|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.176.105.98
In Reply to: RE: How about because a lot of us are convinced Bandwidth and storage capacity.... posted by oscar on November 08, 2007 at 05:10:04
For all of your harping on more storage space, 55% of BDs are BD-25s. Most of the titles that are on BD-50s aren't using all of the space due to replication issues.>>>Clear examples of the differences are lacking because Warner will not maximize the capabilities of both formats on their releases so we can do meaningful comparisons (e.g. they leave out lossless audio tracks on Blu-ray releases when they don't put them on their HD DVD counterparts). Blu-ray (or HD DVD) releases from overseas might be useful (e.g. "Face/Off" where the Blu-ray version has a PCM soundtrack, the HD DVD has a lossy soundtrack, PQ differences are also discussed).<<<
That's actually not true. Before going HD DVD exclusive, Paramount was doing different encodes for each format, and critics couldn't tell the difference. Funny how people forget that.
Nature's Journey was optimized for the max of each format, and if you sit 2 feet from your TV, you *might* see a difference. Imports are a mixed bag. with Underworld Evolution, the import HD DVD is said to look better than the BD version by people who compared them. Others, its the other way around.>>>I've been disappointed with the alleged PQ issues on the Universal releases which is a probable reflection of indifferent encoding/master tape selection prior to release. I can't help but wonder how well they might have turned out using higher default video bitrates on the encoding thus removing a lot of the TLC needed to "smooth out" the more obvious compression artifacts ?<<<
Both formats have good and bad titles. That's not really the fault of the format, but of the studio and/or the people doing the transfer. If you go by my collection, BD is mostly mediocre. I don't blame BD for that, though I guess I could blame Sony, since its mostly their movies that are mediocre.
The truth is, that both formats are capable of being fantastic, as well as really bad if people screw up. Of course, many are in the middle.Jack
Edits: 11/08/07Follow Ups:
And a lot of them were fairly mediocre in PQ; some because of the learning curve (e.g. DVD production values are no longer good enough for HD video), the use of less efficient MPEG2 and probaby less than ideal bitrates.
The best Blu-ray movies for PQ are on 50G discs which constitute the majority of the recent releases.
And as I was saying, the biggest discriminator between Blu-ray and HD DVD is the absence of lossless/uncompressed audio tracks with HD DVD ( <15%). The vast majority of Blu-rays without lossless are the Warner releases who probably didn't want the Blu-ray version to upstage the HD DVD counterpart. It's not just storage (notice even the 25G Blu-rays have lossless) but bandwidth which is a likely cause; the studios have to allocate the available audio/video bit rates between video and audio and the video is the higher priority. I.e. Better to dump the lossless audio than let significant compression artifacts plague the video. In contrast, lossless audio is basically a freebie (i.e. no impact on available video bandwidth) for Blu-ray for 5.1 24/48 PCM.
which actually surprises me. Saw 3, Scary Movie, Vacancy, Robocop, to name a few recent titles, are BD-25s. Almost all of the smaller independent studios use BD-25s. RBfilms said BD-50 wasn't even an option for him, even if he wanted it.
In most cases where HD DVDs don't have lossless, the reason is strictly due to the studio's decision not to include it (don't ask me why), not for technical reasons. Kind of like some BDA studios choosing to still use MPEG-2. BTW, I don't consider DTS-MA all that wonderful, or even useful, since none of the machines actually decode it.
Jack
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: