http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/tearsofthesun.html
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment presents 'Tears of the Sun' in 2.40:1 widescreen and 1080p video, as per usual on Blu-ray. However, while the format has suffered its share of critical slings and arrows ever since its launch earlier this summer (and I've been among some of the most vocal), I can honestly say this is the first transfer I've seen on the format that has totally and unequivocally blew me away. Maybe it is just because my expectations were unfairly lowered these past weeks, but I really thought this is among the best high-def I've yet seen, and frame-per-frame, it is certainly an equal with anything I've yet reviewed on HD DVD.

http://www.hometheaterspot.com/htsthreads/dvd-review.php?sequence=1540
The basic fidelity of the film has not changed. But, no bones about it, this is without a doubt the best presentation of the film I’ve seen and another good Sony release clearly delineating the resolved superiority of high definition over DVD. Still there are a lot of sequences that just don’t leave you fully fulfilled. And the more I examine the film, this time enlightened by such higher fidelity; I keep coming back to the photography or manipulation thereof. As color balance appears deliberately skewed. But considering the low light from rainy and overcast skies, as well as the early morning and dusk settings, it’s a little hard to tell by how much. The lighting was particularly deleterious to the look of certain parts of the film on DVD once it had been vertically filtered to eliminate aliasing. But, here we can finally begin to appreciate the depth and resolve of the photography, despite its challenging lighting.

http://www.digitalaudiovideo.com/bluray_reviews_14258.htm
This movie looks damn good. It is presented in 2.40:1 widescreen and encoded at 1080p. The lush colors of the jungle almost jump off the screen. The fact that the cinematography is top notch is greatly helped by the quality of the picture. The audio is PCM 5.1 surround, and during the last action sequence, its awesome.

How can this movie possibly look good if it is encoded in MPEG-2? With only one layer and 25 gigs available a sufficiently high bit rate is IMPOSSIBLE. Some of these review sites are just too liberal in their evaluations.

^

Huh? You realize that 100% of the high def you watch on your cable/antenna is MPEG-2 right?

The best high definition picture I have EVER seen was an MPEG-2 encode. Who told you MPEG-2 can't look good? I take it you don't have an HDTV and HD channels?

Well at least it equal HD DVD movies, but wasn't BR supposed to be better?

^

Huh? You realize that 100% of the high def you watch on your cable/antenna is MPEG-2 right?

The best high definition picture I have EVER seen was an MPEG-2 encode. Who told you MPEG-2 can't look good? I take it you don't have an HDTV and HD channels?

Um .. he was being sarcastic...

Well at least it equal HD DVD movies, but wasn't BR supposed to be better?

Shouldn't hd dvd be better than the MPEG-2 based D-vhs....because it definitely is not ;)

Shouldn't hd dvd be better than the MPEG-2 based D-vhs....because it definitely is not ;)
According to who? There have been tons of people who have said that they've compared HD-DVD to DVHS and HD-DVD wins clearly.

According to who? There have been tons of people who have said that they've compared HD-DVD to DVHS and HD-DVD wins clearly.

Don't think so.....and I am talking from experience....not hear say....with a bit of FUD added.
I have seen exactly zero people that have owned both....say hd dvd was better for P/Q.
Only COR and Training Day even matches I Robot, Xmen 2 or Man on Fire on D-VHS.
I will give a slight edge to the better D-vhs releases for sharpness over hd dvd.
And yes I own Sahara, Riddick ect on hd dvd.

According to who? There have been tons of people who have said that they've compared HD-DVD to DVHS and HD-DVD wins clearly.

Really? "Tons" of people have said this?

As someone who owns both D-Theater and HD-DVD, I would really like to see some links to posts where the "tons" of people say that HD-DVD "clearly wins" over D-Theater.

It's amazing that people are just willing to make stuff up when they log online and start posting. I, too, would be interested to see these "tons of people" that own both D-Theater and HD-DVD and have claimed that HD-DVD "clearly wins."

...
Only COR and Training Day even matches I Robot, Xmen 2 or Man on Fire on D-VHS...

You're comparing different films. The only valid comparison would be the same title released on both formats.

