HD vs BlueRay, which´s best?
- Thread starter IGNDavid
- Start date
As both have support for the same CODECS, the differentiating factor is in the total storage available, and the authoring of the discs. If the encoding is bad, the film will look bad. All things being equal, BRD ought to look better as it has more space allowing for less compression.
The major concern is more available library. Which format has the films you want to watch? If the films you like are exclusive to one format, not much point in buying the other format, even if it looks better! The other concern is price. If you want BRD, you're better off getting a PS3 than a standalone player. For HD DVD, you've a choice of a cheaper standalone Toshiba player, or XB360 with HD DVD drive (are they still available? Hard to come by AFAIK). Or a more expensive player. For info one wich of the HD DVD players gives the best price/performance experience, you'd be better off at a video forum (AVSForums). In fact this whole thread belongs at an AV forum
And if you want to consider XB360+HD DVD and PS3, there's other considerations like the non-movie features. Perhaps BRD doesn't look quite as good as HD DVD, but you prefer the games on PS3? Or vice versa?
The major concern is more available library. Which format has the films you want to watch? If the films you like are exclusive to one format, not much point in buying the other format, even if it looks better! The other concern is price. If you want BRD, you're better off getting a PS3 than a standalone player. For HD DVD, you've a choice of a cheaper standalone Toshiba player, or XB360 with HD DVD drive (are they still available? Hard to come by AFAIK). Or a more expensive player. For info one wich of the HD DVD players gives the best price/performance experience, you'd be better off at a video forum (AVSForums). In fact this whole thread belongs at an AV forum
And if you want to consider XB360+HD DVD and PS3, there's other considerations like the non-movie features. Perhaps BRD doesn't look quite as good as HD DVD, but you prefer the games on PS3? Or vice versa?
woundingchaney
Regular
If your on the fence on the situation then it is perhaps best to wait until we see the release of dual format players. If you absolutely have to have a high def. player now then Im going to recommend the PS3. At this time in the format war BR has a lot of power behind it and is currently the safest purchase.
There shouldn't be in the long run, tho there has been in the short run in favor of HD DVD. But it's still early days, and BR authoring seems to be catching up.
Theres something I find very strange, I´m not sure if it´s the Blueray or the LCD-monitors.
When i look at Blueray Demo-videos 1080p on HD-LCD TVs I can notice the pixels, its not so sharp.
This is something i´ve only noticed on TVs runing Blueray vids 1080p.
Maybe it has something to do with the compression technology? Who knows?
When i look at Blueray Demo-videos 1080p on HD-LCD TVs I can notice the pixels, its not so sharp.
This is something i´ve only noticed on TVs runing Blueray vids 1080p.
Maybe it has something to do with the compression technology? Who knows?
I agree with this. I have both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on. I had both hooked up to the same TV for a short time (my beautiful plasma) and think that the reliance on mpeg 2 by Sony has hurt it in the short term. With the VC-1 encoded movies, the plasma showed in insane amount of subtle blacks and shadows. With a couple of the Blu-ray that I've watched, I've seen what would appear to be some crazy black crush.
That said, Shifty's got it right. The PS3 is worth it just for the Blu-ray capabilities. It's a gorgeous piece of electronics and makes barely a sound as it plays. It's DVD playback is decent. And, of course, you get the other benefits of the PS3. However, the lack of an IR port is, umm, annoying.
With the HD DVD player, you get an excellent HD DVD player and an above average DVD player (especially if you have a VGA input into your TV, since you can upscale to 1080p then, if that matters). As well, I happen to like the "dongle" approach, since now my 360 only ever has games in it, while the add-on only has movies. The PS3 requires me to swap them out. this is obviously a minor point.
Finally, from all the rumblings I've heard, combo-players will be coming out within the year, so any movies you buy should not become obsolete.
All that said, I'm still not sold completely on either format. The biggest selling point to me so far isn't the increased resolution, but the increased color accuracy. Anytime I play a SD DVD now, they look washed out. But after sampling both formats in-house, I'm willing to put money down that in a test between a very good encoded SD DVD and HD DVD or Blu-ray, most people wouldn't detect the difference.
So, in the end, I would suggest that unless you have other reasons to pick up a Blu-ray or HD DVD player (such as for the PS3 or Xbox), then I'm not sure either are terribly compelling right now...
EDIT: One other thing: It should be obvious by now that the disc capacity issue is a non-factor in movie playback quality. Quality of the codec and capability of the compressionists have more to do with it than anything, both of which are effectively format neutral.
