I am fascinated with the current Format War. I read every article and cruise every Audio/Video Forum for insight and other affectionados experiences. I own a Playstation 3 and like many, I bought it primarily as a Blu-Ray player. I own apx a dozen titles many of them DVD upgrades. It is my experience that the Blu-Ray Format hasnt developed a true consistancy with their picture quality. Some Blu-ray discs are down right poor (House of Flying Daggers, Saw II, Fifth Element) and some discs are absolutely stunning (Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, Aeon Flux). I like many Blu-ray fans are frustrated with the lack of picture quality consistancy. I know this is a fledgling format, but come on! Shelling out $20 to $30 a disc, you expect to have the stunning picture and awesome audio that they have been advertising. Then I read the following article and it made more sense. Please pass this link around, I think it will help those frustrated consumers like myself understand what's really going on.

http://www.avguide.com/the-perfect-vision/76/bluray.php

i have been happy with blu ray so far but the marine looked like crap

I too have been happy, because i stayed away from titles that i knew were not high-quality releases, and only bought the BDs that got overwhelmingly good reviews:

Stranger Than Fiction
NIN: Beside You in Time
The Prestige
Babel
Open Season
Reign of Fire
The Departed
Crank
The Usual Suspects
Swordfish
Black Rain
Goodfellas
Ice Age 2
Kung Fu Hustle
Black Hawk Down
Kingdom of Heaven

There isn't a poorly-produced BD in that list. Then, I bought the following titles either because they didn't receive a review, or because i liked the movie enough that, despite mediocre reviews, they were a steal, given the price i paid for them:

District B13 (Free)
Full Metal Jacket ($9.99)
Unforgiven ($9.99)
The Big Hit ($9.99)
Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back (Free)

Have you guys noticed how bad Talladega Nights is in Blu-Ray? The worst idea for Sony to include it with the PS3!!!

Not to mention the fact that the movie sucked ass! Will Farrel is so horrible!

I too have been happy, because i stayed away from titles that i knew were not high-quality releases, and only bought the BDs that got overwhelmingly good reviews

Why should they not ALL have a top notch PQ? Who wants to be as selective as you suggest? Quite frankly, if DVD had come out like this and 50% or more of those new shiny discs came out looking like VHS or worse, we'd still be watching tapes.

While I have no vested interest in either format fluorishing (I have both, so I'll win...and lose either way), I do find it fascinating that Blu-Ray hasn't been successful based upon a better presentation of its product. It has made it this far based upon promises of a better product and marketing that has been influential enough to make a great number of people to drop twice the money on a player with half of the PQ of HD-DVD. Bluray has improved. Ironically most people are finally able to flaunt CERTAIN titles on Blu-Ray as being "just as good" as its HD-DVD counterpart! The exuberance comes, no doubt, as more of a relief that the format of their choice can finally compete, and in a handful of examples, EQUAL HD-DVD's already established PQ. These are the examples that you see mentioned so often when defending Blu-Ray: Kingdom of Heaven, Ice Age 2, Fly Boys, etc.

Go over and browse HD-DVD, there are no mentions of a specific title that requires a viewing to prove the PQ point. They simply ask that you pick a title.

How is it that Blu-Ray has done so well despite such poor results? In my opinion two things: blind loyalty (either "fanboyism" or those who feel they must justify their purchase-no matter what) and STUDIO SUPPORT (which is the only reason I am a BR owner). This latter example is the ONLY reason I can see to support Blu-Ray and, ironically, they will eventually follow the $ anyway. That's until there's consistency in production by Blu-Ray, I rent BR and buy HD-DVD. If it isn't available on HD-DVD, it doesn't get bought.

One of the formats I have chosen will likely fail. I've spent hundreds of dollars on both formats, so what's a couple of hundred more (for HD-DVD movies) to serve as votes for the "Picture Perfect" winner. If I don't, and Blu-Ray wins out, I'll have to spend the rest of this format carefully reading reviews prior to selecting the movies that look good (like cyan) rather than selecting the "Burgandy Box" and knowing that it'll look outstanding.

I know this looks like I'm tru-blue HD-DVD. I'm not. I've been very disappointed with that camp for many of the hardware issues that they have had. Since the first Samsung, BR seems to have done hardware right. Toshiba is still hit-or-miss (hits: Xbox Add-on, A1, XA1 and A2; miss: XA2 (for now)). But this discussion has been started on PQ.