Vincent

According to who? There have been tons of people who have said that they've compared HD-DVD to DVHS and HD-DVD wins clearly.For the small part of "U-571" I compared the HD DVD might have been just a hair better, after looking for a while with a 1080p Sony Ruby on a 10' wide screen. I should compare more with "We Were Soldiers", but in comparing the HD DVD to a version shown on Showtime (I believe) in MPEG2, they were very close. Except that it looked like the HD DVD had noise reduction applied to one part I looked at. I only had about 5 minutes worth of it from Showtime to compare at that time and haven't gotten back to doing more comparing with that one.

But I believe there is some stuff yet to be released that will look better than "I-Robot" on D-Theater (as much as two different films can be graded against each other).

But the best looking title to that date on either format might end up being "Corpse Bride" given how it was shot and who it belongs to (Warner seems to be doing some of the best jobs IMO). Sounds like it will be released on both formats, but just has a date for Blu-ray at the moment.

--Darin

OK, so TEARS OF THE SUN looked great on my local cable HD broadcast (Starz-HD) because they had the bit rate full bore that month it aired. So has anyone been able to compare, or can anyone compare, the BD release with a not compressed version of what was shown on Starz?

THAT is the true test here. The BD must at the very least, completely equal the Starz showing, and beat it during high action scenes, since massive amounts of movement results in macro-blocking in pretty much all HD broadcasts.

Having gone back to my D-VHS titles weekend to me it seemed D-VHS titles have better black levels.

I'm waiting for the HD-DVD of The Mummy to compare direct.

You're comparing different films. The only valid comparison would be the same title released on both formats.

Vincent

Thanks for cluing me in Mr Obvious ;) :)
I was using it as an HD MPEG-2 vs the VC-1 rules mentality point ....and it very much applies in this scenario.
The Fast and the Dubious 1/2 will be out soon enough for another direct comparison.

Too many fall for the FUD around here....without any actual experience themselves.
I for one do not care what codec is used to make HD optical....as long as it looks great....and has some version of higher res audio including linear PCM or one of the lossless codecs.

I watched Four Brothers last night and the HD DVD version is clearly superior to the MPEG-2 SD DVD version...and I got to watch it all the way through without any picture freeze as a bonus......so in this scenario VC-1 is clearly superior.
This represents the logic of far too many imo. :D

There is no doubt that VC-1 is superior as far as efficiency goes....but I have yet to see it better the best P/Q that MPEG-2 HD has to offer....thats the whole point.

In case nobody besides me has noticed....the majority of the best looking hd dvd's are also reference sd dvd's....and the vast majority of BD's so far are not.
People seem to forget about the garbage in = garbage out equation.

Just because Sony either rushed...or just did not put much effort into a lot of the first releases (or both)....is no reason to blame it all on MPEG-2....unless of course you work for M/S ;)

Perhaps it's possible to get mpeg-2 to look as good as VC-1. But it looks like it's very difficult to achieve since so few appear to be 'as good' as VC-1. In the case of Warner, except for GLGN, all the others were close and with fewer extras and std. audio than compared to their VC-1 counterparts. You were clearly getting less. So the overall inefficiency of mpeg-2 continues until quality becomes consistent for 2 hour plus movies....right now they aren't and not nearly as good as VC-1 on head-to-head.

Really? "Tons" of people have said this?

As someone who owns both D-Theater and HD-DVD, I would really like to see some links to posts where the "tons" of people say that HD-DVD "clearly wins" over D-Theater.
Ok, let me qualify my statement, since it appears some people (not necessarily you) equate these things (ie forum posts) as statements given at a hearing chaired by McCarthy. When talking about people who not only have owned both D-Theater and HD-DVD, but also owned them concurrently, and were able to make a comparison and actually posted about it, we're talking about a handful. Maybe "ton" wasn't the right word. To make it clear to the formerly mentioned people, I guess I should have said, "All the first hand reports I've read on the subject in this forum...". And to the "clearly wins" part. "Clearly" was not meant as a quantitative measurement, I was not trying to say "HD-DVD is much better then DVHS". I'm using "clearly" to mean that there are observable differences that allow a person to say that an HD-DVD looks better then a DVHS.

