I dont want to create an issue, but I hear both ends a lot. At this point, I would like to get a HD-DVD player, but I don't want an expensive paper weight. I have read comparison articles, and from what I have seen, it's 99% preference. But I know that the consumers make the end decision of what will win. So, PLEASE, no bashing and unless you can post a simple reply. Any bashing of the other format and I will see if I can get reply locked out and only votes allowed. I don't want to, but I will if I have to. Intelligent criticism is OK. 2 examples are below.
Blu-Ray is better because the space allowed on a disk allows room for more content and higher bit-rates for better movies!
HD-VD is better because the VC-1 compression that is used on all or most movies allows better quality videos that use less space!
Now, I will be monitoring this and as soon as I feel it's getting out of hand I will post a reply simply saying "WARNING". After that, I will see about locking out replies.

I started out HD DVD only with the A1. Sold my A1 and got the A2 and the 360 add on. Since then, I have owned the Sammy BD player, the Sony BD player, And the PS3.

The 360 addon is a piece of garbage. I'm not the only one who feels this way.

The A2 is a great player. Never had any hiccups. I was happy with it.

The Sammy Player was pretty good and so was the Sony.

I finally settled on the PS3. Best player out of the whole lot I have owned. I have since gone Blu Ray Exclusive, returning my A2, 360 addon, and selling my HD DVD discs. I am never looking back.

Now with that said I have had a lot of experience testing both formats finding a player and movies thats right for me.

After all of this I have come to the conclusion that Blu Ray and HD DVD look identical. Now you are going to have people talk about The Fifth Element, House of Flying Daggers, and the like....But what HD DVD fans don't like to admit....they have some real stinkers too.

With the exception of the Samsung, there is zero difference in image quality between the formats/players when viewing the same transfer and codec.

This is a stupid poll, it all depends on the transfer, not on which physical disc it is on.

I started out HD DVD only with the A1. Sold my A1 and got the A2 and the 360 add on. Since then, I have owned the Sammy BD player, the Sony BD player, And the PS3.

I finally settled on the PS3. Best player out of the whole lot I have owned. I have since gone Blu Ray Exclusive, returning my A2, 360 addon, and selling my HD DVD discs. I am never looking back.
Sounds like you should be on BB's watch list :rolleyes:

This pole would be better if we had alot of movies to compare the too. ( hint, hint )

Blu-Ray is better because the space allowed on a disk allows room for more content and higher bit-rates for better movies!

Everything else is pretty much secondary.

Sounds like you should be on BB's watch list :rolleyes:

If you mean Best Buy...then yeah I should. Hey, they are the ones offering the return policy.

This is a stupid poll, it all depends on the transfer, not on which physical disc it is on.
You beat me to it. The only correct answer is "neither."

I voted HD-DVD due to the more consistent quality of their software (VC1 use helps out a lot here) though there indications Blu-ray is improving.

I don't know to be honest, I own a HD DVD HTPC and it looks fantastic for the most part, and I have only seen Blu Ray on one occasion on a big Plasma in a store and it looked pathetic. I will have to wait until I can make a proper comparison, preferably in my own HT.

I voted HD-DVD due to the more consistent quality of their software (VC1 use helps out a lot here) though there indications Blu-ray is improving.

Please could you take you FUD and go to a different forum. Blu-ray (sans TFE/HoFD) has been pretty much on par with HD DVD in terms of PQ. VC-1 is not the be all and end all of PQ, do not let the MS shills convince you otherwise!

I voted HD-DVD due to the more consistent quality of their software (VC1 use helps out a lot here) though there indications Blu-ray is improving.

Mpeg2 aswell as AVC holds up very well when compared to VC1. Some of the best transfers on BD are mpeg...So I don't understand your logic.

Neither format is correctly written, so I went with neither.
So far they both have given the same performance when tallying up over 500 individual reviews from both formats.
Blu-ray scores better in the audio though, due to more consistent usage of lossless codecs.

This should have been a public poll, that way you can see who is being honest and who is just voting for their team.


I am a PS3 owner, and I voted neither, because there is no difference between the formats in respect to video quality.

I too, voted neither because it all depends on the transfer.

I voted neither because PQ is not format dependant.

The merits of each format should be decided on a title to title basis. Overall, from my own experience, the two are a wash, therefore I picked poll option 3.