So FLAME ON, I know the BR faithful is gonna throw out some titles in defense of their $1000 baby. Give me a title that looks better than HD-DVD, though. After all, for twice the price you shouldn't tie should you? What about the storage argument? 50gb vs 35gb? What benefits does it bring? Why does a movie on a 35gb disc look better? Storage isn't that important, is it?

FLAME ON! And buy whichever format you deem better. The one with the most consumer support IS going to win and that's where the studios will go so they can reap the benefit$ (even Sony will release on HD-DVD if it succeeds). Just remember, whichever succeeds, you are stuck with for a while. So fall for the PQ, not the hype.

Sony actually yet produce an HD player that plays actual movies (not demos) in HD?

Maybe that new cheap model coming up?

FLAME ON!No need, all this has been covered numerous times.

No need, all this has been covered numerous times.

... ok.

Well, just watch FMJ, Perfect Storm, Jarhead on HD DVD. My feeling is that the best HD DVD titles were the ones at launch and near launch. The later ones allowed quite a few bad apples to slip through.

The later ones allowed quite a few bad apples to slip through.

Which newer ones are you referring to?

Which newer ones are you referring to?
Spartacus comes to mind (10/24/06 release date)

Which newer ones are you referring to?
Just off the top of my head, Dukes of Hazzard, U2. I can even cut some slack for Lethal Weapon, Spartacus, Animal House for their age.

I don't want to be too harsh on the worst transfers on both formats, as by now everyone should have realized that there are bad disks on both formats, and there are good disks on both.

I'm convinced that Kane is right on the issues with the transfer. IE: most of the problems with the bad disks are due to the quality of the digital master --- of course, in some cases the Digital Master was scanned from film (which may also be a sub-par print of the original film) using cheap methods instead of the 2K or 4K DI, as Joe Kane contends, and that is the the main reason for some movies not looking good.

One more time (this sure has gotten old), Blu-ray & HD DVD use the same video codes, as in SMPTE 421M, ITU-T H.262 and ITU-T H.264. The max data rate for Blu-ray is much higher than HD-DVD. The data storage for Blu-ray is much higher than HD-DVD.

Compare any of the Warner titles for both formats that used the same encode and what do you get? For many of those “Great Looking Titles” do you know if they were filtered/NR (with a small amount Gaussian noise added back [not the same as FGRT])? Do you prefer “A Great Look” or do you prefer a “True Reproduction” of the source master?

Are you aware that the majority of BD titles have lossless audio (PCM or DTS HD Master Audio), another English DD 5.1, a French DD 5.1 and a Spanish DD 5.1 sound tracks?

Spartacus comes to mind (10/24/06 release date)
For its age it looked pretty good, so do you have anything that was released in say the last 4 months?

Well, there's Miami Vice, it doesn't look completely hideous, and I have not seen in in the theatre, so I wouldn't know if it is accurate, but it's definitely below average for any highdef transfer in any format. If it is accurate to the original print (from HDCAM, processed), then I say the original print sure doesn't look very good.

Please pass this link around, I think it will help those frustrated consumers like myself understand what's really going on.

http://www.avguide.com/the-perfect-vision/76/bluray.phpI love how that article mentions that HD DVD players provide better support for DTS-HD MA. Last I checked none of the current HD DVD players support DTS-HD MA.


Quite frankly, if DVD had come out like this and 50% or more of those new shiny discs came out looking like VHS or worse, we'd still be watching tapes.No need for exaggeration and we see enough of that posted against Blu-ray in the other parts of the forum.


These are the examples that you see mentioned so often when defending Blu-Ray: Kingdom of Heaven, Ice Age 2, Fly Boys, etc.

Go over and browse HD-DVD, there are no mentions of a specific title that requires a viewing to prove the PQ point. They simply ask that you pick a title.Well yes, but than they get angry if you pick the wrong title. Let's be honest here in that one would have to be rather foolish to state that every HD DVD title looks great. There are some bad looking titles and a lot of average looking titles on HD DVD. Can you really disagree with that?


In my opinion two things: blind loyaltyOnce again I would point out that this is something not unique to Blu-ray and I can easily list you a dozen HD DVD supporters who fit the very definition of blind loyalty.


and STUDIO SUPPORT (which is the only reason I am a BR owner).That is a pretty good reason and is the difference between Blu-ray/HD DVD and VMD/EVD. Many a video format has failed for the lack of studio support.


