Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.

highdefdigest: Flags of our Fathers AVC BD Sharper than VC-1 HD-DVD

1643 Views 20 Replies 17 Participants Last post by markrubin, May 21, 2007

krinkle

Discussion Starter · May 21, 2007

Professional reviewers are definitely noticing the difference in picture quality that can only be accomplished with ultra high bitrates on Blu-ray that are beyond the capability of the HD-DVD specs.

Here is what they have to say regarding the low-bitrate VC-1 version released on HD-DVD:

Quote:
Originally Posted by highdefdigest /forum/post/0

In a side by side comparison of the film between the the AVC MPEG-4 transfer on this Blu-ray version and the VC-1 transfer on the HD DVD, it does seem that the Blu-ray/AVC encode is the tiniest bit sharper, while the HD DVD/VC-1 is the slightest bit softer.

Can't wait until some of our resident AV HTPC experts here can do a full comparison with close-ups etc.

Looks like Blu-ray's better specs are starting to translate into visible real-world improvements over HD-DVD.

A HUGE thank you to Paramount for optimizing for Blu-ray.

See less See more

Status: Not open for further replies.

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

geko29

· #2 · May 21, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by krinkle /forum/post/0

A HUGE thank you to Warner Bros. for finally starting to optimize for Blu-ray.

I wouldn't be so quick to thank WB for doing you a favor on a Paramount movie.

See less See more

krinkle

Discussion Starter · #3 · May 21, 2007

2

Quote:
Originally Posted by geko29 /forum/post/0

I wouldn't be so quick to thank WB for doing you a favor on a Paramount movie.

Ooops, its really early here.

Still doesn't change the point however that reviews are calling the BD-50 AVC version superior.

Top Gun will be BD-50 AVC with PCM. Looks like going forward the BD version will be the one to buy if you really care about the ultimate PQ and AQ.

Buy HD-DVD only if you are satisfied with "trust us, its good enough".

See less See more

Adam Tyner

· #4 · May 21, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by krinkle /forum/post/0

Still doesn't change the point however that reviews are calling the BD-50 AVC version superior.

Well, one review is, and it's by someone who's been pretty controversial in the past.

While it very well may be the case that the Blu-ray version looks better than the HD DVD -- I have no idea -- bear in mind that this is just one point on the graph. If Paramount had quickly churned an AVC encode and it looked kinda lousy on Blu-ray, would you rush to judgment that HD DVD inherently looks better than Blu-ray?

We have no trend. We have one opinion floating in the wind. Also, this opinion uses words like "tiniest" and "slightest" to describe the incremental difference, and that honestly doesn't sound like cause for a ticker tape parade.

K.L.

· #5 · May 21, 2007

Is everything the same except for video codecs?

zBuff

· #6 · May 21, 2007

I'd wait till Xylon releases his comparison pics before voicing my opinion.

I wish they would have put on a better soundtrack on that movie though for the BD release(K.L. the BD got DD at 640kb, HDDVD has a DD+ track at 1.5mb). Thankfully I have no interest in the movie itself, Top gun on the other hand.... That was the first movie I ever heard in stereo, I played out video tape heaps, ah good memories.

When is Top gun suppose to be released anyway?

krinkle

Discussion Starter · #7 · May 21, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by zBuff /forum/post/0

I'd wait till Xylon releases his comparison pics before voicing my opinion.

I wish they would have put on a better soundtrack on that movie though for the BD release(K.L. the BD got DD at 640kb, HDDVD has a DD+ track at 1.5mb). Thankfully I have no interest in the movie itself, Top gun on the other hand.... That was the first movie I ever heard in stereo, I played out video tape heaps, ah good memories.

When is Top gun suppose to be released anyway?

Everyone should also note that this review was done by a huge HD-DVD fanboy, so its probably safe to say the BD is a whole heck of a lot sharper.

See less See more

krinkle

Discussion Starter · #8 · May 21, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by zBuff /forum/post/0

I'd wait till Xylon releases his comparison pics before voicing my opinion.

I wish they would have put on a better soundtrack on that movie though for the BD release(K.L. the BD got DD at 640kb, HDDVD has a DD+ track at 1.5mb). Thankfully I have no interest in the movie itself, Top gun on the other hand.... That was the first movie I ever heard in stereo, I played out video tape heaps, ah good memories.

When is Top gun suppose to be released anyway?

According to Dolby Labs the audio quality is the same. The only reason for the DD+ on HD-DVD is to try to overcome HD-DVD's limitations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolby Labs /forum/post/0

Due to the way HD DVD structures audio data in packets, the only way to offer advanced capabilities--higher quality sound and option for more channels--was to adopt a different codec than DD, which was locked at 5.1 and 448 kbps, same as DVD. DD+ was specifically designed to address HD DVD's structure--the DD+ coding frames become progressively shorter (from 6 to 3 or 2) to allow more of them to pass thru the framing structure in a given time, thereby raising the data thruput.

Blu-ray, on the other hand, has no such packet constraint. That allows DD to be used in its full 6-block frame for maximum coding efficiency (efficiency drops slightly as the frame size is reduced), and to use its full 640 kbps capability for the very first time on optical media, thereby bringing higher quality.

