I think most WB BD releases have been BD-25 with same VC-1 encode used in HD DVD DL or SL. I see these discs as being capacity limited by BD-25 often with lossless audio being deleted from the BD version. But has there been any BD-50 releases from WB which were capacity limited by HD DVD DL30?

"Has WB released any BD that was not limited by HD DVD?
;)


No, not to my knowledge. :(

The ones that hurt the most are Superman Returns and Happy Feet. Happy Feet takes up only 20gb of disc space. Warner could have easily put a PCM or True HD track on it. Superman Returns *sigh*, Warner could have put a PCM track in English, French, German, Swahili, Jabba's language from Star Wars and still had space left.

"Has WB released any BD that was not limited by HD DVD?
;)


No, not to my knowledge. :(
That may be true in theory, but in actual practice, I would argue that it's been the HD DVD format that has been short changed by WB current practice of limiting the size of movie files to fit SL Blu-ray at less than 25GB.

The ones that hurt the most are Superman Returns and Happy Feet. Happy Feet takes up only 20gb of disc space. Warner could have easily put a PCM or True HD track on it. Superman Returns *sigh*, Warner could have put a PCM track in English, French, German, Swahili, Jabba's language from Star Wars and still had space left.
True. If they only used BD-50 for the Blu-ray version, then you could have increased the common file size by 50%.

In another thread people are saying that a good HD DVD or Blu Ray transfer represents about 95% of the quality of the original. Is this final 5% difference going to be seen between a dual layer HD DVD and a BD-50?
It seems to me this relates more to people's need for statistics than differences seen in real world viewing.

All of them, the 30mbit bandwidth limitation is far more important than any space limitation as that can be overcome by multi-disc solutions, bandwidth on the other hand is set for life.

So to answer your question, all of them are limited by HD DVD; BD25s and BD50s alike.

Paramount would probably be the better comparison since the release the same title on both formats and encode seperatly for each

It seems to me this relates more to people's need for statistics than differences seen in real world viewing
Most likely - golden ears & golden eyes (wasn't that a movie?)

The ones that hurt the most are Superman Returns and Happy Feet. Happy Feet takes up only 20gb of disc space. Warner could have easily put a PCM or True HD track on it. Superman Returns *sigh*, Warner could have put a PCM track in English, French, German, Swahili, Jabba's language from Star Wars and still had space left.

I believe if you buy the UK version of Superman Returns, which will be released on the 14th of May, it has PCM audio.

Also being a Warner titles it does not have any region encoding.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Superman-Returns-Blu-ray-Marie-Saint/dp/B000NDM40S******pd_bbs_sr_3/203-9980492-5729524?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1177965655&sr=8-3

That may be true in theory, but in actual practice, I would argue that it's been the HD DVD format that has been short changed by WB current practice of limiting the size of movie files to fit SL Blu-ray at less than 25GB.

Every WB titles that goes over 25GB has been released on a 50GB disc, with 20GB of free space. It is Blu-ray not HD DVD who is being short changed.

Blu-ray is technically superior to HD DVD. Watching Casino Royale it has peaks in the high 30mbps, higher than HD DVD's maximum bitrate.

Thankfully the Disney/Buena Vista, MGM, Fox, Lionsgate & Columbia/Tristar releases do not have to technically limit their encoding of the movie to cater for HD DVD's limited space and bandwidth.

Every WB titles that goes over 25GB has been released on a 50GB disc, with 20GB of free space. It is Blu-ray not HD DVD who is being short changed.

Blu-ray is technically superior to HD DVD. Watching Casino Royale it has peaks in the high 30mbps, higher than HD DVD's maximum bitrate.

Thankfully the Disney/Buena Vista, MGM, Fox, Lionsgate & Columbia/Tristar releases do not have to technically limit their encoding of the movie to cater for HD DVD's limited space and bandwidth.

Even Paramount that releasew titles in both formats and encodes seperatly for BR, still can not show an improvement in PQ. Average PQ rating on hidefdigest still favors HD DVD as having the better PQ score.


I could care less how much space it takes up on its bitrates if it doesnt average out to superior quality. So how is it superior?

Even Paramount that releasew titles in both formats and encodes seperatly for BR, still can not show an improvement in PQ. Average PQ rating on hidefdigest still favors HD DVD as having the better PQ score.


I could care less how much space it takes up on its bitrates if it doesnt average out to superior quality. So how is it superior?

On Paramount titles the Blu-ray is encoded in Mpeg 2 and the HD DVD in VC-1. Mpeg 2 needs a higher bitrate to look as good as VC-1.

If the Blu-ray was encoded in VC-1 but with a higher bitrate to make use of the 50GB disc then that would make a very interesting comparison.

Average PQ rating on hidefdigest still favors HD DVD as having the better PQ score.

Actually looking at the picture quality ratings on hidefdigest it actually favours Blu-ray.

Blu-ray
5 stars - 10 movies
4.5 stars - 50 movies
4 stars - 92 movies

HD DVD
5 stars - 10 movies
4.5 stars - 43 movies
4 stars - 80 movies

Actually looking at the picture quality ratings on hidefdigest it actually favours Blu-ray.

