Why does HD DVD look and sound...

better than blu ray? Is it just me or am I on to something however late it may already be?

After firing up my HD A2 I'm seeing beautiful, vivid color and theater sound even from my JVC HTIB. And the upscaling DVD is better than my Panny BD 35.

Have you adjusted the display inputs for each input from each player? Most displays have different memory settings for each input so you must calibrate each input separately to get a fair comparison.

I have the A20 & BD35 set up in my bedroom and I will have to check them out after my busy season ends in 2 weeks and see if there is much of a difference between them with upscaling.

As far as PQ/SQ on HD DVD vs BD, this will depend on the titles, and PQ/SQ varies from title to title so the only fair comparison is to compare like titles on each format. Early BD titles did not look as good, but newer BD titles look just as good on BD as my good HD DVD titles.

HD DVD does not look or sound better than Blu-ray but you can see and hear whatever you want. I don't own the HD-A2 but I do own the HD-A20 and HD-XA2 and neither looks or sounds better than the Panasonic DMP-BD35 when comparing identical transfers of the same title. The best transfers I have seen come from Disney and Sony and none of those were possible on HD DVD even if either company had ever released an HD DVD.

HD DVD does look and sound great, even when the best audio option was Dolby Digital Plus so just enjoy the titles you own on the format. Trying to make a case that HD DVD was better than Blu-ray is silly at this point. No coherent argument can be made that 30Mpbs and 15GB per layer is better than 48Mbps and 25GB per layer, there never was one and never will be. Any transfer on HD DVD can be replicated precisely on Blu-ray with plenty of room left over. There is nothing inherent about HD DVD that meant the format's hardware could retrieve and decode data from the discs better than Blu-ray hardware. The two formats used the same codecs and often the same decoders. For my displays, I don't even have to calibrate players from the two formats differently to see pictures of equal quality when the encodes were identical.

Same source, same codecs, same bitrate on both formats and the result is there is no difference, end of discussion. If you want to claim a given HD DVD player or a given HD DVD title looks better than a given Blu-ray player or given Blu-ray title, that is fine but has no relevance to trying to make a case that HD DVD looks and sounds better than Blu-ray.

Chris

HD DVD does not look or sound better than Blu-ray but you can see and hear whatever you want. I don't own the HD-A2 but I do own the HD-A20 and HD-XA2 and neither looks or sounds better than the Panasonic DMP-BD35 when comparing identical transfers of the same title. The best transfers I have seen come from Disney and Sony and none of those were possible on HD DVD even if either company had ever released an HD DVD.

HD DVD does look and sound great, even when the best audio option was Dolby Digital Plus so just enjoy the titles you own on the format. Trying to make a case that HD DVD was better than Blu-ray is silly at this point. No coherent argument can be made that 30Mpbs and 15GB per layer is better than 48Mbps and 25GB per layer, there never was one and never will be. Any transfer on HD DVD can be replicated precisely on Blu-ray with plenty of room left over. There is nothing inherent about HD DVD that meant the format's hardware could retrieve and decode data from the discs better than Blu-ray hardware. The two formats used the same codecs and often the same decoders. For my displays, I don't even have to calibrate players from the two formats differently to see pictures of equal quality when the encodes were identical.

Same source, same codecs, same bitrate on both formats and the result is there is no difference, end of discussion. If you want to claim a given HD DVD player or a given HD DVD title looks better than a given Blu-ray player or given Blu-ray title, that is fine but has no relevance to trying to make a case that HD DVD looks and sounds better than Blu-ray.

Chris

You tell him, Chris. :banana: How dare the OP insinuate that HD DVD somehow looks better than Blu-ray. :eek: All HDM players offer the same PQ given an identical title. ;) And you're right, Sony and Disney titles rule. :bowdown:

:lol:

As far as PQ goes HD DVD and BD are identical. With AQ HD DVD is on par with BD with the titles that contained a Dolby TrueHD track, but the DD+ titles are not as good as most BD titles as most contain TrueHD or DTS-HD MA tracks.

As far as PQ goes HD DVD and BD are identical. With AQ HD DVD is on par with BD with the titles that contained a Dolby TrueHD track, but the DD+ titles are not as good as most BD titles as most contain TrueHD or DTS-HD MA tracks.

"Not as good" is correct from a spec standpoint. However in the real world most people won't be able to tell the difference between DD+ and lossless.

"Not as good" is correct from a spec standpoint. However in the real world most people won't be able to tell the difference between DD+ and lossless.

I agree with this Bruce. I have a $4k+ sound system and it is calibrated and the only way to really hear a difference on most is if you played them side by side and then it would be subtle on most tracks, especially if they came from the same master.

