Not sure if this posted...but this was an interesting read on Ars Technica. At a Microsoft hosted get together to showcase the 360 against the PS3, a gaming writer said he couldn't really tell the difference between the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD version of Mission Impossible 3.

"We watched the same scene on both systems—the part with the gunfight on the bridge—and flipped back and forth as we went. They freeze-framed a few scenes for me, and tried to explain the difference, such as more detail in the blacker areas on the HD DVD. While the Blu-ray image looked a bit sharp to me when paused, I was hard pressed to tell the difference between the two; the image quality was beautiful across the board. I couldn't tell if they were amused, proud, or horrified when I would frequently get confused about which system's image we were looking at as we flipped back and forth. I gave up trying to take notes on the minute differences between the two and admitted that they were so close it was almost indistinguishable."

http://arstechnica.com/articles/headstart.ars/1

Well, that's no surprise. The reviews say they're very close, if not identical.

Mpeg2 encodes are doing very well lately.........

Mpeg2 encodes are doing very well lately.........

At almost double the bitrates, they better be. AFAIK, the MPEG2 avg was 4Mbps higher than the peak of VC-1 on this title.
Someone said Paramount made a conscience decision to use MPEG2 on the Bluray version for the sake of PQ. It seems they failed that purpose on this title even when boosting the bitrates so high. If they really care about the PQ, they should use high bitrate VC1 on the bluray version instead of MPEG2.

Uh, if all the reviews come out indistinguishable, why should they have done anything different? :confused: I can confirm that there is no difference,either on a reference level setup (ISF calibrated Qualia 004 from Panny BD/Tosh A1) and a personal setup (60" SXRD from PS3/360 add-on).

4Mbps is double?

4Mbps is double?

He mentioned ABR of 4Mbps above peak.

e.g. if the ABR in MPEG2 is 28Mbps, then the PBR of the VC1 encode is 24Mbps... The ABR would be lower... maybe in the 16Mbps range.

Cheers...
Duy-Khang Hoang

Not sure if this posted...but this was an interesting read on Ars Technica. At a Microsoft hosted get together to showcase the 360 against the PS3, a gaming writer said he couldn't really tell the difference between the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD version of Mission Impossible 3.

"We watched the same scene on both systems—the part with the gunfight on the bridge—and flipped back and forth as we went. They freeze-framed a few scenes for me, and tried to explain the difference, such as more detail in the blacker areas on the HD DVD. While the Blu-ray image looked a bit sharp to me when paused, I was hard pressed to tell the difference between the two; the image quality was beautiful across the board. I couldn't tell if they were amused, proud, or horrified when I would frequently get confused about which system's image we were looking at as we flipped back and forth. I gave up trying to take notes on the minute differences between the two and admitted that they were so close it was almost indistinguishable."

http://arstechnica.com/articles/headstart.ars/1

He might need glasses.

Without a doubt there is a difference in HD-DVD's favor. It's really hard to tell, and you have to be looking for it. To me that means not much difference.

Although now I wonder what I'd see difference wise with the XA2 playing it. That machine is impressive.

if you have to LOOK for a difference, then you will find it. but I think the vast majority of avg consumers with no vested interest in either format ( IE not AVS nerds) will not be able to tell the difference. and thats what matters right? since avg consumers are the ones who will make or break either format. It's like asking my brother which sounds better, DVD-A or SACD. to him they sound exactly the same.

He might need glasses.

Without a doubt there is a difference in HD-DVD's favor. It's really hard to tell, and you have to be looking for it. To me that means not much difference.



Second opinion: Peter Bracke:

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

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/missionimpossibleiii.html
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/missionimpossibleiii.html

At almost double the bitrates, they better be. AFAIK, the MPEG2 avg was 4Mbps higher than the peak of VC-1 on this title.Last time I checked, ABR of MI3 for BD is about 21Mbps and HD DVD is about 17Mbps. Is 17Mbps of HD DVD peak bit rate?

MPEGII can look superb. This is easily verifiable by looking at Off-The-Air network broadcasts. And their bit rate is none too high either.

I think the issue for Blu-ray has been lack of experience with a new demanding and revealing format, poor mastering and lack of quality control. These issues are being worked on and should soon be put behind us. Thanks go to the HD-Dvd camp for setting such a high initial standard.

Seriously WHO CARES THEY BOTH LOOK AWSOME AND HAVE THE SAME STUFF ON EACH DISC....PERIOD.

I don't care if the bitrate is higher to get the picture better as long as the HD does not suffer.

Put this Bull$hit argument to rest already.

Seriously WHO CARES THEY BOTH LOOK AWSOME AND HAVE THE SAME STUFF ON EACH DISC....PERIOD.

I don't care if the bitrate is higher to get the picture better as long as the HD does not suffer.

