King Kong comparison *PIX* - Page 3

Going by the captures so far in this thread the PQ is almost the same except the BD is slightly less detailed in the closeup of Naomi Watts which is consistent with the captures in the other thread.

HD-DVD was the better format? Shouldn't we be beyond that by now.

whatever could possibly lead you to that conclusion based on this thread

yes

I was only joking.

We should, but when you start seeing Blu-Ray encodes of material previously exclusive to HD-DVD, and those encodes are not up to snuff makes you have to say.... what were they thiking adopting a format not yet ready for Prime Time.

I love HD-DVD, and I love Blu-ray. I am so hooked on HD material right now it is a moot point to argue the format war, but MHO is HD-DVD was better, but that is all water under the bridge because the format is as Dead as grunge.

There seems to be little difference here between the two encodes, with some scenes better on the HD DVD and some better on the Blu-ray. Considering the average bitrates are so close I expect the HD DVD encode to be just slightly better overall, if only because it was rumored that Microsoft went above and beyond the call of duty fine-tuning the compression work for this movie as much as they could given the format's limitations (it was the demo pack-in release for their Xbox HD DVD add-on and was intended to attract gamers into the format).

What does the format have to do with it They could've just as easily stuck the HDDVD encode on the Blu-Ray...

Not up to snuff? Not ready for prime time? ...really?

This is 2009. It's not the format's fault that some studios botch up their encodes.

Look guys, I want to counter the points to that some are claiming, but if we keep this up and it has already begun, thread closed. We either need to not go there or what is the other obvious option, ban any HD DVD mention from the BD forum? but some insist on hanging on so onward.

I will say this, since it was brought up, if King Kong was one of the pinnacle videos of HD, I would think Prince Caspian, POTC's and a few others on BD had to have surpassed it.

I can also add that some of the movies, like Clint Eastwoods from the 70's that I have seen on HDnet movies, make the tv presentations of King Kong average PQ wise and those movies on HDnet have healthy grain intact and are very film like.

It is like Kram Sacul is saying it is the studios encode and transfer, just like what I see as a huge difference with HDnet and HBO or Starz. Occasionally other HD movies stations get it right with OAR, grain etc, but unfortunately not always and sometimes they are horrible to watch.

I would wager the BD is far better than the tv presentations for King Kong.

For those who have fiber and or an "uncompressed" HD signal, how did the HD DVD of King Kong compare to the tv presentations? It had to be better than what I saw. It wasn't horrible or bad, but I could see it looking better.

Pics so far look 100% identical imo...no WAY on earth anyone watchig these two discs live side by side could tell any differences between them, assuming some folks think there are differences.

I'm just glad that Xylon has posted these caps so we can keep the format war alive and kicking here at AVS!

I like what Xylon has done but I really don't understand why he puts format headers on the caps.
It would be much more entertaining\\enlightening to have a public poll on which is which but in all reality does anyone really care that much?
I have the HD DVD but there is no way I would buy the BD no matter how good it looked.
Some of the effects are great but the movie as a whole really fails.

Had HD-DVD won the format war, its pretty certain that we we now be seeing titles with excessive DNR/EE applied that had been previously released looking better and more natural on blu-ray.

Other factors than the format have influenced the decision by the studios to use DNR and EE.

pretty darn close imho, so conclusion is that hd dvd was not always better.

Won't everyone be glad when all the HD-DVD-only titles show up on Blu-ray and there will be no need to compare and debate whether some old HD-DVD version is or isn't "better" than the new Blu-ray version of a movie?

Looking forward to the future Riddick threads

Yes.

You used a key word in your post, need. There never was really a need to compare only want and that applies even more now than when there was two viable formats. I think most know and even knew then PQ was a wash in terms of what potential both formats could provide, but they simply had their favorite and they wanted it to win.

And the best part about moving on is we can then compare BD to SD flash cards "when" they have HD movies encoded on them.
Will it ever end?

No. This is AVS. A place where a silly argument never dies...it just gets archived.

I know some have it already, but KK is officially coming out on BD next week correct?

Correct

hey, I tried in the other thread - Xylon, anybody else with the disc, mind just confirming whether -all- extras from the SD version are carried over? I've yet to find a back cover scan, alas...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=259

Nope. Most of the film extras are missing with 11 GB of space left on the Blu-ray. Maybe, King Kong - Collector's edition is on it's way. What a way to waste space.

Not unless you don't care about extras. Just give me a quality transfer, lossless audio, and a plain old case...I'm happy.

That's what I figured/feared...

And, for the love of god, don't turn this into a "I don't watch extras" threadcrap... I mean, it'd be like bitching about bitrates and HD DVD/BD all over again...

Thanks for the response, lgans.

Alright folks, I think we've hit all the complaints that could possibly be levied against this release. Unless thinks they've spotted EE / ringing, or feels the LFE is weak, I think we can safely just end this thread now and avoid the wonderful circle of arguing. Thanks for coming, see you at Riddick and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory!

Except the quality of the encode has NOTHING to do with the "readiness" of the format. These are decisions made by the studios that have nothing to do with the format and yet people think they can get away with the false argument that these inferior transfers somehow makes the format itself inferior to the other.

We have a winner.

Personally from the current crop of shots it appears to be compression artifacts that make the BR look a tad soft in some instances and have blotchy blocking.

In this case the encode on the HD-DVD seems a tad better and more coherent with the finer high frequency detail. Perhaps in this case the average bitrate was not sufficient to consistently provide a more 'transparent' PQ on the BR.

Frankly some of the softness may solely be due to compression issues and not necessarily DNR/EE.

I am curious what additional caps will reveal on whether these initial shots are isolated instances rather than the over all rule of the whole encode.

Now what is up with the contrast difference? Right now I prefer the slightly darker HD-DVD, but that is just me.

I enjoy this film from time to time so I'll have to give it a rental before purchase but if and when I do it seems not to be as bitter a pill as some other flicks.

Best Regards
KvE

Keep up the good work Xylon! Many, thank you.

Now, crosses fingers for, Pitch Black, Riddick, and Bounre(s).

I don't think his comment was suggesting that extras were a waste of space. I thought he was saying that leaving 11 GB of the disc blank (as opposed to putting something in there like the movie or some extras) is a waste of space.