions) unless the compression algorithm is flawed.

It's fascinating to see people still clinging to this notion that lower bitrates can somehow be equal to higher bitrates.

"Transparent to the master"

Magicians would have a ball with that statement, if a performance was akin to a session of video encoding (i.e, the hand is quicker than the eye)! ;)

It's fascinating to see people still clinging to this notion that lower bitrates can somehow be equal to higher bitrates.
I cling to the notion that lower bitrate with no DNR and EE provides better PQ than higher bitrates with DNR and EE.

Point is, bitrate is only part of the equation. Bitrate can be squandered.

I cling to the notion that lower bitrate with no DNR and EE provides better PQ than higher bitrates with DNR and EE.

Point is, bitrate is only part of the equation. Bitrate can be squandered.

Surely it is much more common to see DNR combined with low bitrate than DNR combined with high bitrate. . .

Surely it is much more common to see DNR combined with low bitrate than DNR combined with high bitrate. . .
FWIW, Blu-ray, the high bitrate medium uses far more DNR and EE than HD-DVD, the low bitrate medium.

FWIW, Blu-ray, the high bitrate medium uses far more DNR and EE than HD-DVD, the low bitrate medium.


FWIW, there is no causation of medium on the use of DNR and EE. It's irrelevant.

Warner Bros could just have easily started using DNR and EE on HD-DVD if that was the winning format. They are trying to generate "pop" and "3-d" by scrubbing the grain from the pictures so the masses can see an "HD" image like looking out a window.

There is nothing to suggest that it wouldn't have been just as prevalent on HD-DVD had it survived beyond January.

FWIW, there is no causation of medium on the use of DNR and EE. It's irrelevant.

Technology-wise that's true. They just do it more. I'm pulling for Blu-ray, believe me!

They are trying to generate "pop" and "3-d" by scrubbing the grain from the pictures so the masses can see an "HD" image like looking out a window.

Well... it's nothing like looking out MY window I'll tell you.

There is nothing to suggest that it wouldn't have been just as prevalent on HD-DVD had it survived beyond January.
Except that Blu-ray was doing it before January. In all honesty, so was HD-DVD... just not nearly as much.

Except that Blu-ray was doing it before January. In all honesty, so was HD-DVD... just not nearly as much.

Did you forget about all those Universal catalogs? Both formats and every studio had bad transfers with too much processing--period.

For those of us with sub-80" screens (i.e. the majority), are we really looking at a PQ upgrade for the Blu-Ray vs. the HD DVD?

Did you forget about all those Universal catalogs? Both formats and every studio had bad transfers with too much processing--period.

Hmmm.... do I really need to quote myself? :)

"In all honesty, so was HD-DVD... just not nearly as much."

I'm not forgetting. Did you ever see Tremors on HD-DVD? Gad...

That would seem to be a sketchy speculation, until it is substantiated with an actual waveform sample comparison.

We hope it would be identical. The logic is that it should be the identical. However, it doesn't seem like anybody has done the real footwork to actually confirm it is identical. Until that time, it is only an assumption that they are identical. It could just as well be "different", for all we know. If you have already have done the level-match and auditioned the result, the best you can really say is that they "sound" the same. It would not be unreasonable to suspect a great deal of potential error is still involved in that process (whereas examining waveforms would be FAR more objective, if you really want to be definitive about it).

Honestly, if you as a human being can't hear any difference, then who the hell cares if the waveform samples are different? :rolleyes:

Well... it's nothing like looking out MY window I'll tell you.




That's why I put pop and 3-d in quotes.

Honestly, if you as a human being can't hear any difference, then who the hell cares if the waveform samples are different? :rolleyes:

It's simply due diligence for anyone with access to such equipment and cares to make such a definitive remark (and you could ultimately be mistaken- shouldn't you be interested in actually finding out?). If you only knew how much objective measurement for stereo equipment, amplifiers, and even speakers was involved in writing reviews before the era of things such as perceptual digital compression, it would probably make your head spin. ;) Those were the days when an electronics journalist could really say something and have it mean something. Now, you can say nearly anything and it is fair game, as long as it is fairly plausible. The bar is that low, these days- it's embarrassing. No longer does it matter to really find out if it is true or not. It's a damn shame, imo... (Don't take that as a slight against you, personally. Most certainly, it is my commentary on journalism across the board.)

Short of all that, what you have is a "speculation", when all is said and done- not a FACT. That's all my comment was intended- to put qualification on your point.

Now, I'm not saying you should adapt new ways (actually, the "old ways", to be precise), if they don't seem worthwhile to your operation. Just be aware that there was a time when a definitive remark was actually based on something more definitive than simply someone's perception (through eyesight or ears) or expectation of what "should" happen if everything went down properly.