If you look at the DD+ structure when delivering a 7.1 program (someday), you will see a 2-frame pairing. The first frame is the usual complete 5.1 mix. The second frame has the new channels for the 7.1 mix. The second frame also has all the new metadata and channel management DD+ info needed to control the overall reconstruction process. This explanation is identical for HD DVD and BD. The only difference is that both frames in HD DVD are DD+ because they must have a shorter frame duration, whereas in BD the first frame is standard DD because it does not have to be shorter. Both frames in the BD pair are full 6-blocks, highest efficiency mode.

Furthermore, while HD DVD discs generally do not let you stream the DD+ to an output without going thru the mixer, BD does allow that option.

madshi

· #9 · May 21, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by krinkle /forum/post/0

According to Dolby Labs the audio quality is the same. The only reason for the DD+ on HD-DVD is to try to overcome HD-DVD's limitations.

The audio quality between 640kbit/s DD and 640kbit/s DD+ is more or less the same. But there definitely is a difference between 640kbit/s and 1.5mbit/s DD+. Please note that Universal uses 1.5mbit/s DD+ while Warner uses 640kbit/s DD+ on their HD-DVD discs.

cjr1

· #10 · May 21, 2007

People like me who put more stock in audio superiority see the same review and notice an extra half star for audio on HD DVD and are happy they made the right purchase. The video encode on Blu-Ray may be slightly sharper, but it wasn't enough to loose any points for HD DVD, so it is probably a moot point unless you have both side to side and scrutinize them. Whether DD+ on HD DVD needs 1.5mbs or not doesn't matter, according to this review it is something that actually makes a difference in this case. And like others have already said, this is one person's opinion and one that has been disagreed upon times before, so I would be waiting until you see more opinions or actually viewing both discs yourself before declaring either side the superior.

MovieSwede

· #11 · May 21, 2007

And sharper isnt automaticly more details.

Push the sharpness up on your set and you will understand what I mean.

paxi

· #12 · May 21, 2007

Quote:
Neither is an advantage to my eyes

Why do you quote the reviewer and then leave out his very next sentence at the end? The reviewer says plain as day that neither is an advantage to his eyes, but you only cherrypick to quote to make Blu-ray look better. This goes beyond fanboyism and is just plain dishonest.

AV Doogie

· #13 · May 21, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by krinkle /forum/post/0

According to Dolby Labs the audio quality is the same. The only reason for the DD+ on HD-DVD is to try to overcome HD-DVD's limitations.

Incorrect, read the response from Dolby. Dolby indicates that DD+ was introduced to allow for higher quality and more channels. Your own quotation below.

"Due to the way HD DVD structures audio data in packets, the only way to offer advanced capabilities--higher quality sound and option for more channels"

AV Doogie

· #14 · May 21, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by krinkle /forum/post/0

Everyone should also note that this review was done by a huge HD-DVD fanboy, so its probably safe to say the BD is a whole heck of a lot sharper.

As confirmed by you, a 'Blu ray' fanboy

Please stop the silly format badgering.....you are wasting valuable threadspace.

See less See more

alfbinet

· #15 · May 21, 2007

Always remember: The ignore button is our friend.

donricouga

· #16 · May 21, 2007

Its one persons review. Lets at least wait for other reviews to judge the PQ. Obviously he decided that the difference was negligible. Maybe both HD-DVD and blu-ray supporters should team up on Paramount and force them into putting uncompressed audio on their discs. In the future, I don't want to watch Transformers without lossless audio.

Luke212

· #17 · May 21, 2007

2

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxi /forum/post/0

Why do you quote the reviewer and then leave out his very next sentence at the end? The reviewer says plain as day that neither is an advantage to his eyes, but you only cherrypick to quote to make Blu-ray look better. This goes beyond fanboyism and is just plain dishonest.

oops owned!

See less See more

JWhip

· #18 · May 21, 2007

It is really time for the moderators to close these types of postings which add nothing to the forum or to the discourse concerning the advantages of BD vs. HD.

bboisvert

· #19 · May 21, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by krinkle /forum/post/0

Professional reviewers are definitely noticing the difference in picture quality that can only be accomplished with ultra high bitrates on Blu-ray that are beyond the capability of the HD-DVD specs.

Here is what they have to say regarding the low-bitrate VC-1 version released on HD-DVD

Was this written by committee? Who is this "they"?

And by the way, is he a biased HD fanboy? Or a professional reviewer that is able to notice the difference between formats? Because your answer to that seems to change based on how the review turns out.

Big J

· #20 · May 21, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxi /forum/post/0

Why do you quote the reviewer and then leave out his very next sentence at the end? The reviewer says plain as day that neither is an advantage to his eyes, but you only cherrypick to quote to make Blu-ray look better. This goes beyond fanboyism and is just plain dishonest.

That is why he is on my ignore list. He is too biased to write an honest post.

Quote:
Always remember: The ignore button is our friend.

Yes, but mine is starting to whimper whenever I log on now.

J

See less See more

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

Status: Not open for further replies.