Is there a difference? Yeah. Will most notice it in a double blind comparison? I bet not. :p

Regardless, both look and sound fantactic, but who cares at this point? I just envoy both. :D

This thread went from a claim by the OP that HD DVD was better to an acknowledgement by some that Blu-ray is better but most people can't tell the difference or at least that the difference doesn't matter in their opinion. That is a good conclusion to stop at in my opinion.

Chris

This thread went from a claim by the OP that HD DVD was better to an acknowledgement by some that Blu-ray is better but most people can't tell the difference or at least that the difference doesn't matter in their opinion. That is a good conclusion to stop at in my opinion.
Chris

Fine with me. However I never read any acknowledgment stating Blu-ray was better, except from yourself. Goofnut, PFC5 and myself were discussing the difference between DD+ and lossless, not HD DVD and Blu-ray. HD DVD has quite a few lossless titles.

Also I'd like to point out the Disney and Sony's movies are top heavy in animation or newer titles, which can create the illusion that their encodes are better. But it's just the content they choose to replicate. They would look identical on HD DVD, since both formats offer identical PQ as has been stated above.

Fine with me. However I never read any acknowledgment stating Blu-ray was better, except from yourself. Goofnut, PFC5 and myself were discussing the difference between DD+ and lossless, not HD DVD and Blu-ray. HD DVD has quite a few lossless titles.

Also I'd like to point out the Disney and Sony's movies are top heavy in animation or newer titles, which can create the illusion that their encodes are better. But it's just the content they choose to replicate. They would look identical on HD DVD, since both formats offer identical PQ as has been stated above.

You might think that 60% higher bitrate can't make a difference, I disagree and all sites I have seen that rated both HD DVD and Blu-ray rated Blu-ray higher on average. HD DVD didn't use lossless audio often because the lower bitrate and lower capacity made that very difficult, and sometimes impossible. Blu-ray uses lossless audio a huge majority of the time as a direct result of having the bitrate and capacity available to make it an option almost all of the time. If in your subjective opinion you find no difference between Blu-ray and HD DVD, that is fine with me. My subjective opinion differs and objective data and technical specifications supports my opinion. When the files are the same, there is no difference. It is not difficult for Blu-ray to have a file that is objectively better with less compression and lossless audio.

Chris

You might think that 60% higher bitrate can't make a difference, I disagree...

On paper it makes a difference, but it just hasn't shown itself yet to be an advantage. Many Blu-ray titles have been released after the HD DVD, with a higher bitrate, and in nearly every case the PQ is rated the same. In fact, on some titles the HD DVD is more highly regarded (such as The Thing, Band of Brothers, The Mummy, to name a few), even though the BD bitrate is higher, because the BD version has excessive DNR.

...and all sites I have seen that rated both HD DVD and Blu-ray rated Blu-ray higher on average.

They may rate the AQ 1/2 star higher at HDD, but it's a spec rating and even when they admit not hearing any difference, they award the 1/2 star simply because the BD is lossless and is 'supposed to' sound better. Lame.

HD DVD didn't use lossless audio often because the lower bitrate and lower capacity made that very difficult, and sometimes impossible.

The lower bitrate has no relevance in audio. Lossless is lossless. If there was a difference in one lossless encode over another, using the same source, then the lesser encode couldn't be called 'lossless', could it? HD DVD has just as much capability for lossless as BD does and like I said it has 100's of lossless titles to choose from. Very rarely did they not include it because of space concerns.

Blu-ray uses lossless audio a huge majority of the time as a direct result of having the bitrate and capacity available to make it an option almost all of the time.

Sure, now that lossless has been developed and perfected, making it easy to incorporate. Blu-ray is a newer format and it still exists, and most of the titles on Blu-ray were released after HD DVD threw in the towel. In the format war days, Blu-ray was seeing a lot of lossy releases as well, so your point is off target and not a result of capacity or bitrate issues.

If in your subjective opinion you find no difference between Blu-ray and HD DVD, that is fine with me. My subjective opinion differs and objective data and technical specifications supports my opinion. When the files are the same, there is no difference. It is not difficult for Blu-ray to have a file that is objectively better with less compression and lossless audio.

On the contrary, I find HD DVD better than Blu-ray in PQ, simply because my XA2 outputs a better picture than either my Reon-equipped Samsung BD-P1200 or my LG BD200 (which is no slouch either). Why that is, I'm not sure. But if the OP is experiencing the same, he's entitled to his opinion without being told that he's FOS.

