Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:
Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:
Where in this discussion (regarding AICN) have I blasted Blu-ray or said HD DVD was better?

You haven't done that.  And, to say HD DVD is better would be incorrect.  To say HD DVD is cheaper would be accurate.  You guys are too busy coming after me for basing a decision on facts (kind of weird).  Math, when done correctly, is fact based reasoning.  Science is based on fact base reasoning.  Both have served human advancement well.  Now, when people should be using these when trying to make a decision for ALL future movie watchers, some people are choosing not to use this logic.  That is almost the very definition of irrational (definition: not consistent with or using reason).

Quote:
I speculate (I can only offer my opinion) that Harry has far more influence over the buying public than you do.

That's probably a fact.  There are plenty of people that just follow what someone else says without doing any research.  THEY are called drones.  Those are the ones that generally end up with buyers remorse.

Quote:
You rant and rave and manipulate a few well-chosen facts, ignore many others and refuse to acknowledge that this war might be won on something other than what you consider is important.

Please show me the "many" other facts that I'm refusing to acknowledge (links please).  I haven't really seen anything that is "fact based" about HD DVD accept for the lower price.  Just about everything else seems to be just what someone else has said (no individual research done at all).  No one has shown me the these "many" facts that I'm overlooking.  You guys only say that I'm overlooking facts.  I will continue to wait for these "facts" to be presented.

Quote:
It might be that Blu-ray wins because people will like the disc covers better, or HD DVD discs are all toxic, or some other random bit of silliness.

Yep. Like people choosing Blu-ray because some HD DVD owners might have to boil some HD DVD discs to get them to work in their players.  I'm just having a little bit of fun at reality for a minute, but I hear (read) you.

Quote:
But no; according to you, only your facts count. You know it all and anyone who cannot 100% agree with you is totally opposed to you.

Incorrect.  Facts do not belong to me...nor do I claim they are.  I DO NOT ignore facts no matter if they hurt me emotional or not.  I ALWAYS make note of them.  Why do you say I act like I know it ALL?  Why can't I just know what I know?  I don't much about sailing, the internal workings of planes, make/models of older planes, furniture making, film tech., etc.  But, THIS, I know...not everything single bit about it...just the parts that helps one make a complete decision about both formats.  That's how I try to approach my purchases.  That's how everyone should approach their purchases...as an informed consumer.  He said, she said to uninformed consumers (and a much lower price) is how products like HD DVD sells units.

Quote:
It doesn't matter which disc is better. Beta was better: it lost.

Again, this is not completely correct.  Beta had better PQ.  VHS had larger capacity.  In the present war, Blu-ray has better PQ, AQ, and larger capacity.

Quote:
People will buy whatever they buy. The weirdest whim can send sales skyrocketing or plummeting.

Then why do companies spend millions on market research, if buying habits are so unpredictable (that's what I gathered from your statement)?

Quote:
I said, and I believe, that when Harry announces something, when he gives his opinion, that it matters not what logic or illogic he uses, his opinion has an amazing impact with his audience, which is huge. And because of that, if he chooses HD DVD over Blu-ray, he is going to influence a lot of buyers. (And perhaps to buy Blu-ray to prove him wrong...)

It is definitely a strong possibility.

Quote:
He claims every movie insider he's talked to owns HD DVD, not Blu-ray and that they have their reasons why. If that is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), then why do they choose HD DVD?

If true, maybe they are Sony haters like many HD DVD owners here or maybe some of that MS and Toshiba money has reached them.  It's definitively not because it is a better technology.

Quote:
You have no answer because you know no movie insiders.

Actually, I do know a couple of insiders.  They have both so they can do many comparisons at any time.  That is the only way you can know which is truly better.  That's why it's hard to believe movie/film insiders would ONLY have a HD DVD player.  That tells me something right there.

Quote:
You read biased news reports and repeat them as "FACTS". You pick and choose all your quotes, using only the ones which support your fanboy opinion. You then act as a troll to stir up the debate, demanding our fealty.

I don't have a HD DVD player, but I've done most of my comparisons at HiFi Buys. 