That's until there's consistency in production by Blu-Ray, I rent BR and buy HD-DVD. If it isn't available on HD-DVD, it doesn't get bought.What were you saying about blind loyalty?


If I don't, and Blu-Ray wins out, I'll have to spend the rest of this format carefully reading reviews prior to selecting the movies that look good (like cyan) rather than selecting the "Burgandy Box" and knowing that it'll look outstanding.Now that is just BS. I know you like HD DVD but you must be kidding me if you are really suggesting every HD DVD title is an outstanding encoding.


I know this looks like I'm tru-blue HD-DVD. I'm not.Call me skeptical. After all from what you just posted you are a HD DVD supporter who buys every HD DVD title blind since you "know" that it will be outstanding and who only rents Blu-ray titles.


Just remember, whichever succeeds, you are stuck with for a while.Traditionally this is an argument for Blu-ray.

Early DVD was more hit or miss IMHO.

Early DVD was more hit or miss IMHO.

Agree

blu ray is winning the format nuff said due to PQ and the ability to have a storage base.

blu ray is winning the format nuff said due to PQ and the ability to have a storage base.

. . . due to PQ?

. . . due to PQ?
yes....look at sales everyone loves blu ray. :)

... .
You spent alot of time here Rick. I guess we hit a tender spot. :rolleyes:

Why should they not ALL have a top notch PQ? Who wants to be as selective as you suggest? Quite frankly, if DVD had come out like this and 50% or more of those new shiny discs came out looking like VHS or worse, we'd still be watching tapes.

DVD did have plenty of releases that looked like VHS. It was completely hit or miss. And HD DVD has just as many misses as BD does. Of all the HD content I have purchased thusfar, I've only returned 2 purchases due to underwhelming PQ: Spartacus, and Enter the Dragon...both HD DVDs.


It has made it this far based upon promises of a better product and marketing that has been influential enough to make a great number of people to drop twice the money on a player with half of the PQ of HD-DVD.

This was true last November, not now. Both formats are on equal ground with PQ today, and with BD having more titles coming, the PQ edge now goes to BD because they stand to have many more top-tier releases than HD DVD does simply because HD DVD has so few titles coming.

Go over and browse HD-DVD, there are no mentions of a specific title that requires a viewing to prove the PQ point. They simply ask that you pick a title.

Unless you pick one of the dozens of titles with terrible PQ.

How is it that Blu-Ray has done so well despite such poor results? In my opinion two things: blind loyalty (either "fanboyism" or those who feel they must justify their purchase-no matter what) and STUDIO SUPPORT (which is the only reason I am a BR owner). This latter example is the ONLY reason I can see to support Blu-Ray and, ironically, they will eventually follow the $ anyway. That's until there's consistency in production by Blu-Ray, I rent BR and buy HD-DVD. If it isn't available on HD-DVD, it doesn't get bought.

Why? Nowadays the BD versions of dual-format releases are all equal in quality to the HD DVD (a la 'Babel'), and in some cases better. ('The Departed,' 'NIN'), because the dual-format supporting studios are using the same encodes for both releases. So now, the capacity difference is allowing them to include different audio tracks (PCM on Departed) or different special features (better camera angle switching and better peak bitrates on NIN BD), or lower prices on the BD version where the HD DVD version is a combo release. Buying these dual-format releases on HD DVD no longer presents a PQ or AQ advantage; all it does it increase price paid and the probability that it will be obsolete. Would you rather have 'The Departed' on HD DVD for $40, or the exact same PQ, arguably slightly better AQ, and a $5 lower price and get the BD?

This doesn't even touch on the fact that when TV becomes huge on the HD formats, TV shows will require less discs on BD that it will on HD DVD.

One of the formats I have chosen will likely fail. I've spent hundreds of dollars on both formats, so what's a couple of hundred more (for HD-DVD movies) to serve as votes for the "Picture Perfect" winner. If I don't, and Blu-Ray wins out, I'll have to spend the rest of this format carefully reading reviews prior to selecting the movies that look good (like cyan) rather than selecting the "Burgandy Box" and knowing that it'll look outstanding.