I atually think HD DVD looks better in many cases, but it must obvioisly be due to the tranfers I have been seeing. I have a shit load of HD DVD's (mainly due to the $5 fire sales) and a majority look very good to great. I have only seen about 11 BD's since I got my Panny and Samdung BD players and TDK and HellBoy 2 were the only :bowdown:BD's I have seen. But I know there are plenty out there, just not picking the winners. Marley and Me, 3:10 to Yuma, ShawShank, Twilight amongst others were just "good to O.K." IMO. But looking very forward to more of the :bowdown:BD's out there.

My only real issues with BD since I jumped over is load times and movie trailers..

I thought my A2 took long to load but dam.I am just overly impatient I guess. And what's up with like 12 movie trailers before some BD's I own. It is almost as bad as going to the movies. I know you just keep hitting the FF button, but WTF..

I atually think HD DVD looks better in many cases, but it must obvioisly be due to the tranfers I have been seeing. I have a shit load of HD DVD's (mainly due to the $5 fire sales) and a majority look very good to great. I have only seen about 11 BD's since I got my Panny and Samdung BD players and TDK and HellBoy 2 were the only :bowdown:BD's I have seen. But I know there are plenty out there, just not picking the winners. Marley and Me, 3:10 to Yuma, ShawShank, Twilight amongst others were just "good to O.K." IMO. But looking very forward to more of the :bowdown:BD's out there.

My only real issues with BD since I jumped over is load times and movie trailers..

I thought my A2 took long to load but dam.I am just overly impatient I guess. And what's up with like 12 movie trailers before some BD's I own. It is almost as bad as going to the movies. I know you just keep hitting the FF button, but WTF..

The first thing I noticed once I got a SAL BD player was the ridiculously slow load times on BD-Java heavy titles with my Sharp BD player. RE: Extinction took between 3.5-4 minutes to load the Java interface and I thought "Damn, even my Gen1 HD-A1 was much faster than this at loading discs". :lol:

Try using chapter advance on those trailers instead of just fast forwarding as most discs allow this and it is faster. I agree it is a real pain also.

As Bruce stated earlier. Many more of the HD DVD titles were much older movies compared to the newer movies released on BD, and that plays a part in why the average rating for PQ on BD edged HD DVD, but remember when BD was doing the older titles on BD? Many looked lousy.

Also as time goes on BD PQ WILL improve as they get better tools & experience working with the new video codecs, but with HD DVD being dead it cannot benefit from so over time the PQ difference should increase more. Just like how much better SD DVDs today look compared to 10 years ago. At equal times HD DVD looked better IMO, but that may have as much to do with the better PQ I found with the HD DVD players as with the transfers.

I think VC-1 does a better job compared to AVC, especially with fast motion. Earlier AVC titles looked strange in the motion compared to VC-1 titles and it wasn't until they really increased the bitrate on AVC encodes did the motion improve. This was not needed with VC-1, which is possibly WHY HD DVD used it so much more.

On the contrary, I find HD DVD better than Blu-ray in PQ, simply because my XA2 outputs a better picture than either my Reon-equipped Samsung BD-P1200 or my LG BD200 (which is no slouch either). Why that is, I'm not sure. But if the OP is experiencing the same, he's entitled to his opinion without being told that he's FOS.

I own the HD-XA2 and the Blu-ray player owned by the OP, the Panasonic DMP-BD35. Same encode both formats, the HD-XA2 is not better than the DMP-BD35, period. That is something that could easily be proven, I can see it first hand but I have do doubt whatsoever that objective testing done has shown the same. Read the objective reviews of the DMP-BD35 picture quality, no player from either format has done better. I think the HD-XA2 is a fine player for both DVD and HD DVD but there is no credible position that HD DVD offers better picture and better sound than Blu-ray. The best Blu-ray encodes won't even begin to fit on an HD DVD and some of those exceed anything that was done with HD DVD and as the process of encoding HD media improves, the gap between the best HD DVD encodes and best Blu-ray encodes will grow. With the hundreds of titles that use identical encodes for both formats, the HD-XA2 holds its own against Blu-ray players in my opinion. I would never be able to claim an ability to tell the difference. People can offer nonsense opinions that HD DVD is better than Blu-ray, that is fine with me, but as far as I know this forum allows me to offer a rebuttal with reasons why it can't be and isn't true.