Last edited by a moderator:
Have you tried any 50 GB AVC/VC1 encoded BRDs yet? If there is going to be a noticeable difference, this will show it. The only one I know of is Casino Royale as the Euro BRD give-away, so I don't know if there's any around yet for people to try.
I don't know off-hand...scratch that, I just did a quick search and blu-ray.com actually has a very nice catalog:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php
Looks like it is AVC, though I've heard the AVC encoders have come a long way since the launch, so if it isn't as good as I'd expect, you could chaulk it up to that regardless. I do believe that only a very small group of people--vidoephiles or not--could tell the quality difference between AVC and VC1, even if there was one (though I have a certain amount of dislike for mpeg2). My point being in the long run either codec will look amazing.
Ew, I just noticed that the Departed is VC-1 on BD-50. I have the flipper disc for HD DVD on that one (which I believe means that the VC1 side is limited to 15 gigs. The question is: is it worth it to me to spend 25 bucks just to compare formats? (Sadly, the answer is probably yes
) Shifty, if I do pick it up I'll be sure to post back here, since that's probably a better comparison than Casino Royale, I think...
Then that $25 will at least buy you some +Rep, so it's got to be worth itThe question is: is it worth it to me to spend 25 bucks just to compare formats? (Sadly, the answer is probably yes
Nick Laslett
Regular
For nearly all Warner releases there is no difference between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
For most Paramount releases the same is true but there are more exceptions.
They use the exact same masters, with the same codec on the discs for both formats. e.g. Unforgiven on blu-ray has the exact same data contained on it's disc as it's HD-DVD counterpart.
As all other studios are exclusive to Blu-Ray, except Universal which is exclusive to HD-DVD, it is a moot point about encode quality because for the forseeable future these discs will only be available on one format. So if you want films like Spiderman, Star Wars, Alien, Pirates of the Caribeen, Toy Story - you will have to invest in Blu-Ray.
I would suggest you visit these specialist forums for more informed opinion on the differences between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=114
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/forumdisplay.php?f=66
There are two format wars going on. One between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD physical media and one going on between VC1 codec and AVS codec. Both of these can be used for either format.
Blu-Ray has a higher bit-rate to transfer data and more storage capacity. Over time these two technical advantages will start to show a difference between the two formats. In practice it means that a long film can be encoded at a higher bit-rate and have lossless audio codec. Whereas the HD-DVD equivalent will have to use lossy audio and encode at a lower bit-rate to accomodate the movie due to it's length.
Blu-Ray as a format had a very poor start with poor discs and hardware issues, they seem to have got themselves sorted, but the first batch of software was not representative of the format.
If you visit here..
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/forumdisplay.php?f=66
You will see unbiased reviews from Robert Harris, a respected film restoration expert. He has interesting things to say about both formats.
There are a lot of reasons why a set-up in a shop might not be showing either format at it's best. If only it was a simple as plugging a HDMI cable into a monitor. Both formats have recieved regular firmware updates to improve the hardware. That is the world we now live in, products not really ready for release being patched to make them work after they have already gone on sale.
For most Paramount releases the same is true but there are more exceptions.
They use the exact same masters, with the same codec on the discs for both formats. e.g. Unforgiven on blu-ray has the exact same data contained on it's disc as it's HD-DVD counterpart.
As all other studios are exclusive to Blu-Ray, except Universal which is exclusive to HD-DVD, it is a moot point about encode quality because for the forseeable future these discs will only be available on one format. So if you want films like Spiderman, Star Wars, Alien, Pirates of the Caribeen, Toy Story - you will have to invest in Blu-Ray.
I would suggest you visit these specialist forums for more informed opinion on the differences between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=114
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/forumdisplay.php?f=66
There are two format wars going on. One between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD physical media and one going on between VC1 codec and AVS codec. Both of these can be used for either format.
Blu-Ray has a higher bit-rate to transfer data and more storage capacity. Over time these two technical advantages will start to show a difference between the two formats. In practice it means that a long film can be encoded at a higher bit-rate and have lossless audio codec. Whereas the HD-DVD equivalent will have to use lossy audio and encode at a lower bit-rate to accomodate the movie due to it's length.
Blu-Ray as a format had a very poor start with poor discs and hardware issues, they seem to have got themselves sorted, but the first batch of software was not representative of the format.
If you visit here..