Many things wrong with this comment:
1) I don't read reviews prior to buying. I manage a retail store, i get my copy way before the reviews are posted, and often before the reviewers receive their copies. I just take home the titles that i want, and if i am disappointed, I bring them back on street date and don't buy them. Like i said, I've only been burned twice by having to return a title, and it was HD DVD both times.
2) "Picture Perfect" winner?? Here you are again implying that HD DVD has superior PQ. It's not November 2006 anymore. I think the commonly-accepted best-looking titles over both formats are the following:
Hulk, King Kong, Casablanca, The Searchers, Crank, Open Season, Prestige, NIN and Kingdom of Heaven. (possibly add Batman and Black Hawk Down to that list, among a few others), but either way it's pretty close for PQ: 5 tier-0 HD DVDs and 6 for BD (with Casablanca likely getting a BD release later).

So FLAME ON, I know the BR faithful is gonna throw out some titles in defense of their $1000 baby. Give me a title that looks better than HD-DVD, though. After all, for twice the price you shouldn't tie should you? What about the storage argument? 50gb vs 35gb?

First of all, there is no such thing as a 35GB HD DVD. Second, BD hardware is just as cheap on the low end ($500) and just as expensive on the high end ($1000) as HD DVD. Personally, my HD DVD player and my BD player both cost exactly the same amount. $600. For that $600 i got a much better BD player than I did an HD DVD player.

I have several friends whove adopted HD DVD or BD. I only have two friends whove adopted both, and both of those spent less on their BD players than they did on their HD DVD players (Both paid $600 for a 360+drive, and both spent $500 on a 20Gb PS3). Though this is only an isolated example, it just goes to show that the hardware prices are not as stratified as the HD DVD camp would like you to believe.

Finally, the storage argument...
2x capacity has nothing to do with 2x PQ, as 15GB has been proven adequate to hold a full-length properly encoded film transfer. On the other hand, when i start using BD or HD DVD blank media for storage of PC data, I'll have to do half as many burns if i'm using a BD, half as many disc-printing jobs, and order blank media half as often. the blank media will cost the same price once it becomes used with some regularity by the public, so BD is obviously a far superior alternative as a PC storage medium.

FLAME ON! And buy whichever format you deem better.

No flaming necessary. I bought both formats, as both are very impressive.

The one with the most consumer support IS going to win and that's where the studios will go so they can reap the benefit

Apparently the studios have already gone, they are all in the BD camp except for one.

That article says that HD DVD 1080p is at 60Hz. Not really true. The disc are all 1080p@24Hz encoded. This is only a current availabe player limitation, not a format limitation which is what the article is about.

That article says that HD DVD 1080p is at 60Hz. Not really true. The disc are all 1080p@24Hz encoded. This is only a current available player limitation, not a format limitation which is what the article is about.


hmmm doesn't the LG output at 1080P 24? My dad has one but no 1080P24 TV. Also, the only people who would argue whether Blue Ray is anywhere near the consistency of HD-DVD PQ wise are those with only Blue Ray players. Those that have both know the truth. As I've said before, go buy a mid-90's made Blue Ray title(the best you can find) then go watch Waterworld. Holly Crap is it great looking...and sounding! Especially the LIMES!!!!!!

HOFD isnt that bad... i dont see what everyones complaining about.. I think some people are a little to picky.. But hey this is America and we can all have our own opinions. I do agree that the Fifth Element does look bad. It is also one of my favorite flicks.

I am fascinated with the current Format War. I read every article and cruise every Audio/Video Forum for insight and other affectionados experiences. I own a Playstation 3 and like many, I bought it primarily as a Blu-Ray player. I own apx a dozen titles many of them DVD upgrades. It is my experience that the Blu-Ray Format hasnt developed a true consistancy with their picture quality. Some Blu-ray discs are down right poor (House of Flying Daggers, Saw II, Fifth Element) and some discs are absolutely stunning (Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, Aeon Flux). I like many Blu-ray fans are frustrated with the lack of picture quality consistancy. I know this is a fledgling format, but come on! Shelling out $20 to $30 a disc, you expect to have the stunning picture and awesome audio that they have been advertising. Then I read the following article and it made more sense. Please pass this link around, I think it will help those frustrated consumers like myself understand what's really going on.

http://www.avguide.com/the-perfect-vision/76/bluray.php

SDKelly, I noticed the titles you mentioned to have bad quality are all older launch titles. And I think we all agree that those weren't as good as they should have been.

But you'd see that almost every recent release has had very good quality.

Quite frankly, if DVD had come out like this and 50% or more of those new shiny discs came out looking like VHS or worse, we'd still be watching tapes.You need to do some serious research before making such statements. What do you think the ratio of releases was between anamorphic vs 1.33 was in the early days? What source do you believe early DVD's were made from. How long for DL DVD's?