I don't think it is so unreasonable to ask that somebody authoritative attempt to measure it at least once (to prove the theory out), instead of just assuming it would be so under ideal circumstances... You may not agree, and we will have to agree to disagree at that point.

It's simply due diligence for anyone with access to such equipment and cares to make such a definitive remark. If you only knew how much objective measurement for stereo equipment, amplifiers, and even speakers was involved in writing reviews before the era of things such as perceptual digital compression, it would probably make your head spin. ;)

Of course, you neglect to mention that the whole point and purpose of perceptual encoding is to compress the digital data in a soundtrack without making an audible difference.

Movie soundtracks are designed to be listened to with human ears. If two tracks sound the same to your ears, they are for all intents and purposes the same.

I've listened to both the DD+ and DTS-MA versions of Serenity. Other than the DTS version being set for a much louder default volume, after level-matching they sound the same. The DTS track is not more dynamic or hotter in the LFE channel than the DD+. But it may seem that way if you haven't level-matched them. That's all I was trying to say.

Of course, you neglect to mention that the whole point and purpose of perceptual encoding is to compress the digital data in a soundtrack without making an audible difference.

Heh, you fell right into my trap. This isn't really about what the theory of perceptual encoding was designed to achieve. This is about substantiating the assessments of the end result. I was further commenting on how shameful it is that we lean so heavily on the former, as opposed to actually practicing the latter.

Movie soundtracks are designed to be listened to with human ears. If two tracks sound the same to your ears, they are for all intents and purposes the same.

It may be, it may not be. It isn't substantiated, though, until some measurements are actually taken. No way around that (other than a faint claim- it "sounds" like it to me, hence nobody else is fit to question my golden ears).

I've listened to both the DD+ and DTS-MA versions of Serenity. Other than the DTS version being set for a much louder default volume, after level-matching they sound the same. The DTS track is not more dynamic or hotter in the LFE channel than the DD+. But it may seem that way if you haven't level-matched them. That's all I was trying to say.

...and I was saying I sure wish somebody would actually go through the trouble to actually confirm it down to the waveform and audio track level. I can understand how that may not be of interest to you.

Heh, you fell right into my trap. This isn't really about what the theory of perceptual encoding was designed to achieve. This is about substantiating the assessments of the end result. I was further commenting on how shameful it is that we lean so heavily on the former, as opposed to actually practicing the latter.

It may be, it may not be. It isn't substantiated, though, until some measurements are actually taken. No way around that (other than a faint claim- it "sounds" like it to me, hence nobody else is fit to question my golden ears).

...and I was saying I sure wish somebody would actually go through the trouble to actually confirm it down to the waveform and audio track level. I can understand how that may not be of interest to you.

All that would really achieve is to make you feel better about your choice of codec, in spite of the fact that you will never be able to detect any difference in a double-blind listening comparison. If you really need a waveform monitor to tell you there's a difference between the two tracks that human ears are incapable of hearing, you have fun with that. The point of doing so completely eludes me, however. Personally, I have very little patience for "audiophile" voodoo. Your mileage may vary.

I've heard some awesome DTS tracks and as well some tracks that are too damn hot.
Seeing the wave forms would be beneficial to evaluate whether or not the track has been boosted to the point of clipping, or nearing the threshold.

One example of an overcooked soundtrack is Hellboy 2 which is highly compressed soundtrack and clipped, at least how I hear it on my system. Normally when I'm watching a DTHD track it is around -30 to -25, whereas with half the DTSHD-MA tracks I have to turn my receiver down to -35 to -45.

Many folks do not recognize clipping until they learn what it is and have systems that will reveal such flaws.

So anyone willing to check it out and do a comparison between the DD+ and the DTS-MA?

Best Regards
KvE

Additionally, there are all sorts of possibilities where shenanigans are unleashed on the gains of different tracks (center vs. sides vs. lfe vs. subwoofer output) within the soundtrack between different releases of a movie. The level gains may even have a different relationship depending on the player you are using. Theoretically this shouldn't happen, but I suspect there is more deviation from the theoretical than we may ever know. ;) Lossless vs. lossy, codec x vs. codec y, master audio vs. 16 bit audio...it's all out the window if we cannot even ensure the integrity of the basic levels of the soundtrack on a trivial level.

We need more "consumer watchdogs", rather than "industry lapdogs" to really get down to the bottom of this, imo.

Why is everybody across the board make it seem like DTS is a bad companie? i see it everywhere. how does everyone know dts boost there tracks? and even if they did isn't that close to the master? its better than dolby and there stupid dialnorm.