All of that is true. Until earz saying that "hd-dvd was definitely not better then dvhs", every single report I had read of people comparing the two formats was that HD-DVD had the superior PQ, if only by the tiniest of margins. Unfortunately, I am neither a paranoid or obsessive individual, so I don't squirrel away every single post on every single forum on every single subject I come across just in case it should come up in a future discussion, so I can't provide any links. I promise to become more paranoid and obsessive in the future so I won't be caught in this embarrasing situation again. :p

I think if some of you guys weren't so emotionally involved (again not necessarily you rt), you'd have read my post for what it was, as a suprised reaction to a post that went starkly against everything else I'd read on the subject. But I'm certainly not going to dig through the thousand thread I've read looking for the posts that led me to that conclusion. Hopefully the people who've compared to two formats will post to this thread I started earlier tonight:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=722367

When talking about people who not only have owned both D-Theater and HD-DVD, but also owned them concurrently, and were able to make a comparison and actually posted about it, we're talking about a handful. Maybe "ton" wasn't the right word.Well, collectively, they could weigh a ton. :D

Ok, let me qualify my statement, since it appears some people (not necessarily you) equate these things (ie forum posts) as statements given at a hearing chaired by McCarthy. When talking about people who not only have owned both D-Theater and HD-DVD, but also owned them concurrently, and were able to make a comparison and actually posted about it, we're talking about a handful. Maybe "ton" wasn't the right word. To make it clear to the formerly mentioned people, I guess I should have said, "All the first hand reports I've read on the subject in this forum...". And to the "clearly wins" part. "Clearly" was not meant as a quantitative measurement, I was not trying to say "HD-DVD is much better then DVHS". I'm using "clearly" to mean that there are observable differences that allow a person to say that an HD-DVD looks better then a DVHS.

All of that is true. Until earz saying that "hd-dvd was definitely not better then dvhs", every single report I had read of people comparing the two formats was that HD-DVD had the superior PQ, if only by the tiniest of margins. Unfortunately, I am neither a paranoid or obsessive individual, so I don't squirrel away every single post on every single forum on every single subject I come across just in case it should come up in a future discussion, so I can't provide any links. I promise to become more paranoid and obsessive in the future so I won't be caught in this embarrasing situation again. :p

I think if some of you guys weren't so emotionally involved (again not necessarily you rt), you'd have read my post for what it was, as a suprised reaction to a post that went starkly against everything else I'd read on the subject. But I'm certainly not going to dig through the thousand thread I've read looking for the posts that led me to that conclusion. Hopefully the people who've compared to two formats will post to this thread I started earlier tonight:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=722367


Nice back-pedaling! ;)

Seriously, I think it was reasonable for people to read your post as saying that all who have compared D-Theater with HD-DVD found HD-DVD to be substantially better, and as you appear to admit now, that simply is not the case.

Nice back-pedaling! ;)

Seriously, I think it was reasonable for people to read your post as saying that all who have compared D-Theater with HD-DVD found HD-DVD to be substantially better, and as you appear to admit now, that simply is not the case.
Well, I'm not sure there's anybody one these forums that has a tiny enough understanding of D-Theater to think that anything could be substantually better then it. Although after reading some of the discussions that go on in this neck of the woods, I guess I can see the cause for your concern. ;)

You're comparing different films. The only valid comparison would be the same title released on both formats.

Vincent
You couldnt be more right. And its something some people just refuse to understand.

Well, I'm not sure there's anybody one these forums that has a tiny enough understanding of D-Theater to think that anything could be substantually better then it. Although after reading some of the discussions that go on in this neck of the woods, I guess I can see the cause for your concern. ;)

:cool:

it is very easy for mpeg2 to look as good as VC1, D-Theater is the proof

HD-DVD is not better than D-Theater, it is a 100% tie in my book

D-Theater used mpeg2 at constant 23 mbps for video give or take

if BR looks bad using mpeg2 then mpeg2 is not the reason, something is being screwed up along the line, which could very well be Sony's use of Mpeg2 and their encoder

Sony, give JVC a ring;)

-Gary

if BR looks bad using mpeg2 then mpeg2 is not the reason, something is being screwed up along the line, which could very well be Sony's use of Mpeg2 and their encoder

It's a combination of Sony's encoder and the burden of PCM audio that's caused most of the problems.

It's a combination of Sony's encoder and the burden of PCM audio that's caused most of the problems.

Meaning, in part, that MPEG 2 can be part of the problem. If it isn't as efficient as VC-1, it needs more space/bandwidth to look as good as what VC-1 could do with less space.

I.e, VC-1 encoded movies would probably look better than MPEG2 when there is limited space for the video.

All of that is true. Until earz saying that "hd-dvd was definitely not better then dvhs", every single report I had read of people comparing the two formats was that HD-DVD had the superior PQ, if only by the tiniest of margins.