"Neither" is the only practical answer to the question as it's written.

Unless of course you're talking about Blue vs Red, in which case, I'd have to go with Blue being a better color.

Well, I should mention that I would be getting the 360 HD add on, BUT the closest thing I have with HD video is my PC monitor. Other then that, I will show it off on 1080I TV's, so the 360 handling the video conversion is something I will deal with and am not to concerned with.
As for BD audio, I have seen a lot of things saying that it's handled better on BD. I have also read that to tell the difference, you need to be an audio nut, and I am not one and neither is anyone I would show it off to.
People are correct in saying it's how it's transferred that makes the quality, that's why I have the third option in the poll. But, as of now with the movie counts going up on both media how they look now allows an idea of what is planed foe future transfers.
As for VC1 not being as good when compared to MPEG2, I don't see that being the case. I see them more as equal, when used properly but MPEG takes a lot more space, and size does not equal quality. Then again, I have been limited to my exposure of HD disks.
How about someone compares Superman Returns. It's on both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

Now, I must say I am happy that people are being respectful with responses.

Both deliver excellent PQ and neither has an advantage over the other. BD hasn't had any more inconsistency than HDDVD since at least October/November.

BD has been more consistent with lossless soundtracks (and I'm an increasing fan of PCM now that I have the option available to me via my new HDMI receiver), though. :D

What will be interesting is how both formats perform quality-wise over time and on average. I agree that both have the potential to deliver all you could want or perceive. It then comes down to the care lavished or denied each.

Extras are another matter also, now were being sold a formats, in a sense every release is a spokes-person for it's respective format. However, copious extras cost money, and just as on DVD studio's aren't going to put out more than they can hope too get in return. So it begs the question "If this is how you treat me when I have a choice, how will you treat me when I don't?"

So far I see all the studios behaving exactly as they have done with SD in terms of pricing, quality, and content. It really takes a major gutting for change to occour.

The differences we see between the formats with regard to image/audio quality are not format related.

Neither format is correctly written, so I went with neither.
So far they both have given the same performance when tallying up over 500 individual reviews from both formats.
Blu-ray scores better in the audio though, due to more consistent usage of lossless codecs.

Wow we actually agree on something for a change. Has Hell frozen over?

Please could you take you FUD and go to a different forum. Blu-ray (sans TFE/HoFD) has been pretty much on par with HD DVD in terms of PQ. VC-1 is not the be all and end all of PQ, do not let the MS shills convince you otherwise!


Does AVC have a team you can go to to help optimize the encodes on your movie? Does Mpeg2?

I don't believe they do, at least not to the same extent as MS is supporting their product. I suppose one could argue that the most important VC-1 advantage isn't in it's algorithms, it's in the extra quality-control that Microsoft provides that the other codecs don't.

I know some people have a pathological hatred for MS, and insist on constant passive aggressive attacks on their employees, (i'm not saying you are this way.) But I think more neutral people might find it to be an advantage that MS provides an extra layer of quality control to releases that use their codec.

BTW, I vote "neither", as they seem about the same to me.

Skogan, I really don't like MS, but it's completely related to parts of MS. IE, I think they should do a lot better with there OS's and Office programs before they release them. But, XBox 360, games from MS, and some other things like the VC-1 codec tend to be rather well made. I have to admit it when MS comes out with something good so I don't come off as a hater. I have seen some things from both formats, and to me from what I saw HD-DVD looked better. I came here because I know people here have more experience and knowledge dealing with this stuff then I do and I don't want to jump into something when there is something with a deficient yes, and I get the defiant no.
I guess overall it's nice to know that both formats are being seen as storage devices, nothing else. They both provide the same thing in the end, it's how the things in the middle make it that matters, not how it's stored. With this knowledge, it looks more like I will support HD-DVD, because of it's cost vs quality. I take excellent care of my disks.

Does AVC have a team you can go to to help optimize the encodes on your movie? Does Mpeg2?

I don't believe they do, at least not to the same extent as MS is supporting their product. I suppose one could argue that the most important VC-1 advantage isn't in it's algorithms, it's in the extra quality-control that Microsoft provides that the other codecs don't.

I know some people have a pathological hatred for MS, and insist on constant passive aggressive attacks on their employees, (i'm not saying you are this way.) But I think more neutral people might find it to be an advantage that MS provides an extra layer of quality control to releases that use their codec.

