as you all know face / off was released in europe/australia by "disney" whereas the film is only available on hd dvd in the states!

how about a screenshot comparison?

i'm asking the blu-ray as well as the hd dvd users to put up some screenshots in this thread - let's compare them and choose the "winner" :D

Why bother? Everyone knows Blu-Ray is technologically superior in every facet.

Why bother? Everyone knows Blu-Ray is technologically superior in every facet.

uncalled for man, he just wants to know which is better. same reason why people are buying the Import of T2 above the crappy lionsgate one.

From the screenshots I've seen (on another forum) the BRD is more detailed but noisier and the HD-DVD has ugly DNR. Both look to be sourced from an old transfer.

I think the HD-DVD only has DTS whereas the BRD has PCM.

I am pretty confident that both Paramount and BVHE used the same HD master with different encodes. On the audio front I compared the Japanese DTS track and the LPCM track and the difference is quite huge. LPCM is obviously better coz of better dynamics and extra LFE.

It is the same master but the HD-DVD has had DNR applied on top. Example:

BRD / HD-DVD
http://theintarweb.info/pics/face-bd-1.pnghttp://theintarweb.info/pics/facehd1.png

Why bother? Everyone knows Blu-Ray is technologically superior in every facet.

Reported

Very subtle but I prefer the BD transfer - no reason to NR it.

MEC2

So Paramount is DNR'ing the hell out of their older movies now?

Wow... subtle my ass... The differences were night and day.

I would pick the BR hands down as superior looking. But is it worth 100% more entry price? For me yeah, but I dont think banding is typical for HD DVD, or at least the 12 or so I own.

i can't tell the difference. :confused:

i can't tell the difference. :confused:

You're not the only one.
I think you guys may have missed the sarcasm in the "BD obviously better" post.... at least, that's how I took it after reading his sig. I saw him as saying the BD fanboys would flock in and make it a "no contest" argument by spewing garbage. I may be wrong in that interpretation though.

What should I be looking for with DNR? I don't see what you guys are talking about.

Wow! That is an amazing difference.

Reported

I think he was just being sarcastic. Check his signature.

What should I be looking for with DNR? I don't see what you guys are talking about.

The bottom picture (domestic HD-DVD) has a very pasty, unnatural, video-processed look that the top picture (overseas BD) does not. I think if somebody took those screen-caps and did a mouse-over comparison it would be much more apparent to folks who aren't seeing it when they scroll between the images.

I don't think this is an HD-DVD vs. BD issue- this is an issue of bad video post-processing regardless of format, period.

Vincent

Reported


Cool. Have a great day.

The BR looks a tad sharper but the lines on Travolta's forehead are more pronounced in the HDDVD version.

The bottom picture (domestic HD-DVD) has a very pasty, unnatural, video-processed look that the top picture (overseas BD) does not. I think if somebody took those screen-caps and did a mouse-over comparison it would be much more apparent to folks who aren't seeing it when they scroll between the images.

I don't think this is an HD-DVD vs. BD issue- this is an issue of bad video post-processing regardless of format, period.

Vincent

Do you know if this is common for domestic HD DVDs. I have noticed that the PQ on most the the HDs that I own don't really have that wow factor. I am kind of ignorant when it come to the hardware, but I was wondering if the player does any video processing because my A30 come out way more saturated than my BD player. I didn't know if it was the transfer or the player causing the problem. It seems like the movies on HD are not as detailed. They look nice, but they don't have that wow factor.

Thanks

The bottom picture (domestic HD-DVD) has a very pasty, unnatural, video-processed look that the top picture (overseas BD) does not. I think if somebody took those screen-caps and did a mouse-over comparison it would be much more apparent to folks who aren't seeing it when they scroll between the images.

I don't think this is an HD-DVD vs. BD issue- this is an issue of bad video post-processing regardless of format, period.

Vincent

Agreed, the second pic hurts to even look at, look at his bottom lip for instance. Night and day to me.

BRD / HD-DVD
http://theintarweb.info/pics/face-bd-2.pnghttp://theintarweb.info/pics/facehd2.png

Mouseover:
http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://theintarweb.info/pics/face-bd-2.png&sd=http://theintarweb.info/pics/facehd2.png

Mouseover of first set:
http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://theintarweb.info/pics/face-bd-1.png&sd=http://theintarweb.info/pics/facehd1.png

Thanks for the mouseovers, definitely reinforces my opinion that the HD DVD transfer is not as well done. The road cracks on the left side of the car pic is another example.