HD-DVD is not better than D-Theater, it is a 100% tie in my book


I consider that high praise for HD DVD and VC-1. really contrary to what QbanditZ was spewing about the superiority of DVHS
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8369177#post8369177

It's a combination of Sony's encoder and the burden of PCM audio that's caused most of the problems.

And, oh yeah, starting with a subpar master in the first place. :-)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=719601

;)

Shouldn't hd dvd be better than the MPEG-2 based D-vhs....because it definitely is not ;)


HD-DVD is not better than D-Theater, it is a 100% tie in my book


WOW. I would have really expected the nit picking to find some nits.

It will be very interesting to see the comparisons for the Fox H.264 intersect DTheater titles.

Gary

I consider that high praise for HD DVD and VC-1. really contrary to what QbanditZ was spewing about the superiority of DVHS
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8369177#post8369177


I like how you referenced a link to where Q of Banditz educated you :p

From Q of Banditz in the other thread referenced by vurbano
"Codecs, in and of themselves, DO NOT dicate picture quality. "

Exactly Q, exactly

Are you still mad about getting your ass kicked in that thread? Go cry about it.

Obviously many do not share your opinion on the superiority of DVHS PQ.

I like how you referenced a link to where Q of Banditz educated you :p

From Q of Banditz in the other thread referenced by vurbano
"Codecs, in and of themselves, DO NOT dicate picture quality. "

Exactly Q, exactlyI never could pounded through his thick head that you had to compare the same titles in both formats. You cannot take one good looking title that doesnt exist in another format and declare it the best PQ ever. I believe he found something he could harp on to save face really. Although he made some blunders along the way about DVHS.

I never could pounded through his thick head that you had to compare the same titles in both formats. You cannot take one good looking title that doesnt exist in another format and declare it the best PQ ever. I believe he found something he could harp on to save face really. Although he made some blunders along the way about DVHS.

You'll get over it.

Wait, I thought HD DVD VC-1 encodes were "transparent" to their masters? How can you get better than "tranparency"?Im not really sure.

Obviously many do not share your opinion on the superiority of DVHS PQ.

Please back up your many claim ....because its the exact opposite....most say d-vhs is equal.....meaning the VC-1 based hd dvd has not bettered the MPEG-2 based d-vhs for P/Q.

I am familiar with most of the regulars that used to post in the d-vhs threads.....and I have seen none of them say that hd dvd was superior to D-vhs for PQ.

If you have never owned d-vhs....then your opinion on the matter means squat. ;)

most say d-vhs is equal.....meaning the VC-1 based hd dvd has not bettered the MPEG-2 based d-vhs for P/Q.



DVHS is 24Mbps CBR MPEG2, right? :)
Allow me to do a copy and paste.

Quote from Cjplay
"Have you ever butterflied MPEG-2 and VC-1? Have you ever butterflied H.264 and VC-1? Have you ever butterflied them to their sources? MPEG-2 to the source showed some slight resolution loss even at the "unrealistic" bitrates when we did some SD tests back in 2004 (that hurt). That was sad to find out. H.264 (x264 or MainConcept, can't remember which) needed the DBF turned off, but it matched the resolution to the 8-bit 4:2:0 source at HD-spec rates, which is the best you have to hope for in "transparency to the master" speak. VC-1 (WM9 at the time) also did not have a resolution loss at those similar rates. You'll never get to see that unless you can butterfly them somehow which is why <Cypher> Ignorance is bliss </Cypher> for the consumers. I need to revisit those tests for HD, but I've got not reason to believe that the results would be different."


Bottom line, MPEG2 has to go no matter what the bitrates are. :)

Please back up your many claim ....because its the exact opposite....most say d-vhs is equal.....meaning the VC-1 based hd dvd has not bettered the MPEG-2 based d-vhs for P/Q.

I am familiar with most of the regulars that used to post in the d-vhs threads.....and I have seen none of them say that hd dvd was superior to D-vhs for PQ.

If you have never owned d-vhs....then your opinion on the matter means squat. ;)

Exactly.

I own both, and I can't say that either one is better than the other. I have directly compared the HD-DVD of U-571 to my D-Theater copy, and there is very little difference.