Panasonic Hollywood labs might disagree with that statement, so would Sony I expect. Toshiba might even have something to say. The thing is, there are more than one company trumpeting a complete package with AVC, so I don't think it is fair to say that they are not supporting the codec.

Also, I don't harbour a pathalogical hatred for MS, just the way they go about business, i.e. let someone else do all of the innovation, and then will muscle in with heavy subsidies from the only two really profitable divisions (Windows and Office). They did it with the Xbox, MS SQL server, Office (anybody remember 1-2-3), and they are now trying to do the same with the Zune. While it may work, they end up stifling innovation, because they as a company do not have the same drive to better a product just for the sake of it.

People say this about Sony, but seriously, look at the risks they have/are taking, the PS1 was a bold design nobody would have risked as much as they did putting the CD at the heart of a console, or the Walkman which other company would have thought of that. Wega TVs were awesome, and now the Bravia brand is living up to that. All of this was done by taking risks rather than just making a me-too product, which is what MS just keep on doing.

Lets just say I have yet to see anything ground breaking coming from MS, and I eagerly wait until I see it.

I know all of the MS shills will come and report me, instead, try and show me that MS are a company that innovates like Apple, or Sony, or Nintendo even IBM.

Panasonic Hollywood labs might disagree with that statement, so would Sony I expect. Toshiba might even have something to say. The thing is, there are more than one company trumpeting a complete package with AVC, so I don't think it is fair to say that they are not supporting the codec.

I don't think Panasonic Hollywood, Sony, or Toshiba provide near the same level of support as MS does. This is mainly due to the codecs origins.


Also, I don't harbour a pathalogical hatred for MS, just the way they go about business, i.e. let someone else do all of the innovation, and then will muscle in with heavy subsidies from the only two really profitable divisions (Windows and Office). They did it with the Xbox, MS SQL server, Office (anybody remember 1-2-3), and they are now trying to do the same with the Zune. While it may work, they end up stifling innovation, because they as a company do not have the same drive to better a product just for the sake of it.

People say this about Sony, but seriously, look at the risks they have/are taking, the PS1 was a bold design nobody would have risked as much as they did putting the CD at the heart of a console, or the Walkman which other company would have thought of that. Wega TVs were awesome, and now the Bravia brand is living up to that. All of this was done by taking risks rather than just making a me-too product, which is what MS just keep on doing.

Lets just say I have yet to see anything ground breaking coming from MS, and I eagerly wait until I see it.

I know all of the MS shills will come and report me, instead, try and show me that MS are a company that innovates like Apple, or Sony, or Nintendo even IBM.

I have to say, in general, hearing the constant slurs against the members who work for MS, and the anti-MS bias, is getting old. This is not directed at you, just a general statement. I recognize people have every right to hate a company, but all these petty slights are getting all to common. It's beginning to say more about the posters than the companies they are posting against.

Enough already. We understand that some of you don't like Microsoft. Do we really have to make that part of every post?

Max, I have read why you don't like Microsoft. I disagree with you, but I acknowledge your right to not like them. All I'm saying is that you need to be aware that some people do like Microsoft, and all this MS bashing is inflamatory to us. So we should have some moderation.

I don't think Panasonic Hollywood, Sony, or Toshiba provide near the same level of support as MS does. This is mainly due to the codecs origins.



I have to say, in general, hearing the constant slurs against the members who work for MS, and the anti-MS bias, is getting old. This is not directed at you, just a general statement. I recognize people have every right to hate a company, but all these petty slights are getting all to common. It's beginning to say more about the posters than the companies they are posting against.

Enough already. We understand that some of you don't like Microsoft. Do we really have to make that part of every post?

Max, I have read why you don't like Microsoft. I disagree with you, but I acknowledge your right to not like them. All I'm saying is that you need to be aware that some people do like Microsoft, and all this MS bashing is inflamatory to us. So we should have some moderation.

We are all entitled to our opinions, and I respect yours even if I don't personally agree with it. But that is the wonder of living in such a great nation, we are all allowed to think for ourselves and disagree with each other.

In this case I think we will have to agree to disagree. :)

The various codecs are available for either format, so it's "neither".

Blu-Ray supports a higher bitrate. Doesn't that have implications for picture quality?