Blu-ray
5 stars - 10 movies
4.5 stars - 50 movies
4 stars - 92 movies

HD DVD
5 stars - 10 movies
4.5 stars - 43 movies
4 stars - 80 movies

Based on your data:

BD average rating = 643 stars/152 movies = 4.230 stars
HD average rating = 563.5 stars/133 movies = 4.237 stars

Looks pretty close, with a fractional advantage to HD.

So without even pointing out that you neglected to count how many movies for BR that have been rated under 4, under 3, under 2 and yes even titles ranked with a 1 for PQ - even without all that you failed to prove you're point of superior quality being available for blu-ray so what is the point of the charts you posted? So going back to my original question, where is this superior quality?

So going back to my original question, where is this superior quality?

On Paper :rolleyes:

So without even pointing out that you neglected to count how many movies for BR that have been rated under 4, under 3, under 2 and yes even titles ranked with a 1 for PQ - even without all that you failed to prove you're point of superior quality being available for blu-ray so what is the point of the charts you posted? So going back to my original question, where is this superior quality?

I'll show all of them 178 for HD DVD and 216 for BD.
Weighted Average:
HD DVD 3.96
BD 3.93

The breakdown:

HD DVD BD
5 10 10
4.5 43 50
4 80 92
3.5 26 36
3 10 22
2.5 5 2
<=2 4 4

Percentage of discs above certain quality level
HD DVD BD
5 6% 5%
4.5+ 30% 28%
4.0+ 75% 70%
3.5+ 89% 87%
3.0+ 95% 97%
2.5+ 98% 98%
<=2 100% 100%

Bluray doesn't offer lower quality. It actually is slightly lower average quality and lower % of 5, 4, and 3.5 star discs.
Bluray is more expensive and offers at best equal PQ compared to HD DVD.

I guess the tie-breaker is audio quality.

All of them, the 30mbit bandwidth limitation is far more important than any space limitation as that can be overcome by multi-disc solutions, bandwidth on the other hand is set for life.

So to answer your question, all of them are limited by HD DVD; BD25s and BD50s alike.

yup, this is one reason why it would be a benefit to Home Theater fans to have the other format die.

yup, this is one reason why it would be a benefit to Home Theater fans to have the other format die.

Succinctly put and exactly right.

This is like comparing apples to... well, apples

Actually looking at the picture quality ratings on hidefdigest it actually favours Blu-ray.

Blu-ray
5 stars - 10 movies
4.5 stars - 50 movies
4 stars - 92 movies

HD DVD
5 stars - 10 movies
4.5 stars - 43 movies
4 stars - 80 movies

Hmmm, do the math, they're pretty equal:

Blu-ray
5 stars - 6.5%
4.5 stars - 32.5%
4 stars - 61%

HD DVD
5 stars - 8%
4.5 stars - 32%
4 stars - 60%

if any format has been hindered by the other with WB, it's hddvd. having to hold disk back because bluray can't get their stuff together

I think it is fairly obvious that they have also released HD DVDs that were constrained by BD also - since many of the BD releases were smaller 25 Gig BD discs.

So it's really "six of one and half a dozen of the other".

I am really happy that Warner has pretty much standardized on VC1, though - it's a real blessing for both formats.

if any format has been hindered by the other with WB, it's hddvd. having to hold disk back because bluray can't get their stuff together

Or WB could leave out the superfluous extras and watch the BD sales go 2:1-4:1 in Blu-ray's favor... I certainly would prefer they release as-is and double dip later. If the extras are really worth it, wouldn't it be worth a double-dip attempt?

Having over 20GB free on Superman Returns is a bloody shame when they could have used the same PCM source they used to make the TrueHD track for HDDVD available as PCM for Blu-ray (instead of no lossless at all). Someone at the corporate parent needs to enforce their mandated neutrality, methinks.

I think it is fairly obvious that they have also released HD DVDs that were constrained by BD also - since many of the BD releases were smaller 25 Gig BD discs.That something fits on a BD25 doesn't indicate that the HD DVD was held back, when the HD DVD was released much sooner. According to what Cjplay posted a while ago, Warner was going to release the HD DVD stuff that fit in 25GB on BD25s and stuff that wouldn't fit in 25GB on BD50s. That was for the early stuff where it looked like they just did the HD DVD to what they wanted to do for it and worried about the BD later.

Can you name some titles where the encodes were possibly done to less for HD DVD because of Blu-ray limitations? I'll start with "Planet Earth". Can you name others?

--Darin

Or WB could leave out the superfluous extras and watch the BD sales go 2:1-4:1 in Blu-ray's favor... I certainly would prefer they release as-is and double dip later. If the extras are really worth it, wouldn't it be worth a double-dip attempt?