Even those who have expressed a belief that HD-DVD was better, I have yet to see a single person say that HD-DVD is "clearly" better than D-Theater, other than people like Verbano who don't even own a D-Theater deck and have probably never seen it in action. :rolleyes:

DVHS is 24Mbps CBR MPEG2, right? :)
Allow me to do a copy and paste.

Quote from Cjplay
"Have you ever butterflied MPEG-2 and VC-1? Have you ever butterflied H.264 and VC-1? Have you ever butterflied them to their sources? MPEG-2 to the source showed some slight resolution loss even at the "unrealistic" bitrates when we did some SD tests back in 2004 (that hurt). That was sad to find out. H.264 (x264 or MainConcept, can't remember which) needed the DBF turned off, but it matched the resolution to the 8-bit 4:2:0 source at HD-spec rates, which is the best you have to hope for in "transparency to the master" speak. VC-1 (WM9 at the time) also did not have a resolution loss at those similar rates. You'll never get to see that unless you can butterfly them somehow which is why <Cypher> Ignorance is bliss </Cypher> for the consumers. I need to revisit those tests for HD, but I've got not reason to believe that the results would be different."


Bottom line, MPEG2 has to go no matter what the bitrates are. :)

VC-1 is certainly more efficient, and I would definitely prefer that VC-1 be used for all HD-DVD and BD releases.

Of course that still doesn't mean that HD-DVD PQ is superior to that of D-Theater.

Here is a quote from another thread by BTB that sums it up rather nicely:

I have never understood why people get all hung up about MPEG2 vs. VC-1 vs. H.264 because the most important aspect of all encoding is starting with a high quality master in the first place. Given a good master and enough QC, MPEG2 can deliver the same quality as either of the newer codecs, but it just can't do it without using more bits. End of story.

Almost all of what is seen on any of the new HD discs is directly related to the quality of the master, the only thing that can screw a good master up is a poor encoder and poor QC. All of this is exactly the same as DVD, GIGO, garbage in garbage out. If a title looks bad, blame the studio for a bad master, if it looks good, then they deserve congrats for starting with quality and following through with the encoding process.

b2b

Amen, brother!

Here is a quote from another thread by BTB that sums it up rather nicely:



Amen, brother!
Um, I think I'll take a professionals opinion, someone who has experienced the ultimate comparison, a comparison none of you have experienced btw, over the opinion of just another forum jockey. Do you find my reasoning hard to untangle?

Um, I think I'll take a professionals opinion, someone who has experienced the ultimate comparison, a comparison none of you have experienced btw, over the opinion of just another forum jockey. Do you find my reasoning hard to untangle?

Yes, since I have no idea what you are referring to.

Yes, since I have no idea what you are referring to.
If Cjplay's post didn't make things clear for you nothing I say will. Later.

Obviously many do not share your opinion on the superiority of DVHS PQ.

Obviously you are in denial. Everyone who has or had D-Theater DVHS tapes has said that HD DVD is of lesser quality than it. That's not to say that HD DVD quality sucks, just that it isn't the best HD video available at this time.

Um, I think I'll take a professionals opinion, someone who has experienced the ultimate comparison, a comparison none of you have experienced btw, over the opinion of just another forum jockey. Do you find my reasoning hard to untangle?

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

Have you even seen D-Theater? Have you compared it to HD-DVD yourself?

Obviously you are in denial. Everyone who has or had D-Theater DVHS tapes has said that HD DVD is of lesser quality than it. That's not to say that HD DVD quality sucks, just that it isn't the best HD video available at this time.I would disagree with that. If anything "U-571" was better on HD DVD than on D-Theater (although close for the part I looked at) and some things on D-Theater don't look as good to me in retrospect after having HD DVD. "I-Robot" on D-Theater did look very good, but I think there are some that are up with it and it will be surpassed in not too long, if it hasn't already been.

--Darin

I like this thread, there are some good facts here, facts are that Mpeg2 with good bitrates does look = to VC1

D-Theater is the king of picture quality, no one really knows that though because it was dismissed by everyone because it was "Tape", those who purchased it know how good it is, in no way did HD-DVD better D-Theater, I would say again a 100% tie, maybe a smidge and a small smidge to D-Theater, I think it will be hard for anything to top D-Theater tapes like "The Mummy" "Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "I Robot"

Mpeg2 is exactly the same picture quality as VC1, only it requires double the space to give D-Theater type picture quality, thats why when Sony announced Mpeg2 I was like sweet, it should be good on 25GB media with no extras and full bitrate DTS/DD, but here comes PCM and such :(

I don't think it is the masters, Sony movies on HD movie channels always look downright jaw dropping, it is Sony's **** implementation of Mpeg2 which is giving it(Mpeg2) a bad name

-Gary

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

Have you even seen D-Theater? Have you compared it to HD-DVD yourself?
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Have you ever butterflied MPEG-2 and VC-1? Under what settings and with which movies have you done this direct a/b comparison of yours which you deem to be more meaningful then an industry professionals? Don't bother answering because there's nothing you could say that would make the grade.