Blu-Ray supports a higher bitrate. Doesn't that have implications for picture quality?

Sometimes, but it really depends on the source more than anything else. If you have a crappy source, you got no chance advanced codec/high bitrate or not.

Well, I am getting the HD-DVD add on. I really appreciate the input here, and that the posts were kept clean. I will still be here, keeping an eye on things.
As for MS, everyone should know that what Maxpower1987 said is pretty much true. But come on, it's a business and the most successful businesses are like that. We can dislike or disagree with how it's done, but it's legal!
Now, saying Sony took a risk with the PS1 is going pretty far out there. They did it to get back at Nintendo. Nintendo was working with Sony to make a CD add on for the Super NES, and Nintendo backed out. Sony decided to make it a stand alone system, and sell it that way. Yes, there was a rick, but most of the business is centered around getting back at Nintendo. Not to say good things haven't come from it, but still not the best way to start something IMO.

The 360 add-on gives great PQ but is really lacking on the audio side. Even if/when the DTS output is fixed, it will never be capable of TrueHD or DTS-HD output. I considered it at parity with my PS3 while I was running optical but now that I have an HDMI receiver that can process 7.1 LPCM, the 360 add-on is really lacking. I love the look and quality of the XA1 and am still considering one to give HD DVD a chance at parity again (2 more HDMI open on my Denon ;) ), but of all the upcoming titles I still face a disparity of 17 to 5 in favor Blu-ray over HDDVD...

If you're interested in high quality sound, I'd recommend you get one of the Toshiba players...

I'm really hoping someone like Denon will release a quality universal player. Until then I may just stay with my game consoles through 2008 like I've planned...

I'm really hoping someone like Denon will release a quality universal player. Until then I may just stay with my game consoles through 2008 like I've planned...

That would be nice, though I shudder to think of the potential premium, as I imagine the most attractive unit will be decidedly high end. In the meantime, at least the consoles offer gaming as a less passive software alternative.

Well I knew the audio was "iffy" with the add-on. I still am getting it. IMO, all they have to do is allow the pass through of DTS audio, and have the system identify the older DTS and DD audio formats to allow a pass through without re-compression. Everything I will connect my 360 to will only have DD or DTS with 5.1 sounds anyway. But, I know what you are saying and if I was going to be enthusiastic about this, I would go and get a stand alone player. But risking $200 versus the $1000 (I would go all out) makes more sense to me. And, I can't afford a HD TV with 7.1 speaker setup. I got my PC set up as a personal entertainment center with a 20 inch wide-screen LCD monitor from Dell. Audio is handled by my Audigy 2 ZS Platinum, and the speakers are a 5.1 Logitech certified with THX. So it's a good setup for me!

Wow we actually agree on something for a change. Has Hell frozen over?
It's awfully frikkin' cold in Ontario today, so it wouldn't surprise me.
:D

1031982,

While quality is important when buying into either format at this stage in the game, you should really base your decision on what movies would you perfer to watch.

Both formats have their gems and both have their garbage transfers, but it's the movie itself that matters in the end.

I looked at that as well, and there are a lot more movies on HD-DVD I like then Blu-Ray right now. There are a few exceptions like the Saw movies but over all most are on HD-DVD.

Well, I am getting the HD-DVD add on. I really appreciate the input here, and that the posts were kept clean. I will still be here, keeping an eye on things.
As for MS, everyone should know that what Maxpower1987 said is pretty much true. But come on, it's a business and the most successful businesses are like that. We can dislike or disagree with how it's done, but it's legal!
Now, saying Sony took a risk with the PS1 is going pretty far out there. They did it to get back at Nintendo. Nintendo was working with Sony to make a CD add on for the Super NES, and Nintendo backed out. Sony decided to make it a stand alone system, and sell it that way. Yes, there was a rick, but most of the business is centered around getting back at Nintendo. Not to say good things haven't come from it, but still not the best way to start something IMO.

PM'ed to keep tread on topic.

Well, I got the 360 HD-DVD add on, and I like it. I am watching King Kong, and I updated NetFlix to allow HD-DVD rentals.
I can say I am surprised how many people are voting on HD-DVD instead of Blu-Ray or neither. But if this is also how the rest of the world feels in relation, Blu-Ray doesnt have a chance. But I do accept the fact that Blu-Ray can just as easily win over HD-DVD.
Now, how about people say what format looked better with movies that are on both formats. Here is a list I made. of such movies.