It is apparent you did not participate in the battles of standard DVD vs DIVX DVD or anamorphic vs 1.33 DVD's.

You spent alot of time here Rick. I guess we hit a tender spot. :rolleyes:
You didn't hit a tender spot with Richard. It's just that many of us get sick and tired of BS being spread. I've seen you make many of your bogus claims before. It doesn't help anyone when you just spout ill-advised opinions as if they are fact.

why is this thread still open..??

Well, there's Miami Vice, it doesn't look completely hideous, and I have not seen in in the theatre, so I wouldn't know if it is accurate, but it's definitely below average for any highdef transfer in any format. If it is accurate to the original print (from HDCAM, processed), then I say the original print sure doesn't look very good.
I haven't seen "Miami Vice" on disc (not even sure which format(s) it's out on) but I did see it digitally projected in the theater and it looked terrible (intentionally). I'd be willing to wager that the HD disc is pretty faithful to the theatrical look.

I haven't seen "Miami Vice" on disc (not even sure which format(s) it's out on) but I did see it digitally projected in the theater and it looked terrible (intentionally). I'd be willing to wager that the HD disc is pretty faithful to the theatrical look.
I've seen Miami Vice in two different theaters and on disc. To my eyes, the HD DVD release looks exactly as I remembered it looking in theaters. I for one am glad that Universal didn't alter its look to please the anti-grain crowd.

I think that the contention is if there are two methods to get the digital master

Method A :
Camera -> DI2K | DI4K -> printed film ->scan1920x1080

Method B :
Camera ->DI2K | DI4K --> scale1920x1080

Method B is working in the digital domain. Method A would have another generation loss since there is a final printed film analog format that is used to create the master.

Does this summarize the scope of the options? If this is the issue, then those studios should be working with pre-finalprint DI instead of the final printed film.

You didn't hit a tender spot with Richard. It's just that many of us get sick and tired of BS being spread. I've seen you make many of your bogus claims before. It doesn't help anyone when you just spout ill-advised opinions as if they are fact.

Another comment that cracks me up. If you've disagreed with me before, why didn't you step up and provide counterpoints? Why do it now? My guess is because you are now surrounded by those of like-mind and feel more comfortable doing so here. I'm in other forums. I welcome your input all the time. If you think any of my points are "bogus", you should say so (on other forums as well). I might learn something from you. I come to AVS to learn. If I voice my OPINION - especially when opinions are the point of the OP - then that is all it is, my opinion. Nothing bogus about it. I do not lie to you about my opinion even though you may not agree. You need to learn to be more comfortable with differing opinions. Please speak up any time you perceive me as providing "ill-advised advice". I applaud you for finally stepping up and calling me out, it was very manly. Good job

This is pathetic. I posted what I described as my OPINION, now you consider it fact? Everyone here is voicing an opinion, mine is just different. Mine is the same as many others, just not yours. In no way does my opinion that HD-DVD's PQ is superior represent an quantitative measurement other than what I see. Before you start again, my display is good quality and it has been professionally calibrated. My eyesight is fine. I'm glad we have those points covered.

My main point was an agreement with the OP who also doesn't feel that BR is all it is hyped up to be, so I'm not alone. Of all the titles I have seen (and no, I haven't seen them all), HD-DVD is simply better and BR (for the most part) has been a disappointment. I'm firm on that opinion. Most if not all of the same title reviews that I have seen (no, I haven't read them all) indicate the same. So, again, I'm not alone. When buying a BR player (or HD-DVD player), you are dropping $500-$1500 for what, improved PQ, right? If one is cheaper and by nearly all accounts is doing it better, would you spend more for "Brand Loyalty"? I realize BR has improved, what I was trying to get across was (IN MY OPINION) how unbelievable it was that people remained loyal to BR even when it clearly had an inferior PQ AND was more expensive.

BR survived (through 2006 at least) on hype and marketing. Even your posts here have referred to November 2006 as some sort of quality turning point, what did you guys own prior to then? How were you engaged in defending BR then? These are the people I refer to as "blindly loyal".

You need to do some serious research before making such statements. What do you think the ratio of releases was between anamorphic vs 1.33 was in the early days? What source do you believe early DVD's were made from. How long for DL DVD's?