BRD / HD-DVD
http://theintarweb.info/pics/face-bd-2.pnghttp://theintarweb.info/pics/facehd2.png

Mouseover:
http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://theintarweb.info/pics/face-bd-2.png&sd=http://theintarweb.info/pics/facehd2.png

Mouseover of first set:
http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://theintarweb.info/pics/face-bd-1.png&sd=http://theintarweb.info/pics/facehd1.png

I don't see much difference here.

I love to take your Face/Off : Kram Sacul (Jus kidding). Looks like the BD version is a tad sharper than the HD DVD version. However if you have a close look at the shirt of Sean Archer you will figure out that the HD version looks more pleasing and smoothened out. In BD you will find the shirt texture to look a bit grainy. I am a die hard fan of Face/Off and would anyway buy the HD DVD version especially for the special features and bookmarks which is missing in the BD version. In terms of AQ the BD version will always remain superior coz of the bombastic PCM track.

One last set:

BRD / HD-DVD
http://theintarweb.info/pics/face-bd-3.pnghttp://theintarweb.info/pics/facehd3.png

Mouseover:
http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://theintarweb.info/pics/face-bd-3.pngsd=http://theintarweb.info/pics/facehd3.png

Its looks like both uses to much filtering.

But one uses sharpening, the other seems to uses some sort of DNR.

Damn, BOTH transfers suck big time, the Blu-Ray is bad the HD-DVD is even worse, what the hell was Paramount thinking :(

Not sure if its Paramount to blame.

If you look at both images they both seem to have DNR applied. But the Disney footage seem to have added Sharpening.

So if anyone has photoshop on their computer can test and apply sharpening to the Paramount footage and see if it can match Disney.

If it matches then they had poor master.

I can't say I'm too impressed with either of these transfers based on the screenshots. The HD DVD is definitely losing detail, no doubts. The striped jacket on the guy in the left side of the screen in facehd2 loses a LOT of detail. Substantial portions that should be striped turn into mush.

The BD version unfortunately has a weird processed look to it. Could be sharpening.. but not sure. Looking at facehd1 there's just something funky going on over Travolta's ear. Switching to the BD version it almost looks like when you scan a magazine image into the computer and get that moire effect. I don't know, hard to describe.. just "processed". Still I'd easily give the nod to the BD version here.

It is really weird, I am sure that i am seeing color bleed, like in the old VHS and LaserDisk days......

I request the non-owners to first watch the movie on HDM and then comment. To me the movie looked fine though you can't find the image to have 3D pop throughout. Remember that Face/Off version on HDM is not a director's cut which means that the studios might have blindly gone with whatever HD master they had without any tweaks.

Well here is a screen grab from an old HD broadcast version, and to me it looks better than both the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD :confused:

I think and suspect that this is how the master looked before it Buena Vista and Paramount had a go at it;
http://imageload.dk/files/e32ea084e6454621ab6080cfc2acd199.png

I think it looked little better, it seems like it have some compression noise.

But basicly, its the same master. And that wasnt a state of the art transfer.

The screen cap from the broadcast version looks awful to me. I think 80% of the transfer on BD was sharp with good color saturation owing to deep black levels. The audio on this title in clear Tier 0.

I think both discs are sourced from a reheated transfer that should've been replaced.

Your chance to see John Woo neutered by rich white people in HD:)

hi.

i added the screens to the mouseovers (http://hd-discs.mbmg.de/faceoff_bd-vs-hd/01.html) (with fixed 3-pixel-difference between bd & hd dvd for better comparison ;) )

No doubt the BD blows away the HD DVD version, less processed, more sharp and much more film like. Not to mention the BD gets a Lossless PCM track and the HD DVD gets DVD Audio.

HD DVD gets DVD Audio.

How many DVDs have DTS ES 6.1 or Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 @ 1.5Mbps audio soundtracks?

How many DVDs have DTS ES 6.1 or Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 @ 1.5Mbps audio soundtracks?

Sorry, Lossless = HD Audio, everything else is substandard DVD audio.

Sorry, Lossless = HD Audio, everything else is substandard DVD audio.
And I'm calling your bluff. Going by your logic, we haven't even reached HD video yet!