ATL
Babel
The Departed
Discover Atlas : Australia, Barzil, China, and Italy
Firewall
Four Brothers
The Fugitive
Full Metal Jacket
The Getaway
Good Night, and Good Luck
Goodfellas
House of Wax
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Lady in the Water
The Lake House
The Last Samurai
Lethal Weapon
Lethal Weapon 2
The Manchurian Candidate
Million Dollar Baby
Mission Impossible 3
Nacho Libre
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
Reds
Sahara
Scooby-Doo
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Sleepy Hollow
Space Cowboys
Superman Returns
Swordfish
Syraina
Tomb Raider - first one
Training Day
U2 : Rattle and Hum
Under Siege
Unforgiven
We Were Soldiers
The Wicker Man

I want to note, this may not be a complete list as I used Netflix until I saw a movie I knew was on HD-DVD they didn't list. Then I used the HD-DVD official site to compare titles.
Anyway, anyone who has see any of these movies on BOTH Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, it would be nice to let us know which one you thought was better. I would prefer it if the player that was used for the HD-DVD was NOT the 360 add on because of audio reencodeing issues.

I think I should qualify my answer.

Neither format will inherently "look better" than the other in theory - however, in reality, I find that the VC1 codec is far superior in picture quality to the other codecs that are supported.

So by virtue of the fact that most HD DVD releases are encoded with VC1, and most Bluray releases are encoded with AVC and Mpeg2, the actual reality is that the HD DVD movies DO INDEED look better on average than the Bluray movies.

Of course, there are some who will immediately post in opposition to what I am saying here, citing various review scores, etc, but the reviewers have been giving Bluray a little leeway since the early poor showing.

The BEST way to judge for YOURSELF (so that you don't have to endure an opinion battle) is to check out some of the new frame captures that Xylon has been posting in this Topic (HDTV Software Media Discussion).

Be your own judge...

awww another 2:1 figure .. more than that actually ,, ;)

If you took your partisan goggles off you'd see half the votes don't think HD DVD is better than BD. :)

Yes UxiSXRD, but almost half the votes are for HD-DVD. Then, it's preference, and finally Blu-Ray. I suppose I should have added 2 other options, both saying Neither it's preference and adding "Bit U prefer *" where * is Blu-Ray on one and HD-DVD on the other to allow a more accurate result. Still, you can't deny that initially it looks like support from this site is for HD-DVD. But, I have to admit I will look favorably to HD-DVD as I prefer it because of cost.

Please could you take you FUD and go to a different forum. Blu-ray (sans TFE/HoFD) has been pretty much on par with HD DVD in terms of PQ. VC-1 is not the be all and end all of PQ, do not let the MS shills convince you otherwise!


Its not FUD, that is the case comparing 50+ HD-DVDs to about $20 Blu-Rays. Other experts agree but I will not waste my time posting links as it is clear the majority in this poll agree with me. The NIN concert looks identical on both for example but the ratio of bad transfers/poor mastering/mediocre encoding titles etc. to good ones is higher on Blu. On the plus side this ratio should improve given the millions of titles coming out to Blu-Ray and as for those bad apples I am sure a criterion/special edition/superduperbit edition is heading our way.

Blu-Ray supports a higher bitrate. Doesn't that have implications for picture quality?

It could if taken advantage of. Not many multiplatform titles have done so at this point.

Well, here's a real world "situation". I have both BR and HDDVD on my HTPC. I want to purchase Sleepy Hollow (one of my favorite flicks) and noticed it was available in BOTH formats. Which one would you choose?

hjackson

I think both can at least be equal, however if I'm showcasing HD in general to friends and family, I pick HD DVD because my personal favorite looking and sounding movies are on HD DVD, as well as IME which most people are not familiar with.

What is IME?

It could if taken advantage of. Not many multiplatform titles have done so at this point.


I would add this:

Added bit's will only make PQ look better if lack of bits is causing artifacts or softness. More bits is only a cure if lack of bits is the disease.

What is IME?

In Movie Experience.

I started out HD DVD only with the A1. Sold my A1 and got the A2 and the 360 add on. Since then, I have owned the Sammy BD player, the Sony BD player, And the PS3.