It is apparent you did not participate in the battles of standard DVD vs DIVX DVD or anamorphic vs 1.33 DVD's.
ummm...you got me there Wendell. I will no longer depend on my eyeballs and I will now, at your request, simply utilize my knowledge of statistical methods in formulating my next opinion in regards to....what was the subject of this thread again....ah, yes! Picture quality.

I bow to you. You are clearly more experienced in format wars which I, alas, was too young to participate in. I do, however, salute you "veterans" and I appreciate your hard work in the wars. I do apologize as I must have missed the requirement to comment as for "War Veterans Only". I hope to someday be like you, correcting some young whippersnapper in the 3D wars and telling my kids how I participated in the HD format wars.

**I will now leave so that you guys can comment to yourselves and all agree in peace and harmony. I do apologize for my differing opinion that has now cut you to the quick. Cheer up and look at the bright side. BluRay is winning, right?

Ah, another candidate makes the journey to my "Honors List" (aka AVS Ignore List). ;)

If you've disagreed with me before, why didn't you step up and provide counterpoints?
I did provide counterpoints before during our conversation about grain. I asked you a simple question and then you exploded in your belief that many BD transfers have grain not in the original source. You said things like "get your head out of the sand," and made other immature comments without even knowing what in the hell you were talking about. Ever since then, I realized I should never try to argue with someone as irrational as you. That's why I made my comment in this thread.

Another comment that cracks me up. If you've disagreed with me before, why didn't you step up and provide counterpoints? Why do it now? My guess is because you are now surrounded by those of like-mind and feel more comfortable doing so here. I'm in other forums. I welcome your input all the time. If you think any of my points are "bogus", you should say so (on other forums as well). I might learn something from you. I come to AVS to learn. If I voice my OPINION - especially when opinions are the point of the OP - then that is all it is, my opinion. Nothing bogus about it. I do not lie to you about my opinion even though you may not agree. You need to learn to be more comfortable with differing opinions. Please speak up any time you perceive me as providing "ill-advised advice". I applaud you for finally stepping up and calling me out, it was very manly. Good job

This is pathetic. I posted what I described as my OPINION, now you consider it fact? Everyone here is voicing an opinion, mine is just different. Mine is the same as many others, just not yours. In no way does my opinion that HD-DVD's PQ is superior represent an quantitative measurement other than what I see. Before you start again, my display is good quality and it has been professionally calibrated. My eyesight is fine. I'm glad we have those points covered.

My main point was an agreement with the OP who also doesn't feel that BR is all it is hyped up to be, so I'm not alone. Of all the titles I have seen (and no, I haven't seen them all), HD-DVD is simply better and BR (for the most part) has been a disappointment. I'm firm on that opinion. Most if not all of the same title reviews that I have seen (no, I haven't read them all) indicate the same. So, again, I'm not alone. When buying a BR player (or HD-DVD player), you are dropping $500-$1500 for what, improved PQ, right? If one is cheaper and by nearly all accounts is doing it better, would you spend more for "Brand Loyalty"? I realize BR has improved, what I was trying to get across was (IN MY OPINION) how unbelievable it was that people remained loyal to BR even when it clearly had an inferior PQ AND was more expensive.

BR survived (through 2006 at least) on hype and marketing. Even your posts here have referred to November 2006 as some sort of quality turning point, what did you guys own prior to then? How were you engaged in defending BR then? These are the people I refer to as "blindly loyal".


ummm...you got me there Wendell. I will no longer depend on my eyeballs and I will now, at your request, simply utilize my knowledge of statistical methods in formulating my next opinion in regards to....what was the subject of this thread again....ah, yes! Picture quality.

I bow to you. You are clearly more experienced in format wars which I, alas, was too young to participate in. I do, however, salute you "veterans" and I appreciate your hard work in the wars. I do apologize as I must have missed the requirement to comment as for "War Veterans Only". I hope to someday be like you, correcting some young whippersnapper in the 3D wars and telling my kids how I participated in the HD format wars.

**I will now leave so that you guys can comment to yourselves and all agree in peace and harmony. I do apologize for my differing opinion that has now cut you to the quick. Cheer up and look at the bright side. BluRay is winning, right?

"BluRay is winning, right?"
Yes. Reading your post convinces me.

"Everyone here is voicing an opinion, mine is just different. "
3rd amendment still seems to be valid unless one's an enemy combatant.

3 things:

1. Yes, BD supporting studios did release some BD with ****** PQ.
I.e. 5th Element.

I love this movie, however, I won't buy & perhaps wait for re-do.