Put this Bull$hit argument to rest already.hear hear, too many fanboys on these forums arguing like little kids

At almost double the bitrates, they better be. AFAIK, the MPEG2 avg was 4Mbps higher than the peak of VC-1 on this title.
Someone said Paramount made a conscience decision to use MPEG2 on the Bluray version for the sake of PQ. It seems they failed that purpose on this title even when boosting the bitrates so high. If they really care about the PQ, they should use high bitrate VC1 on the bluray version instead of MPEG2.

Only double?

What happened to "3 times as efficient"? :D

Seriously WHO CARES THEY BOTH LOOK AWSOME AND HAVE THE SAME STUFF ON EACH DISC....PERIOD.

I don't care if the bitrate is higher to get the picture better as long as the HD does not suffer.

Put this Bull$hit argument to rest already.

Thank you. That's pretty much the reason why I posted this article.

So they're pretty much equal in picture quality. What about how they compare for interactive features? Does that not count?

This just shows that BD fanboys can't have there cake and eat it too.

For so long I heard how BD will offer more space AND less discs AND higher quality.

The truth is BD can potentially provide one not all three. In this case the studio sacrificed more space and less discs to provide a higher bitrate in the attempt to provide higher quality, despite the second encode both versions are essentially are the same. BD despite it's higher cost, complexity and lower yields simply brings NOTHING to the table.

Gone are they days when BD was going to blow HD DVD away now it's fans are happy with being equal to the "inferior" HD DVD.

Someone said Paramount made a conscience decision to use MPEG2 on the Bluray version for the sake of PQ.

I recall that being posted and I believe the person making that statement stated something as fact that was, in fact, an assumption based on a few bits of info gleaned from other messages by other people. To the best of my knowledge, the only conscious decision made by Paramount for the Blu-ray versions of their HD releases so far was to have their BD versions authored by Sony. Sony does not author (for commercial production) in anything but MPEG-2 at this time. Saying that Paramount consciously chose MPEG-2 based on using an authoring house that only uses MPEG-2 is something of a stretch.

1. There is a massive difference between the HD-DVD and BD version: The HD-DVD has a different PiP commentary track that is much better than the BD commentary track.

2. The XA2 vs the Pioneer BD....

There is now a noticable difference in PQ. Before you had to look hard, but not anymore. I'd say MI:3 is a 10 in PQ, and the BD is a 9 now.

There is definately a difference, and a better source device shows it off.

Of course, a better BD device could do the same thing, we just don't know.

Only double?

What happened to "3 times as efficient"? :D

I believe the 3 times as efficient was an upper boundary and more for cases compared at lower bitrates... an area where VC1 and AVC both shine. At higher bitrates there will be diminishing returns as the image is already satisfied by the bitrates provided.

Cheers...
Duy-Khang Hoang

Do you believe the bitrate is "double" or that such is most likely hyperbole?

So they're pretty much equal in picture quality. What about how they compare for interactive features? Does that not count?

I'm sure it counts for some people. For people like myself who only occasionally utilize those features, it doesn't mean that much. My main concern is the PQ and AQ of the main picture.

Since Paramount used Sony's lab to encode MI3 and WTC their is a difference in encode time with respect to productivity. Sony uses realtime hardware mpeg2 encoders. This allows them to crank out titles faster by simply increasing bitrates. In turn the studio can have faster turnaround time. Sure mpeg2 eats up more room but post houses and studios see value in productvity. Realtime hardware vs. >6x realtime software. A 2 day encode vs. a 2 week encode. The less needed hand tuning a title needs the faster the turnaound is. Time is money.

Since Paramount used Sony's lab to encode MI3 and WTC their is a difference in encode time with respect to productivity. Sony uses realtime hardware mpeg2 encoders. This allows them to crank out titles faster by simply increasing bitrates. In turn the studio can have faster turnaround time. Sure mpeg2 eats up more room but post houses and studios see value in productvity. Realtime hardware vs. >6x realtime software. A 2 day encode vs. a 2 week encode. The less needed hand tuning a title needs the faster the turnaound is. Time is money.

I seriously do not have any clue as to what percent of the cost of producing a HDDVD/Blueray DVD the encode is for a movie like MI3. It doesn't seem like it was a big enough deal that doing a second encode makes much difference. We even seem to be seeing international releases springing for another encode in the case of Syriana on HDDVD. It just doesn't seem like the cost of the encode is that big of a deal?

A 2 day encode vs. a 2 week encode. The less needed hand tuning a title needs the faster the turnaound is. Time is money.

Whether the encode is 2 days or two weeks, I would think the encode time and cost would be insignificant compared to the time and cost to restore film elements and create a suitable master. If I spend six months restoring a film does it really matter that I can save eight days of labor on the encode? How much do compressionists make?