Additionally, there are all sorts of possibilities where shenanigans are unleashed on the gains of different tracks (center vs. sides vs. lfe vs. subwoofer output) within the soundtrack between different releases of a movie. The level gains may even have a different relationship depending on the player you are using. Theoretically this shouldn't happen, but I suspect there is more deviation from the theoretical than we may ever know. ;) Lossless vs. lossy, codec x vs. codec y, master audio vs. 16 bit audio...it's all out the window if we cannot even ensure the integrity of the basic levels of the soundtrack on a trivial level.

We need more "consumer watchdogs", rather than "industry lapdogs" to really get down to the bottom of this, imo.

Then studios who use dialnorm on there soundtracks (WB, paramount) shouldn't call their releases lossless. lossless is suppose to be untouched from the master, especially when you have WB turning everything to 16 bit and dialnorming them. by the time it gets to the store shelfs its not what it once was, correct me if i have this wrong.

You are on the right track, with what I was saying. Dial norm is good example of something that held great promise, but seemingly created more havoc than we ever could imagine. It's not directed at any one company, either. I direct my angst at the industry, at large, for introducing such easily compromised systems (codecs, hardware, specs, processes, features) where so many "differences" are remotely possible on something that is considered "lossless". I completely agree, that if they are to make claims that something is for all intents and purposes identical to the studio master, there should be far less variances than we are experiencing, in movie releases between formats, played back on different equipment that is supposedly applying the decoding operation to the "spec" defined by the codec.

Things really did seem more homogeneous, standardized, well-controlled, etc., when we were just dealing with dd/dts on dvd's. I'm not saying I desire a return to dvd's. I'm just saying that it is a shame the next generation of home video hasn't quite achieved the same level of consistency that we have become accustomed to. When it is done right, the result is incredible. However, there seem to be many other possibilities in play than it just ending up "done right" these days, I'm guessing.

I'm not even implying that a "hot" audio track on the Serenity br is at fault. I'm asking how can there be such fundamental differences between releases of the same movie, given the level of technology we wield in current day. We're not even talking about lossy vs. lossless or quality or particular design of data compression, at this point. I'm pointing out- how can it be so difficult to get a master level to work out properly these days, on any given movie, on any given equipment with requisite Dolby or DTS marking on the front panel? Why do we have subwoofer levels bouncing around between 6 db hot or 6 db quiet on movie release xyz (going all the way back to the days when hdvd players were all the shiznet)?

I'm not even implying that a "hot" audio track on the Serenity br is at fault. I'm asking how can there be such fundamental differences between releases of the same movie, given the level of technology we wield in current day. We're not even talking about lossy vs. lossless or quality or particular design of data compression, at this point. I'm pointing out- how can it be so difficult to get a master level to work out properly these days, on any given movie, on any given equipment with requisite Dolby or DTS marking on the front panel? Why do we have subwoofer levels bouncing around between 6 db hot or 6 db quiet on movie release xyz (going all the way back to the days when hdvd players were all the shiznet)?

You know... back in the day of analog, sound engineers didn't have the luxury of the 12 db range you discuss. LOTS of care was taken to get the signal as far from the noise floor as possible without clipping the signal. 0db actually meant something, both on the VU meter and as line voltage. S/N ratios were very dependent on doing it right. I just think engineers have gotten sloppy because the digital domain is much more forgiving. We don't even care about S/N on a BR anymore. It's become a non-issue.

Then studios who use dialnorm on there soundtracks (WB, paramount) shouldn't call their releases lossless. lossless is suppose to be untouched from the master, especially when you have WB turning everything to 16 bit and dialnorming them. by the time it gets to the store shelfs its not what it once was, correct me if i have this wrong.

DialNorm is metadata.

DialNorm is metadata.

Yep.. Dialnorm is also on DTS-HD but everyone forgets that..

That would seem to be a sketchy speculation, until it is substantiated with an actual waveform sample comparison.



And they call me anal :D

Very interesting,

on the last 2 caps the HD-DVD looks slightly less filtered, but on the previous caps (with the exception noted by Kram Sacul the BD looked better e less filtered, specially so on the little girls face.

Now the question is, what kind of frame is more usual on the BD. The slightly more filtered or the much less filtered one?

It's a crapshoot isn't it. I noticed that too. Oh well it can't be worse.

And they call me anal :D

Around here that is a compliment.

Art

Well the shot of the young girl is clearly more detailed on the Blu Ray edition so saying they are identical is misleading.