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/forumdisplay.php?f=66
You will see unbiased reviews from Robert Harris, a respected film restoration expert. He has interesting things to say about both formats.
There are a lot of reasons why a set-up in a shop might not be showing either format at it's best. If only it was a simple as plugging a HDMI cable into a monitor. Both formats have recieved regular firmware updates to improve the hardware. That is the world we now live in, products not really ready for release being patched to make them work after they have already gone on sale.
I'd do my best to stay away from avsforum.com for now. That place has been turned into a haven for fanboys and paid shills to promote their formats.
Since we're on B3D, I'd recommend a PS3 and 360+HD DVD add on. That way you get the best of both worlds and you get top level gaming also.
If you have a lot of SD DVD's and want them played back in very high quality then I'd recommend any of the Toshiba HD DVD players (along with a PS3 for BluRay playback). Get all your sides covered. Worked for me and saved me a lot of headache.
Since we're on B3D, I'd recommend a PS3 and 360+HD DVD add on. That way you get the best of both worlds and you get top level gaming also.
If you have a lot of SD DVD's and want them played back in very high quality then I'd recommend any of the Toshiba HD DVD players (along with a PS3 for BluRay playback). Get all your sides covered. Worked for me and saved me a lot of headache.
I quite simply think BluRay is better. I'm not going to let myself be fooled with the software head-start that HD-DVD had - both formats have access to the same codecs and BluRay's 66% capacity advantage will pay out, as well as its superior studio support. This, for me, is actually one of the few no-brainers out there in terms of format wars.
Twelve more days until my first BluRay player ...
Twelve more days until my first BluRay player ...
Technically, it looks like Blu-ray is better. However, the real advantage of Blu-ray is the capacity and higher transfer rate. Higher transfer rate is quite meaningless because it's unlikely that any movies will be using such high bitrate. Capacity wise, it's always good to have larger space, but whether the larger space is meaningful is a matter of debate itself. For example, clearly that if you have two competing formats with one has 100TB and another has 150TB, you are not going to see any differences because no movie is going to use that much data.
Dual layer HD DVD has 30GB space, which means a 3 hour video can be fit in with about 20Mbps bitrate. With VC-1 or H.264, 20Mbps for a 1080i (or 1080p) video is more than enough. Even single layer Blu-ray disc (25GB) is already good enough for many movies. So the most important technical advantage of Blu-ray does not seem to be very significant.
Dual layer HD DVD has 30GB space, which means a 3 hour video can be fit in with about 20Mbps bitrate. With VC-1 or H.264, 20Mbps for a 1080i (or 1080p) video is more than enough. Even single layer Blu-ray disc (25GB) is already good enough for many movies. So the most important technical advantage of Blu-ray does not seem to be very significant.
When you have the 30GB barrier you compromise on audio quality when your movie gets over the 2hr limit. The higher bit-rate is actually a bigger factor than capacity, since there are already many movies which hit PBR’s of 40Mbps on Blu-Ray.
BD-50 means no compromises, or more correctly less of a compromise. As long as Warner and Paramount cater to the lowest common denominator they will not show the real difference (no matter how small) that Blu-Ray can give you. Some of you will jump on this point like wildfire but you know it’s a point that follows logic. Any reasoning against it can only take the form of “less is enough for me, thanks†– but do you guys, the enthusiasts, want to settle for less?
It’s become a political correct point to say the difference in picture quality now or in future will be “non-existentâ€, that’s the current climate of this debate, and you have to hand it to the HD-DVD side for creating this feeling.
I have always found the debates against higher capacity and higher bandwidth very odd, especially coming from the enthusiast community who I assumed would want the best possible picture and audio.
Then again I am not surprised since some people on the HD-DVD side are vehemently opposed to the industry’s format of choice thanks to their Sony complex. I am not naming any names, not insinuating that people here(unlike AVS) are like that but these people know who they are. The issue is so great that they would want the technically inferior platform to succeed, even if it goes against the wishes of the enthusiast inside them, just because of the problem they have with the company from Shinagawa-ku.
That’s sad.
I know a fair few HD-DVD owners at uni and they are sane people. They just couldn’t wait for Blu-Ray, they had to have their movies now. This is an irrational attitude, they were fully aware of the backing behind the formats, but the players were reasonably priced for them to have a “flingâ€. Some even bought a 360 add-on, they were pleased with it.
However the overwhelming majority of these people bought into HD-DVD for one reason alone: first to market. The here and now, they had enough disposable income that the HD-DVD purchase was a not a significant hit on them, it was a gamble they could afford.