Sorry, Lossless = HD Audio, everything else is substandard DVD audio.

Ah, sorry. I didn't realize you have no clue.

HDD's Kenneth S. Brown gave this title a 4,5 on PQ :eek:

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/870/faceoff.html

No doubt the BD blows away the HD DVD version, less processed, more sharp and much more film like. Not to mention the BD gets a Lossless PCM track and the HD DVD gets DVD Audio.

JackBee feels the BD version blows away the HDDVD one, news at eleven:rolleyes:

Sorry, Lossless = HD Audio, everything else is substandard DVD audio.

Guess you'll be waiting a while before you buy lossless video since anything else is "substandard".

Reported

Gizmo,

Big FYI here...Lemonhead is a big HD DVD guy like you. He was being 100% sarcastic. I don't mind that you reported him...just thought you'd like to know.

-Nick

I think both versions "blow" eachother away.

Question: Can lossless Video be obtained this generation?

Answer: NO

Question: Can lossless Audio be obtained this generation?

Answer: YES

Question: Is someone a super silly sally for settling with DVD audio when Lossless is available?

Answer: ZOMG YES

No doubt the BD blows away the HD DVD version, less processed, more sharp and much more film like. Not to mention the BD gets a Lossless PCM track and the HD DVD gets DVD Audio.

I think its the other way. The HD-DVD defienantly looks a little processed, but the BD looks like its full of noise. Not as bad as the Cable one though. That isn't grain.

No doubt the BD blows away the HD DVD version, less processed, more sharp and much more film like. Not to mention the BD gets a Lossless PCM track and the HD DVD gets DVD Audio.

Great just what we needed. EE, and Photoshop sharping added to our movies just so it doesn't look a little flat.

Great just what we needed. EE, and Photoshop sharping added to our movies just so it doesn't look a little flat.

As oppossed to applying a coat of vaseline to smooth things out :eek:

The BD version has been heavily sharpened which caused a lot of noise. Everyone who works with imaging, photoshop or video post-production would see this.

I have taken the HD DVD version, applied some sharpen and processed it to match Blu-Ray version. Pay attention how much better HD DVD version looks, but in essence the master must've been poor and Paramount really didn't invest too much post-processing with this one.

BD/HD version:
http://theintarweb.info/pics/face-bd-3.png http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2351/1811309802_83f36af3bf_o.png

hi.

i added the screens to the mouseovers (http://hd-discs.mbmg.de/faceoff_bd-vs-hd/01.html) (with fixed 3-pixel-difference between bd & hd dvd for better comparison ;) )

Wow!!! Are you sure the one you labeled HD-DVD is not an upconverted DVD:confused:

Gizmo,

Big FYI here...Lemonhead is a big HD DVD guy like you. He was being 100% sarcastic. I don't mind that you reported him...just thought you'd like to know.

-Nick

LOL... not sure why she reported him anyways.:o

If you look at the closeup scene, around the eyeballs, I see a lot of detailed fine grain around the whites, the fine grain is gone from the hd dvd version. It's like a low pass filter was applied dynamically to that area.

Why is the grain gone? Well, ask the compressionist if any preprocessing was done to remove them.

Why bother? Everyone knows Blu-Ray is technologically superior in every facet.

So was Beta, and we know how that turned out in the end. :p

VHS won because it was cheaper and efficient. Mmmmmm. ;)

So was Beta, and we know how that turned out in the end. :p

VHS won because it was cheaper and efficient. Mmmmmm. ;)
I guess that about sums it up for the HD DVD camp.

"HD DVD is great... just like VHS."

Nice work.

BTW, I believe Beta was late to the 2 hour table. No time issues with blu-ray, unlike its competition.

has anyone heard both formats? i've only seen the BD and i didnt think the audio was 5-star quality. i listened to the PCM track on the Jap BD.

btw those screenshot comparisons look too close to matter.

Wow... subtle my ass... The differences were night and day.
It was hard to tell for me without the mouseover. The mouseover really shows the NR that was applied - just look at the stripes on his shirt. And the loss of fine detail in his face. Not a good transfer.
I would pick the BR hands down as superior looking.
Agreed.
But is it worth 100% more entry price? For me yeah, but I dont think banding is typical for HD DVD, or at least the 12 or so I own.
Not a title I care about, but it's definitely an inferior transfer. Don't matter what you play it on, a crap transfer looks like...