Would you really think that someone so caught up on the facts would just repeat articles without proving at least some of these through some scientific methodology?  That wouldn't be logical now would it?  That would be the type of drone behavior I've been seeing here.

Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Quoting Boykin:

Quote:
Well I have an HD DVD player and a PS3.  The HD DVD PQ is still better than the BR PQ on the PS3.  So your (AS) statement about BR having the better PQ is not accurate.  I have the latest firmware updates on both machines.

An average taken from the major reviewers since October say otherwise and my comparisons (at HiFi Buys) coincides with most of those.  If one knows about the film encode process, they should know that PQ also depends on the quality of the master it's encoded from.  The grain filtering process HD DVD uses on VC-1 encodes softens the picture.  That is why titles from neutral studios that use VC-1 for HD DVD and AVC for Blu-ray, the AVC version tends to be softer.

That's why the only other way to do this is comparing the best PQ of each formats encodes.  For HD DVD that would be King Kong.  For Blu-ray this would be Pirates.  Pirates was labelled as the new benchmark for the highest quality PQ and AQ.

Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:
Quoting Draxen:

Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:

Of course they followed this up by asking why we need anything more than 30GB anyway.  Sure, you can get more bonus content on the disc and so on.  But there's no real technical reason for it.  King Kong is still one of the best looking discs to date on HD DVD and it clocks in at 3:08.  I asked about something like Return of the King: Extended Edition (4:23) and one of the other Microsoft guys says they've already crunched the numbers and believe that there shouldn't any problems getting that to fit on 30GB with a quality VC-1 encode (although they admitted that it would be cutting it very close).  So they're of the opinion that we don't really need more than 30GB.  It's a good thing to have on a spec sheet of course, but more for marketing reasons than anything else.

This was very interesting reading... I belong to the large masses who haven't decided their side yet, and this question with disc capacity has been the reason why I have favoured and rooted for Blu-ray up until now. If King Kong, being over 3 hours long, is one of the best ones in either HD formats as far as picture quality go, I am more than happy to take another stand in all this... what with the current region free discs and inexpensive players of HD-DVD and all.

The only thing I care about is picture quality. If there are nice extras, fine, even better. I am not picky about sound formats. For me 5.1 and DTS in current SD DVDs are more than enough already. And since 99% of the movies are less than 3 hours (shorter than King Kong) why would the HD-DVD format itself limit the picture quality compared to Blu-ray? I am not deciding sides basing on movies over 4 hours in duration (be it The Lord of the Rings or others). If I buy, say, a 40ish inch 1080p TV, and I can't tell the difference between a Blu-ray version and HD-DVD version (both using the disc capacity to full), it doesn't make any difference what the disc capacity is.

I am still not making the final step down from the fence, but that example of King Kong's quality calmed me nicely. For me, now, it doesn't matter which side wins (or perhaps I favour HD-DVD now slightly, for their region free movies and cheaper players), just as long either of them does soon... 

And before Ascended_Saiyan reminds me: I know that Blu-ray has the majority of studio support at the moment, but it is irrelevant as long as the format war will be decided while Universal and other HD-DVD release studios still has interesting titles to publish - and they won't be running out of them anytime soon.

This is drone behavior.  Please to the math, yourself.  Here are some calculation of movies done so far.  Look at the HD DVD ported VC-1 numbers for dual released titles.

Drone behavior? Accepting the facts, more likely. No matter how much you propagate blu-ray in these forums, you individually and all the rest of us have VERY little to say which one will win the format war. I accept that fact on my behalf, maybe you should too. If you were able to understand what I wrote, you would have noticed that I have not, and am yet not going to, purchase either of the players - I am still waiting for the winner. How is not-yet-jumping-on-either-wagon drone behavior? 

Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:
To get the 250 minute LOTR ROTK EE on a 30 GB HD DVD disk they MUST use an average bit rate no greater than 16 Mbps which MUST include both video and audio.  Here is the math:

30GB = 30,000MB
30,000MB x 8 (8 bits[b] = 1 byte[B]) = 240,000Mb (this is 30GB in bits)
250 mins = 15,000 secs

240,000 / 15,000 = 16

That means no higher than an average bitrate of 16Mbps (for video and audio combined) can be used to fit on a single 30GB HD DVD disc.  This is not considering anything else that needs to be on the disc.  This is just the raw video and audio!

I don't know about you, but I don't want to see how bad that will look.  So to do this title justice and with a lossless track (LOTR deserves no less), this would need to be on 2 discs.

They will keep lying to you if you don't check this stuff yourself!

What's with the shouting? You do the math, I can't be bothered. What you also missed is that I said, I am not going to make a decision based on any 4+ hour movie out there... That is such a minority of all the movies, that it doesn't matter. Maybe that was very useful info to some other readers here, although I doubt it. When I will decide which format I will go with, I will base my decision on visual comparison in local stores OR some very clear signs that blu-ray/HD-DVD is going to be the winner. My buying habits won't make any difference on the outcome, neither does yours.

Quoting Draxen:

Quote:
What's with the shouting? You do the math, I can't be bothered.

He can keep the math.  I'm not interested.  Especially when the links he provided go to forum.blu-ray.com.  I do know that Microsoft specifically addressed bit rates at the event and it seems that VC-1 is able to do amazing work at extremely low bit rates (10-15Mbps).

Still, like you, I don't care if a 4 hour movie is split over two discs.

Quoting Draxen:

Quote:
Drone behavior?

Sorry, Draxen.  That was really for the quote you used of Mark's.  I wasn't specific enough because I was in a rush.  My apologies for that statement.

Quote:
What's with the shouting?

I thought shouting was ALL CAPS on the internet.  My statement was not to be read as if I was shouting.

Quote:
What you also missed is that I said, I am not going to make a decision based on any 4+ hour movie out there... That is such a minority of all the movies, that it doesn't matter. Maybe that was very useful info to some other readers here, although I doubt it. When I will decide which format I will go with, I will base my decision on visual comparison in local stores OR some very clear signs that blu-ray/HD-DVD is going to be the winner. My buying habits won't make any difference on the outcome, neither does yours.

I didn't miss what you said.  It's the little things that add up to big things.  Otherwise, VHS (or DVD) should be just fine for the audience that doesn't care about things like the best PQ, AQ, and available space.  "Right now lower pricing" on players only serves to let other know who the short-sighted people in the room are (not saying that you are one of those people).

If you are waiting for the winner, of course, that is your right.  The format war will (yes I said will) either end with Blu-ray on top or neither will make it.  In case of the latter, that would mean 720p downloadable contain will win.

Quoting stefc:

Quote:
FACT: Most of the first blu-ray releases are very shoddy MPEG2 encodes.

The MPEG-2 encode was not shoddy.  According to the experts, they were using the D4 master to encode the title from.  The D4 is about 1/4 the quality of the film itself.  That lower resolution was made painfully obvious when played back in the only BD player at the time Samsung BD-P1000 (with noise reduction turned on high).  That made ALL BD titles look "soft" until the firmware fix came out and the Panasonic BD player hit the market.  Most reviewer did not go back and revisit any of their older reviewers of those titles.  So, titles like Underworld: Evolution, S.W.A.T., Species, Silent Hill, Dinosaur, Ultraviolet, etc. got lower PQ reviews than they deserved.  Other titles such as The Fifth Element, House of Flying Daggers, and Stargate were victims of bad masters...not shoddy MPEG-2 encodes.

That why that's not a fact.

Quote:
FACT: The lossless sound formats such as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA sound exactly the same as Uncompressed PCM, but waste less space on the disc.

That is suppose to be a fact, but for some reason it is not.  Actually, it was determined (and I tested this myself) that LPCM sounds better than it's TrueHD counterparts.  Even Peter Bracke (a HD DVD biased reviewer for highdefdigest.com) noticed a difference on "The Departed" (look at the audio section).  If you can notice a difference, it's not lossless.