BD-50 means no compromises, or more correctly less of a compromise. As long as Warner and Paramount cater to the lowest common denominator they will not show the real difference (no matter how small) that Blu-Ray can give you. Some of you will jump on this point like wildfire but you know it’s a point that follows logic. Any reasoning against it can only take the form of “less is enough for me, thanks†– but do you guys, the enthusiasts, want to settle for less?
It’s become a political correct point to say the difference in picture quality now or in future will be “non-existentâ€, that’s the current climate of this debate, and you have to hand it to the HD-DVD side for creating this feeling.
I have always found the debates against higher capacity and higher bandwidth very odd, especially coming from the enthusiast community who I assumed would want the best possible picture and audio.
Then again I am not surprised since some people on the HD-DVD side are vehemently opposed to the industry’s format of choice thanks to their Sony complex. I am not naming any names, not insinuating that people here(unlike AVS) are like that but these people know who they are. The issue is so great that they would want the technically inferior platform to succeed, even if it goes against the wishes of the enthusiast inside them, just because of the problem they have with the company from Shinagawa-ku.
That’s sad.
I know a fair few HD-DVD owners at uni and they are sane people. They just couldn’t wait for Blu-Ray, they had to have their movies now. This is an irrational attitude, they were fully aware of the backing behind the formats, but the players were reasonably priced for them to have a “flingâ€. Some even bought a 360 add-on, they were pleased with it.
However the overwhelming majority of these people bought into HD-DVD for one reason alone: first to market. The here and now, they had enough disposable income that the HD-DVD purchase was a not a significant hit on them, it was a gamble they could afford.
I quite simply think BluRay is better. I'm not going to let myself be fooled with the software head-start that HD-DVD had - both formats have access to the same codecs and BluRay's 66% capacity advantage will pay out, as well as its superior studio support. This, for me, is actually one of the few no-brainers out there in terms of format wars.
Twelve more days until my first BluRay player ...
If technology was the only part in this however. The past has showed has that being a technological superior format or system does not always mean you will win out. That's the issue to me and that's why I wait. I do not want to invest into one format and it be the "non-winning" format. While some say combo players, I personally do not want to pay the extra.
So, if you have the money then it really might not matter. You could always turn to a combo player later if the format you go into does not win out. But if you are not a high roller and want to buy your player and not worry then you should probably wait a bit longer.
Unless you already wanted that PS3 anyway, eh?
Which is the situation I am in, otherwise I would have waited as well. But I still think BluRay will win. The studios, the capacity, and the PS3 - combined they are very hard to beat. In Europe double so - there will be 500.000 copies of premium content out there working its mojo on the marketplace in less than two months (PS3 release date plus allowing 1 month for registration and delivery of Casino Royale). I personally also own a lot of series on DVD, and the fewer discs I need to swap in that area, the better. Right now, I get 4 episodes per DVD, totalling 3 hours. In future, I'm hoping BluRay will give me at least 6 episodes per disc, which is a small, but significant improvement.It's very unlikely a movie encoded in VC-1 or H.264 ever needs 40Mbps. There are most likely using MPEG-2.
The point is, does it make any difference, in most cases? "Bigger = better" is always easier to sell, but it's not always true. Sadly, that's how crappy audio equipments with support for "192kHz 24 bits audio" sell better than quality audio equipments with only 44.1kHz.
If you don't want to name any names, why do you bring this up? Accusing other people as "having Sony complex" does not make your arguments stronger.
Why doesn't it need 40MBps? If 40MBps is available to it why not go for it? What's the harm in pusing the bit-rate if you still have ample room for uncompressed audio and HD extras? I will dig this, up but I'm pretty sure a couple of the AVC titles breach the 40Mbps limit.
It will make a difference, if not now, later, they are compromising, the less you compromise the better the results. It's bigger trade-off between audio/video on HD-DVD vs. BD-50. If you want a format established for the future would you not want the one with the better potential?
"Bigger = better" should sell more than cheap crap to the enthusiast demographic. That was my original point. You can't go onto mass market if the enthusiast segment isn't catered for.
Not people here, AVS is an example. There exists a "special" dimension to this format war and the volumes are low enough so far for it to have a disproportionate effect on sales. It's a reality that is not often addressed in the hornet’s nest that's been stirred up. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away and it comes full circle to my point about the enthusiast market and its stance on the war.
