Quoting twojayz:

Quote:
Oh crap, I forgot to sign in when I got here, saw the damn posts...Sorry guys, can't help but reply...

Assended - You have repeatedly said that HD has NEVER COME CLOSE to BD on SQ. I proved you wrong. PERIOD, END OF STORY...I chose three titles at random that I knew were released on BOTH formats. I unlike you knew that the difference would be negligible, if at all. I wasn't afraid to prove my point with hard unbiased facts.

I noticed you didn't say a thing about the extra features not being available to BD because the players could not support them...

I can post more UNIBASED reviews but you'll ignore them saying that the list doesn't go far enough. I have nothing to prove to you. The simple fact of the matter is that I can spend the next 3 weeks filling this board with proveable, scientific fact and unbiased opinion and you will knock it all down because you want so desperately to believe that you are right and BD is superior in all aspects.

The idea here is that you should get the facts and come to a logical conclusion. You can't start with a conclusion and then try to find facts to support it. When you do that, you find yourself in the position you are in. You continually fight to defend your position even though nearly every thing you say can be disproved. Sucks to be wrong, huh? I'm out.

Do you realize we are talking title SQ averages from the beginning?  You didn't prove ANY of my data wrong.  Why are you trying SO hard to grab onto anything you can?  Anything to keep from acknowledging the Blu-ray's movie SQ has owned HD DVD's SQ for quite some time.

Obviously, you don't know the difference between something a studio CHOOSES to do to LIMIT the technical abilities of another format.  You are talking about HD DVD PORTOVERS on Blu-ray.  Do you understand that?  Either NEUTRAL studios decided to use the SAME audio and video (to save money on the encoding process since HD DVD encodes fit neatly on Blu-ray) or the SAME video and different audio for HD DVD to give the title an advantage for HD DVD.  There ARE a FEW exceptations.

It seems you only understand bits and pieces of the picture, but can't put them together for some reason.  I should not have to go through all this explaining (that you and other STILL won't understand).  You REFUSE to increase your knowledge base and understanding about these formats.  Choosing to block my posts are of no concern to me.  You chose to block my posts MENTALLY from the beginning.  You can't help the people that are like that anyway.

BTW, just saying you proved the data wrong doesn't make it so.  Remember that.

EDIT: Misspelled a word.

Quoting twojayz:

Quote:
Dliverance:
HD PQ: 3.5, SQ 2.5 
BD PQ:3.5, SQ 2.5

We are Marshall:
HD PQ 3.5, SQ 4.5
BD PQ 3.5, SQ 4.5

Planet Earth:
HD PQ 4, SQ 3
BD PQ 4, SQ 3

Disturbia:
HD PQ 3.5, SQ 4.5
BD PQ 3.5, SQ 4.5

Hustle and Flow:
HD PQ 2, SQ 4
BD PQ 2, SQ 4

Black Snake Moan:
HD PQ 5, SQ 4.5
BD PQ 5, SQ 4
from the review (high def digest):
"Comparing the audio package on this HD DVD release to its Blu-ray counterpart, once again Paramount has gifted HD DVD fans with a 1.5mbps Dolby Digital-Plus track, while the Blu-ray gets a slightly demoted 640 kbps Dolby Digital 5.1 surround mix. In a direct compare, there's an audible difference between the two tracks, with the HD DVD sounding a bit fuller and more robust than the Blu-ray version (you can really tell the difference when Lazarus plays his guitar and in the aforementioned sound of the dragging chain).

All things considered, this HD DVD mix excels and provides a great listening experience."

I can go on forever...So, I have supplied like what, 10 random head to head comparisons between BD and HD and in not one single case has the BD version outperformed the HD release. In fact, in at least two of them the HD ended up better...Hmm...

Dude, these titles are from neutral studios.  These are basically HD DVD encodes ported over to Blu-ray.  Like I said before, their are FEW exceptions.  Any other situations were meant to give HD DVD a leg up on some titles.  It doesn't speak to the limitations of the format (which is the point of my posts).  You don't seem to understand that.  Why...I don't know.

Quoting twojayz:

Quote:
PlayStation 3 - 130,600 (1.75 million)

I don't know how I missed this.  With 1.75 million PS3s...'Blu-ray players'...in the U.S., shouldn't Blu-ray be doing a lot better than a simple 2:1 sales ratio?  This is the basic reason that the PS3 should not be counted as a stand alone Blu-ray player.  While it is having an impact, it isn't haveing a HUGE impact...at least not based on the disc sales numbers.