The HD DVD edition shows DNR work if you look at the face of the person opposite the girl and on the Blu edition we have fine grain and more detail present and indeed the girls face is actually slightly smeary looking in that shot on the HD DVD edition.You must have better eyesight and a better desktop monitor than I have. Last time I had an optometrist checkup I had 20/19 and my monitor is an NEC 20WMGX2 (AS-IPS lcd) calibrated monthly with an Eye-one pro. I tried really hard to see any difference in the screenshots and came up empty..

Yep.. Dialnorm is also on DTS-HD but everyone forgets that..

No it isn't what are you talking about? DTS doesn't use dialnorm.

You are on the right track, with what I was saying. Dial norm is good example of something that held great promise, but seemingly created more havoc than we ever could imagine. It's not directed at any one company, either. I direct my angst at the industry, at large, for introducing such easily compromised systems (codecs, hardware, specs, processes, features) where so many "differences" are remotely possible on something that is considered "lossless". I completely agree, that if they are to make claims that something is for all intents and purposes identical to the studio master, there should be far less variances than we are experiencing, in movie releases between formats, played back on different equipment that is supposedly applying the decoding operation to the "spec" defined by the codec.

Things really did seem more homogeneous, standardized, well-controlled, etc., when we were just dealing with dd/dts on dvd's. I'm not saying I desire a return to dvd's. I'm just saying that it is a shame the next generation of home video hasn't quite achieved the same level of consistency that we have become accustomed to. When it is done right, the result is incredible. However, there seem to be many other possibilities in play than it just ending up "done right" these days, I'm guessing.

I'm not even implying that a "hot" audio track on the Serenity br is at fault. I'm asking how can there be such fundamental differences between releases of the same movie, given the level of technology we wield in current day. We're not even talking about lossy vs. lossless or quality or particular design of data compression, at this point. I'm pointing out- how can it be so difficult to get a master level to work out properly these days, on any given movie, on any given equipment with requisite Dolby or DTS marking on the front panel? Why do we have subwoofer levels bouncing around between 6 db hot or 6 db quiet on movie release xyz (going all the way back to the days when hdvd players were all the shiznet)?

Good post i see what your saying.

I just think theres to much stuff going on behind the scenes with these soundtracks, just leave it alone. thats why i think studios should keep using PCM, its raw and untouched from the master to the disc. WB or whoever shouldn't be aplying all this crap and changing soud levels to the soundtrack.

No it isn't what are you talking about? DTS doesn't use dialnorm.

Yes it does!!! Confirmed by FilmMixer, an insider.

You must have better eyesight and a better desktop monitor than I have. Last time I had an optometrist checkup I had 20/19 and my monitor is an NEC 20WMGX2 (AS-IPS lcd) calibrated monthly with an Eye-one pro. I tried really hard to see any difference in the screenshots and came up empty..

It depends on your definition of difference. In what I see, there's a difference when you look close enough, but is it enough to make a visible difference when you're watching normal viewing distance (1.5 screen widths)? Maybe the very slightest... but it isn't enough (IMO) to move the title from say an 8/10 to an 8.5. Maybe an 8.25, but that's stretching.

You guys have to remember that Serenity was one of the first HD DVDs, so perhaps there's more than meets the eye on this one. With that said, I'd rather own the blu-ray if I had a choice between buying either of em. I own the HD DVD and will hang on until it goes on sale.

The picture and sound is better than HDDVD version,This BD picture is a few to have the PQ as good as or better than HDDVD.Talk about SQ ,DTS-HD MA kick my speakers than DD Plus of HDDVD.

I bought an HD player. I got it home put in a HD disc when I got home gave me an error number. Restarted it it played the movie. Put in the second movie(double feature) gave me an error code again. Unplugged unit packed in box returned to Bestbuy. Waited two months, format war ended. Bought PS3 never had an issue. Love bluray.

Kilgore, I heard you like old losing equipment. My friend has one of those old Sony laser disc machines that lost to the dvd format. You interested? LOL.

Kilgore, I heard you like old losing equipment. My friend has one of those old Sony laser disc machines that lost to the dvd format. You interested? LOL.

You might want to do some research before making statements like this (I realize you thought you were being clever). Long explanation short: LaserDisc was the undisputed king of PQ and AQ for nearly twenty years (hardly a failure by any definition), and was succeeded by DVD, not beaten by it. LD saw the beginning of all the supplemental material we all take as commonplace now, not to mention films presented in OAR. Finally, LD was the great-grand daddy of DVD, HD DVD (which works just fine... maybe you didn't read the instructions completely?), and Blu-ray. No LD, no BD... make sense?

Yes it does!!! Confirmed by FilmMixer, an insider.