However, HD DVD format PQ >> BD format is a WEAK, very WEAK argument at this point. It has already been pretty much proven by folks... It makes me think how desperate you are to argue with this point.

2. You seem to insinuate.... If we go for BD, BD releases will be either a hit or miss all the time because there's no HD DVD to compete or compare against.
And you don't want to go online to read reviews...

I don't think so. People don't have money growing in back yard (ok some do) to blindly buy. Once rental market gets going with HD, folks will become more choosy & likely to purchase after viewing it first.

Currently, HD are not readily available in local video rentals, and people don't know how good, bad the PQ is until you hear from experts or forums like this.

After seeing it once or reading from experts/forums that PQ is not good. People are NOT going to buy, instead they may just rent once and be done.
Studios do understand this.


3. HD HW cost...

You may not realize this but, there are and will always be different grade of HW at different cost.

There will always be mecedes, porche, ferraris and fords, hondas and toyotas.

Lately mecedes have been hammered with quality issues, why don't you go convince mecede owners or tell them, they are better off buying honda accords...

Say it out loud in front of mecedes dealer, you fools! you fools! hondas are just as good or better!!

In the same sense, there are high-end AV equipment that will always distingush themselves from mid-end and lower end.

I'm sure with either HD DVD or BD, the cheapers players are coming. No doubt.
Perhaps, you will jump on it because it's cheap...oh, ok, not you, but your plain old general public will...thus this will change the game? Right?

Well, the plain old general public will depend on BB, CC, retail sales guys, or techincally inclined friend or relative, unless one is an *******, he or she will try to provide unbiased opinion, and guess what will weigh in the end? $200 or # of studios studio support....

4. Some argue that BD or HD DVD may end up being like DVD-A or SACD.
That, it's possible that main stream won't adapt either of them like DVD-A or SACD. Perhaps people will be be content with downloaded, highly compressed video. I don't think so. Here is why:

A. Video is easily discernable vs audio.
1080P is clearly distingushable from 480P...
You see on large screen, you immediately notice.
You and I are not the only ones who want big screen.
EVERYONE wants AS BIG AS they can afford.

B. Video viewing experience is much more enchanced by discrete, seperate channles like right, left, rear, front.

However, 99% of audio experience whether from live concerts or tv does not depend on discrete channels.

I.e. Do beethoven symphony #5 sounds better if you place the violin front right, cello rear left?

However, do your movie viewing expericence get enchanced when bullets come from rear left?

C. How about IPOD and MP3? People embraced these compressed lower quality audio than high quality DVD-A or SACD?

Yes, it showed everyone that for convenicence & portability, people are willing to sacrifice quality. However, this will be different from video.

Why (another one?)?

Potable IPOD, MP3 audio listening is part-time, enchancing experience. You jog, do your homework. You can do something else, IPOD just makes it better.

I.e. Driving & listening.

Hightly compressed, potable video is full time experience. You try jogging and watching a movie at the same time.

I.e. Driving & video watching -> not recommended, illegal in some places.

My 3cents.

The point about PQ is not that HD-DVD has better quality overall than BD (it doesn't - in fact, Crank, The Prestige, and Open Season are all open challenges to HD-DVD's Seabiscuit and King Kong for best PQ in HD-land).

What we're really discussing is the decisions of the studios.

Really the only two studios that have really taken PQ under their wing on both sides are Universal for HD-DVD and Disney for Blu-ray. The rest of the releases from the other studios seem a lot more hit and miss for PQ; it's just more noticeable for Blu-ray since there are more studios releasing on the format, plus Universal's very aggressive release schedule last year gives them a larger representation for HD-DVD than Disney does for Blu-ray.

PQ will improve over time, regardless. Compressionists will learn more tricks to get the most out of the newer encoding schemes, and better ways to milk more performance out of both disc formats.

The statement about dvd being clearly superior over vhs at launch is innacurate. There were many non anamorphic transfers that looked horrid and many of these were from major studios. Disney has set the bd bar high and the rest will follow. This doesnt mean all titles will be reference overnight. DVD certainly still has the odd poor quality title but far fewer than it used to. HD screens and sources like pvr and ota has put pressure on the studios to weed out the bd stinkers quicker - dvd had no such pressure. Remember many studios are just now getting the best from dvd and the mastering process using computers --an example is the remastered Bond sets. BD has a very bright future but reading reviews for quality information will be required for some time...hd dvd has no advantage there.