Crap.

MEC2

The bottom picture (domestic HD-DVD) has a very pasty, unnatural, video-processed look that the top picture (overseas BD) does not. I think if somebody took those screen-caps and did a mouse-over comparison it would be much more apparent to folks who aren't seeing it when they scroll between the images.

I don't think this is an HD-DVD vs. BD issue- this is an issue of bad video post-processing regardless of format, period.

Vincent

They added NR because less noise = higher compression (noisy images are harder to compress, they need more data to keep up with the more rapid changes in picture).

This is a 30GB vs 50GB issue, plain and simple since both use MPEG4 AVC and the extras are on a whole separate disc for the HD DVD version.

J Face/Off BD


AVC 2:18:56 35,813,523,456 ~36,859,699,838 34.36 24.00 25.72 LPCM 5.1 4608Kbps DD AC3 5.1 640Kbps

Courtesy : benes

his is a 30GB vs 50GB issue, plain and simple since both use MPEG4 AVC and the extras are on a whole separate disc for the HD DVD version.

that's ridiculous. both versions look like ass. it has the look of an old d4 transfer, plain and simple. it's an old transfer not fit for HD.

that's ridiculous. both versions look like ass. it has the look of an old d4 transfer, plain and simple. it's an old transfer not fit for HD.

Do you have the discs in question?

I do. There is no mistaking this transfer for DVD.

The presented pics tell me it's an outdated transfer with EE. The EE is on HD-DVD and BR. The HD-DVD has severe DNR applied and an ugly DNR look. The BR is very grainy/noisy and has compression noise on top of the transfer noise. Neither disc offers a state of the art version of the film (nor does the transfer they were made from). I prefer the BR from these shots.

Sorry guys. I think neither Studios will do a re-master for another 10 years with this movie just being released on HDM. So let's be happy with what's being offered. To my it looked and sounded pretty damn good in my telly. People with huge projection screens may be able to spot some ugly artifacts and not the ones with HDTV.

I hadn't seen the movie before, and with the reviews being so positive, I gave it a rent and ended up liking it enough to own it. I see these pics, and they're certainly not indicative of a pristine transfer. but I think a lot of you need to go back and watch the SD DVD again. 8-O--PROJECTILEVOMIT--------

Those are nasty screenshots - those discs should be recalled. The BD interpretation is far sharper, which I prefer. Both are bad though and they should be ashamed (and have nothing to do with the formats).

-Evan

Those are nasty screenshots - those discs should be recalled. The BD interpretation is far sharper, which I prefer. Both are bad though and they should be ashamed (and have nothing to do with the formats).

-Evan

Yeah, but what is that BD sharpness? It doesn't look natural to me with uneven areas of artifacting and pixelization, looks more like noise or over-active EE. I don't think that's necessarily any better than DNR.

Yeah, but what is that BD sharpness? It doesn't look natural to me with uneven areas of artifacting and pixelization, looks more like noise or over-active EE. I don't think that's necessarily any better than DNR.

I can see what you're saying. I guess my point is not which one is better so much as which one sucks less. To my eyes the BD pic is less offensive. To the guy who complained about the DVD transfer, right on. Maybe I'll try to get through the DVD version tomorrow and compare. It's bad though.

-Evan

Both HDM versions also appear to me to have a horizontal chroma bug. It could be my new LCD TV but doesn't appear on the old broadcast version posted above.

- Tom

cool stuff

Those HD DVD shots look like wax statues. The Blu-Ray version looks more natural

Do you have the discs in question?

I do. There is no mistaking this transfer for DVD.

first off: no, i don't have them, and second: i don't have to own the discs to know an old transfer when i see one, and i sees one in those there pics. this has nothing to do with blu-ray v hd-dvd. they're equally detailed pictures, one with noise reduction applied to it. they look bad because they're both from an old transfer. repeat after me: the transfer. is old. that's why it looks the way it does.

Damn, BOTH transfers suck big time, the Blu-Ray is bad the HD-DVD is even worse, what the hell was Paramount thinking :(

I agree, both transfers have problems. There are things I dislike about both. Overall, the BD transfer looks sharper, but look at things like Tavolta's collar (in the first comparison). In BD, it looks like the lines have rough edges, where has the DNR on HD DVD makes them look smooth.

I like the BD a bit better because it is sharper, but I personally wouldn't spend good money to buy either...