I noticed it on "Stomp the Yard".  Sony included a 16-bit LPCM and a TrueHD track.  This TrueHD track from Sony is at a much higher bitrate than the TrueHD track on "Letters from Iwo Jima" (a direct port over from the HD DVD version).  "Letters from Iwo Jima" made me check all the other TrueHD tracks on Blu-ray. That made me think about TrueHD some more. I thought..what if all the HD DVD versions of TrueHD was encoded at such a low bitrate. That made me take out every title in my collection with a TrueHD track. The most direct comparison being "Stomp the Yard".

I popped in the Nine Inch Nails concert. The TrueHD track was at a higher bitrate level than a 5.1 LPCM at 4.6Mbps. The TrueHD track on "Jazz Legends" was almost as high as the Nine Inch Nails concert. I should also point out that the last two titles I mentioned sounded every bit as good as any 5.1 LPCM track or even slightly better (it should sound that way at the same or higher bitrate as a 16-bit 5.1 LPCM track).

Therefore, my theory is that the HD DVD TrueHD tracks maybe compressed to the point where they are no longer lossless.  In which case, not all TrueHD tracks are truly lossless.

I could not compare 24-bit tracks.  I don't believe there is a HD DVD TrueHD encode of a 24-bit audio track to even compare against a 24-bit LPCM audio track.

That's why that's not a fact.

I will have to assume the DTS-HD MA is truly lossless until it can be tested. 

Quote:
FACT: The blu-ray spec has multiple levels (1.0, 1.1, 2.0). The base level 1.0, lacks many features such as audio codec support, a secondary video decoder (for pip commentaries and extras), storage (to keep bookmarks), 1.1 and 2.0 players are still not out, and if future discs include these features, early adopters with 1.0 players are screwed)

The only real difference between BD-J 1.0 and BD-J 1.1 is the PIP function.  That's it.

BD-J 2.0 is BD-Live.  This is the online capabilities like head to head BD player gaming (syncs the players for games), downloadable content, online forums (like Q&A with directors, etc.), maps, etc.

All players will play any content on a BD-J 1.1 disc expect the PIP commentary.

That's why that's not a fact.

On the other hand, only people that bought a Toshiba HD-D2 player can play twin format discs.  The others are screwed.

Quote:
FACT: The blu-ray spec includes Region coding, the HD DVD spec doesn't.

This one is a fact. 

It is also note worthy to mention that over 100+ titles are region free on Blu-ray.  It is also note worthy that HD DVD is suppose to have region coding some time in the future.

Quote:
FACT: Fox and Disney have amazing back catalogues, yet so far aren't interested in releasing much of it on Blu-ray.

It not that they aren't interested on releasing much of their catalog titles on Blu-ray.  First, Disney just released Pirates last week and Bridge to Terabithia is scheduled.  Secondly, Disney, Fox, and MGM are getting BD+ ready so they can have peace of mind when releasing their property.  That is one of the main reasons why they are BD exclusive studios.  They want their content protected with the most security.  Blu-ray can offer 3 layers of protection (1 has been compromised...AACS).  HD DVD can only offer 1 layer of protection and it has been compromised.

That's why that is not a fact.

Quote:
FACT: Blu-Ray may well have been dead by now if it weren't for the PS3. You love spouting out figures, go find some figures for sales of BD stand alone players excluding the ps3...

Actually, Nielsen Videoscan numbers said standalone player sales were about even in Feb.  That was despite being twice the price.

That's why this is not a fact.

I will agree that Blu-ray would be losing the format war if it wasn't for the PS3 (not dead).  Can you agree that HD DVD would be dead if it wasn't for the lower price and misinformation feed to people to buy HD DVD players?

Quote:
FACT: Blu-ray interactivity still doesn't work properly.

It does if you download and apply the firmware updates.

That is why this is not fact.

Here is a statement based on facts from a popular home video reviewer...