Having over 20GB free on Superman Returns is a bloody shame when they could have used the same PCM source they used to make the TrueHD track for HDDVD available as PCM for Blu-ray (instead of no lossless at all). Someone at the corporate parent needs to enforce their mandated neutrality, methinks.

you want to waste 60 bucks and double dip that's your perogative. But not all of us have that extra money on a format that's not even ready

That's why I'm waiting for Warner to correct those titles they didn't give TrueHD or PCM to Blu-ray when they did so for HD DVD. No reason to spend money on HD DVD when the players are buggy and the software doesn't even play half the time. We can both agree, HD DVD definitely isn't ready yet.
Well it's nice to hear that you are coming over to the HD side! ;) Given your previous position, I had not thought you were in the market for anything other than BD! :)

I think the biggest limitation is HD DVDs getting held back because BD doesn't support PiP yet.

All of them, the 30mbit bandwidth limitation is far more important than any space limitation as that can be overcome by multi-disc solutions, bandwidth on the other hand is set for life.

So to answer your question, all of them are limited by HD DVD; BD25s and BD50s alike.
Not exactly a very accurate statement at all.

Warner would not have been able to do dual layer BD discs at the start even if their life depended on it, since Bluray dual layers weren't in production most of last year, and even now, is said to be being rationed a bit because of production volume capabilities.

To say that 25 Gig BD discs are "limited"by the larger 30 Gig HD DVD discs is just really funny ;)

That's why I'm waiting for Warner to correct those titles they didn't give TrueHD or PCM to Blu-ray when they did so for HD DVD. No reason to spend money on HD DVD when the players are buggy and the software doesn't even play half the time. We can both agree, HD DVD definitely isn't ready yet.

i have no idea what player you have but i have a hda1 and 360 add on and the only problem i ever had was a big scratch in a disk rented from blockbuster.com did not want to play

you want to waste 60 bucks and double dip that's your perogative. But not all of us have that extra money on a format that's not even ready

Since I obviously don't care about the extras, especially PiP as I have never watched a single U-Control or IME more than once, if even that (i did about 30 minutes of Batman Begins, 20 minutes on MI3 & Crank, for example, and maybe 2 or 3 different spots on Miami Vice and Hulk, none at all on any of my other HDDVD), it's extremely doubtful I would be double-dipping for such trivial extras.

That's why I'm waiting for Warner to correct those titles they didn't give TrueHD or PCM to Blu-ray when they did so for HD DVD. No reason to spend money on HD DVD when the players are buggy and the software doesn't even play half the time. We can both agree, HD DVD definitely isn't ready yet.

My April 06 HD-A1 hasn't had any problems, nor have I had issues with the movies others have been complaining about. I imaging most only post when they are complaining about something.

That being said, I do plan to buy either a blu-ray or combo player when they have everything finalized, hopefully they'll be ready before Christmas.

Warner would not have been able to do dual layer BD discs at the start even if their life depended on it, since Bluray dual layers weren't in production most of last year, and even now, is said to be being rationed a bit because of production volume capabilities.

That's sort of misleading, since no Blu Ray disks were available at all for half of last year. Since Sony pledged that 80% of future releases would be BD50, your namelss "it is being said" line smacks of Faux News smears against candidates they don't like.

To say that 25 Gig BD discs are "limited"by the larger 30 Gig HD DVD discs is just really funny ;)

That would be funny, if only he had said it. Instead (and as has been pointed out already) Warner has been pretty consistent about either using 15gb HD DVD and putting them on 25gb BDs (leaving 10gb free) or putting DL HD DVD30s on BD50s, and leaving 20 gb free (usually not even including a simple PCM track). Since there has not been a single mention of Warner releasing an HD DVD SL due to the lack of BD50s, and several cases where a BD release would have benefitted if Warner had utilized the 10-20gb of extra space available on the BD release, how can you conclude anything but that every Warner BD release (with a few recent exceptions) hasn't been held back by the HD DVD release?

That's sort of misleading, since no Blu Ray disks were available at all for half of last year. Since Sony pledged that 80% of future releases would be BD50, your namelss "it is being said" line smacks of Faux News smears against candidates they don't like.



That would be funny, if only he had said it. Instead (and as has been pointed out already) Warner has been pretty consistent about either using 15gb HD DVD and putting them on 25gb BDs (leaving 10gb free) or putting DL HD DVD30s on BD50s, and leaving 20 gb free (usually not even including a simple PCM track). Since there has not been a single mention of Warner releasing an HD DVD SL due to the lack of BD50s, and several cases where a BD release would have benefitted if Warner had utilized the 10-20gb of extra space available on the BD release, how can you conclude anything but that every Warner BD release (with a few recent exceptions) hasn't been held back by the HD DVD release?

I may be wrong here but didnt Sony say that 80% of there (SONY's) releases would be on BD50s? Nothing about other studios. Correct me if I'm wrong though

But I can say out of all released titles and titles announced with dates & specs still only stated 22% on BD50 disc, so even with titles announced for release on BD50 throughout the summer you still have almost 80% of all BR titles on BD 25g discs.

Looking at it per studio, either by choose or not it is obvious some studios like Sony & Disney have higher use of BD50 discs then say Warner, Paramount or even Fox.

Even more suprising is matching of the MSRP, most of the higher priced titles are actullaly on BD25g discs.