And yes I've seen about 30-40 D-Theater titles though unfortunately no direct a/b comparisons because I was lucky enough to be a poor college student during the "Summer of DVHS", so I got to skip right over buying fragile players and pricey media and go right to the superior HD-DVD format, enjoying my uncle's collection during the interlude.

No need to argue anymore though. I had forgotten about reading cjplay's comments, so I feel perfectly justifified in everything I've said in this thread and I feel that any further conversation on the subject would be fruitless.

I don't think it is the masters, Sony movies on HD movie channels always look downright jaw dropping, it is Sony's **** implementation of Mpeg2 which is giving it(Mpeg2) a bad name

-Gary

That's true, but in some cases (Robocrap?), some of the masters clearly need a face lift and some tender loving care. No doubt about it.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Yes, actually I do. See, I HAVE compared D-Theater directly to HD-DVD. You haven't. So who has more credibility on the subject?

Have you ever butterflied MPEG-2 and VC-1?

No, and neither have you, so the fact that neither one of us has proves nothing, does it?

Under what settings and with which movies have you done this direct a/b comparison of yours which you deem to be more meaningful then an industry professionals? Don't bother answering because there's nothing you could say that would make the grade.

Sorry to disappoint, but I will always answer, whether you want to listen or not. First, please tell me where I ever said anything comparing myself to "industry professionals"? I didn't. But in any event, you seem to have this concept that since I am not an "industry professional" my opinion doesn't count. God forbid that you should actually rely on what your own eyes see and tell you! :rolleyes:

My comparison was with U-571. The differences were very small. So small that I would not declare a "winner".

And yes I've seen about 30-40 D-Theater titles though unfortunately no direct a/b comparisons because I was lucky enough to be a poor college student during the "Summer of DVHS", so I got to skip right over buying fragile players and pricey media and go right to the superior HD-DVD format, enjoying my uncle's collection during the interlude.

So you have done no direct comparison. Yet you call HD-DVD the "superior format"?

No need to argue anymore though. I had forgotten about reading cjplay's comments, so I feel perfectly justifified in everything I've said in this thread and I feel that any further conversation on the subject would be fruitless.

You feel justified in your comments based solely on what someone else has said, instead of relying on what you might see with your own eyes if you directly compared D-Theater and HD-DVD?

You feel justified in your comments based solely on what someone else has said, instead of relying on what you might see with your own eyes if you directly compared D-Theater and HD-DVD?

Far too common of a problem around these parts. :rolleyes:

You feel justified in your comments based solely on what someone else has said

HD DVD Batman begins and POTO is Cjplay's work. Since you haven't done any butterfly comparison to the source, I naturally take Cjplay's judgement above yours.

HD DVD Batman begins and POTO is Cjplay's work. Since you haven't done any butterfly comparison to the source, I naturally take Cjplay's judgement above yours.

lol

I'm not asking you to take my judgment over his. Where did I ever say otherwise?

What I take issue with is people making these blanket statements that HD-DVD is clearly superior to D-Theater, and that everyone who owns D-Theater says so. Simply not true. And it is even worse when these statements are made by people who have not compared D-Theater to HD-DVD themselves.

Well tonite we finally got around to watching this. A few shots here and there aside this was very, very impressive looking. And the flick was better than I thought it would be.

:)

This is a fantastic transfer. And the sound is exceptional.

This is a fantastic transfer. And the sound is exceptional.

Yes, the placement of voices and background effects are very immersive.

^

Huh? You realize that 100% of the high def you watch on your cable/antenna is MPEG-2 right?

The best high definition picture I have EVER seen was an MPEG-2 encode. Who told you MPEG-2 can't look good? I take it you don't have an HDTV and HD channels?


You also realize because they use MPEG-2, motion compression is a bigger factor because of the inefficiency of the codec.