Quote:
There's no point in arguing the benefits of BD over HD DVD to someone who can't qualify a comparison past he said, she said. They're justifying. That's the problem with HD DVDs undercutting their price so early on. They've convinced people to early adopt that couldn't afford to. They got caught up in the heat, just like so many of us, which compared to DVD, HD DVD is a tremendous upgrade and for a period of about 5 months last year it was the shiitake mushroom. Now it's little more than a more buggy, gimmicky wannabe to Sony's product. It's limitations are showing. And Sony hasn't even begun to show what they can do with advanced java. But HD DVD already can't keep up. They could do better if they actually tried - meaning 30gb discs devoted to the film and putting the extras on a chaser. But, that means not being able to pretend that they're more advanced at the moment just because they more quickly were able to implement lesser standards of interactivity than what java will be able to do when in time. It would also mean more expense for Universal and Warner who aren't backing HD as a lasting medium. It's cheaper for them in what they perceive to be a dying market for packaged media.

Anyone that supports HD DVD is hurting themself in the long run, doing a small part, but a part nonetheless in ensuring that both formats remain niche and bigger titles like Star Wars never see the light of day in packaged high def, which I'm sure is fine with Lucas. Why would he want to risk making high fidelity copies of his properties available for anyone to duplicate and make money off of his love, hard work and millions in expense, all for a measly 30 bucks. He doesn't. But will, if the money is right, or they finally develop copy protection that actually works.

HD DVD fanatics are fooling themselves if they think they're going to get any more studio support if they hold out long enough. The difference between BD exclusives and HD exclusives is that BD exclusive studios actually believe in the future of packaged media, which is why they backed the BETTER technology, not the cheapest one. And they know that the only future packaged media has is if one format wins. Supporting both, will only help to ensure that doesn't happen. So, if you see Disney or Fox go neutral, you can bet that means they no longer see high def packaged media surviving either and are going neutral for appearances alone. Universal going neutral would mean something else entirely though. But, some people can't see beyond their own investments. HD DVD hasn't a hope of winning a war. It really never did. And I don't think that was its goal, which is why the DVD forum couldn't justify the expense of developing 45GB discs, so forth and so on. HD DVD is Toshiba's effort to make sure BD doesn't take away their DVD revenue and Microsofts way to keep BD from building momentum fast enough to stall VOD. HD DVD backers don't believe in their own format, as evidenced by public statements made by executives from Warner, Universal, and Microsoft, stating that VOD was the future. What's more telling than that?
__________________
Chad Varnadore
Senior Editor
Home Theater Spot

Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:

Quote:
FACT: The lossless sound formats such as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA sound exactly the same as Uncompressed PCM, but waste less space on the disc.

That is suppose to be a fact, but for some reason it is not.  Actually, it was determined (and I tested this myself) that LPCM sounds better than it's TrueHD counterparts.  Even Peter Bracke (a HD DVD biased reviewer for highdefdigest.com) noticed a difference on "The Departed" (look at the audio section).  If you can notice a difference, it's not lossless.

Now you are getting comical with your drivel. Are you trying to tell me that Dolby are lying when they say TrueHD is a 100-percent lossless audio codec? TrueHD is actually a lossy codec that doesn't sound as good as the master because of its lossy compression and Dolby have just made it all up hoping no one will notice. Do you not see how staggeringly stupid that is as you type it?

Does that possibility that the digest reviewer's setup may not be decoding the sound properly never enter your tiny mind? Has the sound been converted properly to PCM by the player and sent to his amp over hdmi 1.1? Or is he using an hd dvd player's analog outputs? You have no idea. And your own test of looking at bitrates is even more amateurish. You give the theory that if TrueHD bitrates are lower than PCM it can't sound as good - PCM IS UNCOMPRESSED, SO THE BITRATE IS GOING TO BE HIGHER, THAT'S THE WHOLE IDEA! What would be the point of a lossless compression codec if it needed the same bitrate to sound the same? At that point there is no compression happening and you might aswell use an uncompressed audio track!

Or is it because TrueHD is not mandatory in the BD spec, and only a handful of BD discs include it, then it can't possibly be the same quality as PCM can it? Is that how your "rational" mind comes to its conclusions? What staggers me even more is that in your own world you are still convinced that someone on this board is interested in what you type...