The 360 addon is a piece of garbage. I'm not the only one who feels this way.

The A2 is a great player. Never had any hiccups. I was happy with it.

The Sammy Player was pretty good and so was the Sony.

I finally settled on the PS3. Best player out of the whole lot I have owned. I have since gone Blu Ray Exclusive, returning my A2, 360 addon, and selling my HD DVD discs. I am never looking back.

Now with that said I have had a lot of experience testing both formats finding a player and movies thats right for me.

After all of this I have come to the conclusion that Blu Ray and HD DVD look identical. Now you are going to have people talk about The Fifth Element, House of Flying Daggers, and the like....But what HD DVD fans don't like to admit....they have some real stinkers too. I'm curious, why do you think the 360 add on is garbage? I've never had any issues with mine, IT doesn't have the best audio, but it still sounds better than my standard dvds

As far as which format is better-I see some of you guys are saying that BR has more space, but that won't be an issue if and when HD brings out their 51 G DVD. I can't imagine movies needing more, and if they do then both format will just up the layers. Personally I dislike the idea that a whole season of something could be put on one disk, if that one disk gets ruined, then you must buy a whole new disk, which would be expensive. Anyway, both formats have their merits, and I would have to say both have the potential to be equal in PQ, especially since there are some bad movies on both sides. I've always heard that people say HD has better consistancy, but that is subjective. Far as my own experience I've seen better PQ with HD than BR, but then most BR setups I see are at stores and may not be set-up correctly.

Lol, I have the HD-DVD add on for the 360, and I must say the biggest problem is the audio. But that's all, the picture is GREAT, and reviews say it's the same when in 1080P via the VGA cable. The audio problems are just because of it reencodeing it to DD every time. They need to update the encoder, and that's all. The movies I have watched on it had some minor volume differences. IE, in both King Kong and The Mummy, with the yells they were not as loud, or dynamic as on DVD. But, that's something that can be fixed via an update. The add on is not garbage at all, but it's not perfect. My biggest concern is that when they come out with multi-layer disks that pass 2 layers the add-on will be able to read them without a problem.

Thank you all for the info, and for everyone voting. It allows a nice incite to how this community views things on the two formats, as well as allowed me to better understand some logistics behind both formats.

It could if taken advantage of. Not many multiplatform titles have done so at this point.

A real shame too. Why tout more capacity and not use it?

----------


As to the OP's question, I've watched dozens of movies on both formats and I find that each has its winners and its losers. I buy on BD when given the option simply because I believe it's the format that'll win this battle. PQ wise the two formats are pretty even IMO. Audio wise BD wins hands down.

A real shame too. Why tout more capacity and not use it?

----------


As to the OP's question, I've watched dozens of movies on both formats and I find that each has its winners and its losers. I buy on BD when given the option simply because I believe it's the format that'll win this battle. PQ wise the two formats are pretty even IMO. Audio wise BD wins hands down.


Are you High?...HD has better audio hands down...I agree on the PQ though.

Hey Bull, I support HD-DVD, but I have heard Blu-Ray, and I can say it tends to have better quality. But you need a GOOD system to hear it. Yes, HD-DVD has a higher minimal encoding requirement, but if it's not done right, it doesnt matter.

Are you High?...HD has better audio hands down...I agree on the PQ though.

No but thanks for asking. Good thing we're all entitled to our own opinions at AVS. :)

Since professional reviewers (and current hardware and codec utilization specs) show that niether format looks "better", does this poll show much other than HD DVD zealots outnumber Blu Ray zealots by more than 2:1 on the AVS boards?

Since professional reviewers (and current hardware and codec utilization specs) show that niether format looks "better", does this poll show much other than HD DVD zealots outnumber Blu Ray zealots by more than 2:1 on the AVS boards?

I would say that is a good conclusion.

At the moment HD DVD lives on the internet on places like AVSF and HTF, the situation will only get worse when the format becomes more and more marginalised in B&M stores. As they say you have to reach rock bottom before you see a way up.

For the record, I voted neither, and this should have been a public poll.

Ed - I just noticed I have already been through the motions on this thread, whoops!

I would say that is a good conclusion.

At the moment HD DVD lives on the internet on places like AVSF and HTF, the situation will only get worse when the format becomes more and more marginalised in B&M stores. As they say you have to reach rock bottom before you see a way up.