So, I spent some time to check into the numbers at the high def digest site, here's what I've got. It's going to be long, so pardon me in advance. I have a full breakdown of the scores, not just the totals. One thing to notice is this; Blu-ray holds a small lead in both categories but, they have an additional 20 or so titles reviewed. A few good ones can obscure the numbers a little bit. If they had the same number of releases it would probably be a tad more accurate, not much but a little. Anyway, here's the story:

Video: HD DVD

20 with 5 stars - 100
62 with 4.5 stars - 279
120 with 4 stars - 480
48 with 3.5 stars - 168
26 with 3 stars - 78
9 with 2.5 stars - 22.5
6 with 2 stars - 12
1 with 1.5 - 1.5
1 with 1 - 1

1142 total video score with 294 titles = 3.88 average

Audio: HD DVD
12 with 5 stars - 60
32 with 4.5 stars - 144
89 with 4 stars - 356
79 with 3.5 stars - 276.5
56 with 3 stars - 168
19 with 2.5 stars - 47.5
5 with 2 stars - 10

1062 total audio score on 292 titles = 3.64 average

Video: BD

20 with 5 stars - 100
77 with 4.5 stars - 346.5
124 with 4 stars - 496
47 with 3.5 stars - 164.5
29 with 3 stars - 87
6 with 2.5 stars - 15
5 with 2 stars - 10
1 with 1.5 stars - 1.5
1 with 1 star - 1

1221.5 total video score with 309 titles = 3.95 average

Audio: BD

23 with 5 stars - 115
56 with 4.5 stars - 252
105 with 4 stars - 420
71 with 3.5 stars - 248.5
40 with 3 stars - 120
12 with 2.5 stars - 30
3 with 2 stars - 6
0 with 1.5 stars - 0
0 with 1 star  0

1191.5 total audio score with 310 titles = 3.84 average

This means that with 20 additional titles reviewed BD has a .07% (negligible) average lead in audio and a .2% (barely noticeable to the average eye) average lead with video quality...

I'm not sure this is something the BDA should really be that proud of. If you consider all that extra bandwidth and the like I would expect BD to be absolutely killing HD in quality. That aint happenin' folks. Also, pardon my laziness as this is only one site so I don't know that these numbers are reliable or not. hehe...

EDIT: If anyone cares to challenge the math go ahead, I'm not hiding anything. BD holds a very small lead in overall quality. Don't forget that this also includes a number of BD exclusives that should, by the very nature of the superior technology, result in much higher numbers. They were encoded specifically for the BD format, none of that lowest common denominator (HD DVD) stuff...

Quoting twojayz:

Quote:
So, I spent some time to check into the numbers at the high def digest site, here's what I've got. It's going to be long, so pardon me in advance. I have a full breakdown of the scores, not just the totals. One thing to notice is this; Blu-ray holds a small lead in both categories but, they have an additional 20 or so titles reviewed. A few good ones can obscure the numbers a little bit. If they had the same number of releases it would probably be a tad more accurate, not much but a little. Anyway, here's the story:

Video: HD DVD

20 with 5 stars - 100
62 with 4.5 stars - 279
120 with 4 stars - 480
48 with 3.5 stars - 168
26 with 3 stars - 78
9 with 2.5 stars - 22.5
6 with 2 stars - 12
1 with 1.5 - 1.5
1 with 1 - 1

1142 total video score with 294 titles = 3.88 average

Audio: HD DVD
12 with 5 stars - 60
32 with 4.5 stars - 144
89 with 4 stars - 356
79 with 3.5 stars - 276.5
56 with 3 stars - 168
19 with 2.5 stars - 47.5
5 with 2 stars - 10

1062 total audio score on 292 titles = 3.64 average

Video: BD

20 with 5 stars - 100
77 with 4.5 stars - 346.5
124 with 4 stars - 496
47 with 3.5 stars - 164.5
29 with 3 stars - 87
6 with 2.5 stars - 15
5 with 2 stars - 10
1 with 1.5 stars - 1.5
1 with 1 star - 1

1221.5 total video score with 309 titles = 3.95 average

Audio: BD

23 with 5 stars - 115
56 with 4.5 stars - 252
105 with 4 stars - 420
71 with 3.5 stars - 248.5
40 with 3 stars - 120
12 with 2.5 stars - 30
3 with 2 stars - 6
0 with 1.5 stars - 0
0 with 1 star  0

1191.5 total audio score with 310 titles = 3.84 average

This means that with 20 additional titles reviewed BD has a .07% (negligible) average lead in audio and a .2% (barely noticeable to the average eye) average lead with video quality...

I'm not sure this is something the BDA should really be that proud of. If you consider all that extra bandwidth and the like I would expect BD to be absolutely killing HD in quality. That aint happenin' folks. Also, pardon my laziness as this is only one site so I don't know that these numbers are reliable or not. hehe...

EDIT: If anyone cares to challenge the math go ahead, I'm not hiding anything. BD holds a very small lead in overall quality. Don't forget that this also includes a number of BD exclusives that should, by the very nature of the superior technology, result in much higher numbers. They were encoded specifically for the BD format, none of that lowest common denominator (HD DVD) stuff...

Nice work, thanks for the effort!  What A_S fails to acknowledge, and will never admit or acknowledge is that all of his precious scientific-freak'n proof from studies like this are  based on completely SUBJECTIVE ratings that vary from reviewer to reviewer and from title to title. They simply are not, and never have measured any quantifiable, objective data. They are nothing but opinions on a scale of 1 - 5.  The average ratings in all categories for both formats is so close as to be meaningless. One would even expect the standard deviation to be greater than the actual difference in the averages posted by A_S. No matter how A_S wants to spin it, declare it or demand it .... all that his charts show is that the overall PQ and SQ average of most Blu-ray and HD DVD titles are dead even, the SAME, NO DIFFERENCE!