DTS-MA does not use dialnnorm.

Filmmixer can you explain this to me?

If memory serves me right, I think FilmMixer mentioned that DIALNORM can be used in DTS-HD format too.

DTS-MA does not use dialnnorm.

Filmmixer can you explain this to me?

There's nothing to explain - you're just wrong.

I bought an HD player. I got it home put in a HD disc when I got home gave me an error number. Restarted it it played the movie. Put in the second movie(double feature) gave me an error code again. Unplugged unit packed in box returned to Bestbuy. Waited two months, format war ended. Bought PS3 never had an issue. Love bluray.

Kilgore, I heard you like old losing equipment. My friend has one of those old Sony laser disc machines that lost to the dvd format. You interested? LOL.

Wow. Just wow.

Nope, I've seen a Euro disc with DTS-HD that had dialnorm, I'm pretty sure it was MA. Checked with eac3to.

Found on google, Dialog Normalization option there
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/images/DTS_HD_01.jpg

there's nothing to explain - you're just wrong.

.......rofl.

I bought an HD player. I got it home put in a HD disc when I got home gave me an error number. Restarted it it played the movie. Put in the second movie(double feature) gave me an error code again. Unplugged unit packed in box returned to Bestbuy. Waited two months, format war ended. Bought PS3 never had an issue. Love bluray.

Kilgore, I heard you like old losing equipment. My friend has one of those old Sony laser disc machines that lost to the dvd format. You interested? LOL.

Whoa! :confused: You might want to step back and re-evaluate some of thoses statements.

Vader's pointing you in the right direction.

Kilgore, I heard you like old losing equipment. My friend has one of those old Sony laser disc machines that lost to the dvd format. You interested? LOL.

Yes, this is just ignorant !

Art

I just think theres to much stuff going on behind the scenes with these soundtracks, just leave it alone. thats why i think studios should keep using PCM, its raw and untouched from the master to the disc.

And this is where some other self-proclaimed audiophile will step in and argue that PCM is prone to jitter, while the Dolby and DTS formats are not.

Upgrading your speakers or receiver will make a much more dramatic and genuinely audible difference in sound quality than the difference between any of these high-resolution audio formats. Anyone who would argue otherwise is just fooling themself.

WB or whoever shouldn't be aplying all this crap and changing soud levels to the soundtrack.

DialNorm does not change the levels of the soundtrack. I suggest you do some reading on how DialNorm actually works.

Audio debate in a picture quality thread, interesting.

Audio debate in a picture quality thread, interesting.

Does "Serenity comparison *PIX*" mean it's a comparison thread that includes *PIX* or that it's a *PIX* - only comparison thread? Debatable :)

There's nothing to explain - you're just wrong.
What ever, like i said DTS doesn't use dialnorm.
Found on google, Dialog Normalization option there
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/images/DTS_HD_01.jpg

Yea they have an option but they dont use it, they never have.

It's a crapshoot isn't it. I noticed that too. Oh well it can't be worse.

LOL :D

BTW, Xylon, did you have a chance to check out the international version of The Thing? It's a BD-50 and features a different enconding of the movie, same as Jarhead.

I'd also like to hear your opinion on Land Of The Dead HD-DVD x BD if you have made that comparison. ;)

If memory serves me right, I think FilmMixer mentioned that DIALNORM can be used in DTS-HD format too.

Yup, and some studios have opted to use it.

If anyone wants to continue this particular discussion, then it would perhaps be best to post in this thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1098946).

And this is where some other self-proclaimed audiophile will step in and argue that PCM is prone to jitter, while the Dolby and DTS formats are not.

Upgrading your speakers or receiver will make a much more dramatic and genuinely audible difference in sound quality than the difference between any of these high-resolution audio formats. Anyone who would argue otherwise is just fooling themself.



DialNorm does not change the levels of the soundtrack. I suggest you do some reading on how DialNorm actually works.

I know how it works. fact is dolbyTrueHD movies are lower in volume comapared to DTS-MA. yea i know all you have to do is turn up the volume but thats my point.

Yup, and some studios have opted to use it.

If anyone wants to continue this particular discussion, then it would perhaps be best to post in this thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1098946).

And which studios is this?

What ever, like i said DTS doesn't use dialnorm.
Repeating incorrect information won't make it right. Of course, if you have evidence proving me wrong, I'd love to see it. I won't be holding my breath, though - I'm sure you understand.
Yea they have an option but they dont use it, they never have.
Yes, they have.

The only difference between Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA when it comes to dialnorm is that it's simply more common on Dolby TrueHD tracks because it's flagged by default.