For the record, I voted neither, and this should have been a public poll.

Ed - I just noticed I have already been through the motions on this thread, whoops!

I agree. Hd-DVD only exist here but not in the real world. Another thing people haven't notice is that Borders in the UK are not stocking HD-DVD at all.

Borders not stocking HD-DVD (http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1373/picture1qz6.png)

I would think if the majority here favor HD over BD, there is a good reason. This isn't a game forum :)

I would think if the majority here favor HD over BD, there is a good reason. This isn't a Microsoft shill free forum. :)

Fixed.

That was the reason for putting it here, more people in this place know more about the formats, are not going to want a format because of who makes it.
Yes, I should have made the poll public, but I can't change that now can I?

I agree. Hd-DVD only exist here but not in the real world. Another thing people haven't notice is that Borders in the UK are not stocking HD-DVD at all.
That's it. HD DVD is finished. Borders in the UK is not stocking HD DVD.
As the UK goes, so goes the planet :rolleyes:
Maybe people haven't noticed because 1, They don't live in the UK. 2, Who the hell buys movies let alone HD movies at Borders?

I don't know what "real world" you live in but really, haven't we had enough of this kind of posting on both sides to last a lifetime?
Posts like this are pointless and only reveal your blind bias and ignorance of the market as it exists in the real world.

Until there can be a warner VC-1 movie encoded to peak at 28Mbps for HD DVD and 40Mbps for BD, I would have to say they should look the same, as you can't compare two different movies.

Even if such a disk was possible, I would suspect the content has to have a lot of motion and entropy (example: water sprinklers, explosions) and you'd need a real 1080P large monitor to be able to tell.

Until then, they will look the same if you apply any scientific methods to this.

Ideally, the real comparison should be with the same segment encoded at two different settings, one with generally 1 quant_index lower than the other, and see if people can tell them apart. With repeated viewings, some materials can show a difference. Many won't. Most people won't be able to tell them apart, but there are those who can.

I would say that is a good conclusion.

I think a better conclusion would be, that the more informed and better educated (who are at a higher percentage in this forum) tend to buy HD DVD because they are not that easy influenced by Sony's FUD.


At the moment HD DVD lives on the internet on places like AVSF and HTF, the situation will only get worse when the format becomes more and more marginalised in B&M stores. As they say you have to reach rock bottom before you see a way up.


You better tell Walmart, they just ordered 2 million new HD DVD players! ;)

OT: HD DVD looks better. Its obvious! But once Bluray drops its stoneage codec it will look pretty much as good as HD DVD. However: VC-1 rules!

A meaningless poll. Much of it can be source related. Also, most format neutral titles are sourced from the HD-DVD encode (WB, especially). Who knows what the PQ/AQ could have been if they optimized for Blu-ray's higher bitrate ceiling.

Dan

video codecs are lossy. the entire object to encoding video is to compress it enough so that it looks "close enough" that the vast majority of people think it looks good.

then you fill the rest of the disk with other stuff so that people will buy your product instead of the other guys.

this pole shows that hd dvd looks good enough to most people here. otherwise, there would be problems that are obvious to a lot of people and the people on avs are much much more sensitive to pq/aq then most people.

if they ever release a "superbit" transfer on bd50 it can't erase the 250 existing titles. IMO it is all theory that will never mean anything to most people who buy movies.

EDIT: i think bd would gain more customers by using newer codecs and using bd50 for extra features.

I'm sure some of the HD-DVD titles are reference quality as are some of the Blu-ray releases. However, beyond PQ Blu-ray has the room and bitrate capacity for better audio too! In fact, Disney puts 24 bit PCM on some of their titles and the PQ still looks outstanding and can hit upwards of 30 Megabits/sec or more for the video stream. You couldn't do that with HD-DVD. It doesn't have the capacity... period. Something has to give. If King Kong had been on a BD-50 disc they could have added at least 24 bit TrueHD or DTS MA.

I don't want a format that's just "good enough." I want one that can have some extra features and still deliver master grade video and audio.

Dan

I'm sure some of the HD-DVD titles are reference quality as are some of the Blu-ray releases. However, beyond PQ Blu-ray has the room and bitrate capacity for better audio too! In fact, Disney puts 24 bit PCM on some of their titles and the PQ still looks outstanding and can hit upwards of 30 Megabits/sec or more for the video stream. You couldn't do that with HD-DVD. It doesn't have the capacity... period. Something has to give. If King Kong had been on a BD-50 disc they could have added at least 24 bit TrueHD or DTS MA.

I don't want a format that's just "good enough." I want one that can have some extra features and still deliver master grade video and audio.

Dan

So if you do not want "good enough" you should get away from Bluray and start to support HD DVD, because it is HD DVD that is giving you on average the better performance! You have to stop looking at single features and start looking at the whole picture!

Or what would you buy as a familiy car, a minivan or a school bus? The schoolbus has more horsepower and more seats. But your family including familiy dog fits perfectly into the minivan, you get a better performance from the minivan, it is cheaper and most of the people are telling you the minivan is the better car as a familiy car?

I don't understand how anybody could seriously support bluray.

I'm sure some of the HD-DVD titles are reference quality as are some of the Blu-ray releases. However, beyond PQ Blu-ray has the room and bitrate capacity for better audio too! In fact, Disney puts 24 bit PCM on some of their titles and the PQ still looks outstanding and can hit upwards of 30 Megabits/sec or more for the video stream. You couldn't do that with HD-DVD. It doesn't have the capacity... period. Something has to give. If King Kong had been on a BD-50 disc they could have added at least 24 bit TrueHD or DTS MA.

I don't want a format that's just "good enough." I want one that can have some extra features and still deliver master grade video and audio.

Dan


i understand your desire but...

we don't get to decide what is good enough for anyone but ourselves. people spending $ decide what is good enough for content.

for example, the fifth element is good enough since it is one of the top sellers on either format.

if people refused to buy this title or that title because of pq then the "good enough" bar would be set higher.

speculation about some theoretical superbit bd50 doesn't set the bar higher. people will just keep buying what is good enough now.

since all encodes are lossy, studios set the bar to the level that sells. after that, they need to look at other featues that sell the product.

HD DVD is a much more elegant implementation of HD home video.

1. Better overall HD experience - advanced video codecs only, advanced IME and U Controls for presentation of extras, advanced audio codecs and a more elegant menu system.

2. Better flexibility - combo disks so that the same disk can be used in HD DVD and DVD players, ability to reuse existing DVD lines for disks, better encoding tools.

HD DVD in the end offers a better end user experience and a more efficient technology. I'd say HD DVD is like an Acura MDX and BD is The Hummer H2. One makes more sense to most consumers :)

HD DVD is a much more elegant implementation of HD home video.

1. Better overall HD experience - advanced video codecs only, advanced IME and U Controls for presentation of extras, advanced audio codecs and a more elegant menu system.

2. Better flexibility - combo disks so that the same disk can be used in HD DVD and DVD players, ability to reuse existing DVD lines for disks, better encoding tools.

HD DVD in the end offers a better end user experience and a more efficient technology. I'd say HD DVD is like an Acura MDX and BD is The Hummer H2. One makes more sense to most consumers :)


IMO bd supports these features in theory but not in general practice.

they could have done this on bd25.

IMO when studios and bd fans decided that mpeg2 is good enough that pretty much killed most bd support for other next gen bd features and extras.

they might address this over time. but, that doesn't fix a year of releases already out there.

the ongoing legacy of bd25/mpeg2 is the perception (and i believe reality) that hd dvd has better overall pq and features.

I voted HD DVD but I realize this has almost everything to do with the what the studios put out and very little to do with the format itself. They can both look identical.

However, what puts HD DVD above Blu-ray in my mind is the implementation. HDi make the HD movies much more slick than any of the BR releases I have. Advanced codecs were used from the start. While BR is getting better in using more advanced video codecs I personally think VC-1 looks MUCH better than the Mpeg 2 BR titles I have. Again, I realize this has nothing do with the physical format itself I think the HD DVD group had it right from the start with their implementation of the format while BR comes across as disorganized and not quite together. They don't even have their standards finalized yet.

All this makes HD seem more stable and professional which is why I picked the in the poll. While I have been disappointed with a small handfull of the HD DVD movies I've purchased (over 100) most of them have thrilled me. On the contrary I have only been thrilled with a few of the 18 BR movies I own, few of them have wowed me.