Ah, now to sit back and wait for A_S to furiously type two+ pages of denial, lecture and blu-ray blow hard stating once again that none of us can dare to comprehend the ultimate truth of his math games     

This is forum is more fun than the comedy channel 

Quoting twojayz:

Quote:
Of course NEUTRAL studios try to give an advantage to one format or the other. That makes sense. The very definition of neutral means that a party doesn't take a side or doesn't care one way or another. Interesting point for a number of reasons which I won't list or nobody will read this post.

Listen, DUDE, you can make excuses all you want for being a BD blow hard, it doesn't matter to me.

It's just an honor to argue with someone of such incredible insight and intellect. Even though you basically said that I, along with nearly everyone else here are not mentally developed enough to fully comprehend the total picture...

As for my data not proving anything, sure it did. You just have to accept it, which you can't. I even used your coveted HighDef Digest. Obviously you realize that I am not going to waste my time to track each and every review, although it would be interesting to see how the numbers truly are. I have a couple hours to kill...

This is where knowing the history of Blu-ray and HD DVD comes in.  Let me help you out a bit.  Warner Brothers and Paramount were originally ONLY in the HD DVD camp.  They changed their positions on the matter BEFORE the HD players were released.  A Warner Brothers executive (they call him the father of DVD...can't remember his name at the moment) helped to bring DVD into the forefront for movies.  Warner Bros has a vested interest in DVD and HD DVD.

Warner Bros has delayed titles that are on HD DVD from coming to Blu-ray.  They have sited IME (basically picture-in-picture) as the reason why, but titles such as Casablanca, Constantine, The Perfect Storm, Caddyshack, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, etc just don't have IME at all.

Paramount did do seperate video encodes (using VC-1 mostly on HD DVD...MPEG-2 for Blu-ray).  The MPEG-2 encodes for Blu-ray saved them a lot of encoding time and money (real-time encoding), but they usually held back the lossless soundtracks for the Blu-ray titles despite having dedicated bandwidth just for audio.  Being that they didn't want to help show Blu-ray to have more video and audio abilities and Blu-ray didn't have players with DD+, they took down the audio to DD 640kbps.  A lot of their titles featured either DD 640kbps for Blu-ray and DD+ 640kbps for HD DVD (no difference), or DD 640kbps for Blu-ray and DD+ 1.5Mbps for HD DVD (advantage HD DVD).

So, YES, neutral studios have a bias towards HD DVD even though Blu-ray outsells HD DVD titles at greater than 2:1.  As I say alot, feel free to research this.

Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting twojayz:

Quote:
PlayStation 3 - 130,600 (1.75 million)

I don't know how I missed this.  With 1.75 million PS3s...'Blu-ray players'...in the U.S., shouldn't Blu-ray be doing a lot better than a simple 2:1 sales ratio?  This is the basic reason that the PS3 should not be counted as a stand alone Blu-ray player.  While it is having an impact, it isn't haveing a HUGE impact...at least not based on the disc sales numbers.

...Counted as a standalone player?  Where did that come from?  Funny!  Are you implying that because HD DVD is not losing by more than it already is, that means somehow that's great news for HD DVD, huh?  That would be some strange logic indeed.

I am not implying anything.  I said exactly what I meant to say.  The fact that you are trying to twist it into something completely different is just idiotic. 

Quoting Battling Butler:

Quote:

Nice work, thanks for the effort!  What A_S fails to acknowledge, and will never admit or acknowledge is that all of his precious scientific-freak'n proof from studies like this are  based on completely SUBJECTIVE ratings that vary from reviewer to reviewer and from title to title. They simply are not, and never have measured any quantifiable, objective data. They are nothing but opinions on a scale of 1 - 5.  The average ratings in all categories for both formats is so close as to be meaningless. One would even expect the standard deviation to be greater than the actual difference in the averages posted by A_S. No matter how A_S wants to spin it, declare it or demand it .... all that his charts show is that the overall PQ and SQ average of most Blu-ray and HD DVD titles are dead even, the SAME, NO DIFFERENCE!

Ah, now to sit back and wait for A_S to furiously type two+ pages of denial, lecture and blu-ray blow hard stating once again that none of us can dare to comprehend the ultimate truth of his math games     

This is forum is more fun than the comedy channel 

The funny thing is I remember when HD DVD fans where talking about how HD DVD has the better PQ.  Then, it was...HD DVD has the PQ advantage or is the same in quality.  NOW, it's...Blu-ray doesn't have that much of PQ advantage.  HD DVD fans never real talked about the SQ advantage that Blu-ray has maintained.  If you add better PQ and better SQ together, that equals A BETTER MOVIE WATCHING EXPERIENCE.

Being an eyewitnessing to a crime is subjective.  Being an eyewitness to better PQ and SQ is subjective.  But, get a bunch of eyewitnesses (that are using a logical process) together and they're all saying the same thing, chances are there is something to it.  I referenced 5 of the top online HD reviewer sites.  There must be something to it.