Chris

I own the HD-XA2 and the Blu-ray player owned by the OP, the Panasonic DMP-BD35. Same encode both formats, the HD-XA2 is not better than the DMP-BD35, period. That is something that could easily be proven, I can see it first hand but I have do doubt whatsoever that objective testing done has shown the same. Read the objective reviews of the DMP-BD35 picture quality, no player from either format has done better. I think the HD-XA2 is a fine player for both DVD and HD DVD but there is no credible position that HD DVD offers better picture and better sound than Blu-ray. The best Blu-ray encodes won't even begin to fit on an HD DVD and some of those exceed anything that was done with HD DVD and as the process of encoding HD media improves, the gap between the best HD DVD encodes and best Blu-ray encodes will grow. With the hundreds of titles that use identical encodes for both formats, the HD-XA2 holds its own against Blu-ray players in my opinion. I would never be able to claim an ability to tell the difference. People can offer nonsense opinions that HD DVD is better than Blu-ray, that is fine with me, but as far as I know this forum allows me to offer a rebuttal with reasons why it can't be and isn't true.

Chris

I don't have the DMP-BD35, so maybe that one will compare more favorably for me than the BD players I have. I just know that the XA2 appears a little sharper, 'grittier' and with a little more high frequency detail such as facial pores, clothing texture and fine grain. I've only compared a few movies (such as Superman Returns), maybe I'll try a couple more to verify. It could also be that the HD DVD movies I watch just have less DNR, so that's why I think they look a tad more detailed.

In any case, I doubt the OP was speaking for others and suggesting that HD DVD was better than Blu-ray in general, but rather making a (surprising) personal observation and wants to know what's up.

I don't have the DMP-BD35, so maybe that one will compare more favorably for me than the BD players I have. I just know that the XA2 appears a little sharper, 'grittier' and with a little more high frequency detail such as facial pores, clothing texture and fine grain. I've only compared a few movies (such as Superman Returns), maybe I'll try a couple more to verify. It could also be that the HD DVD movies I watch just have less DNR, so that's why I think they look a tad more detailed.

In any case, I doubt the OP was speaking for others and suggesting that HD DVD was better than Blu-ray in general, but rather making a (surprising) personal observation and wants to know what's up.

That is not how it read to me, he seems to be indicating he sees a better picture with HD DVD than Blu-ray. Of course he has not provided any specifics of what, how or why.

If you somehow think that Toshiba has made a player that can take the same data and get better results than Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, LG, Pioneer and the rest of the dozen or so Blu-ray manufacturers, what do you attribute the improvement to? The decoder chips used, codecs used, HDMI chips used, source for the encode and other factors can be identical and somehow Toshiba put it all together and the result is a better quality outcome? Of course there has never been any evidence that Toshiba could do this with DVD players, CD players, VCR's and any number of other consumer electronics products. If Toshiba did magically figure out a way to beat all of the other major consumer electronics companies, don't you think at least one or two of them would have matched Toshiba by now, a few years later. I am sorry, you are offering a preposterous conclusion and without anything other than it looks better to you, you offer nothing of significance. The recent objective test data for Blu-ray players would suggest it isn't possible that what you are seeing is real. I have never claimed that Blu-ray can take an identical file and make it better than HD DVD. I have always stated my belief that the 60% higher maximum bitrate and over 60% greater capacity for Blu-ray can and sometimes does result in a better encode than was possible with HD DVD. I never believed the difference would be enough to matter much and the most important issues were the PS3, studio support and cost.

Chris

That is not how it read to me, he seems to be indicating he sees a better picture with HD DVD than Blu-ray. Of course he has not provided any specifics of what, how or why.

Yes he did, and? He was just making an initial observation (having just bought the player) and not trying to bash Blu-ray.

If you somehow think that Toshiba has made a player that can take the same data and get better results than Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, LG, Pioneer and the rest of the dozen or so Blu-ray manufacturers, what do you attribute the improvement to?
I'm not sure, probably the implemention of the hardware. Just like DVD players offer differing PQ, I would think the same holds true of HDM players. Why would it not?
Of course there has never been any evidence that Toshiba could do this with DVD players, CD players, VCR's and any number of other consumer electronics products. If Toshiba did magically figure out a way to beat all of the other major consumer electronics companies, don't you think at least one or two of them would have matched Toshiba by now, a few years later.

Toshiba's HD DVD players are highly regarded for their upscaling, so that's evidence enough to me that they can get DVD playback right. And the same hardware on these players is used for HD DVD playback, so it's not a stretch to say that a Toshiba HD DVD could play HD DVD a little better than Blu-ray player X plays Blu-ray, that has worse upscaling. I don't know, I'm not a hardware geek, but my eyes tell me the XA2 looks a little better.

I am sorry, you are offering a preposterous conclusion and without anything other than it looks better to you, you offer nothing of significance.

Well, my opinion is not significant, but it is worth one man's opinion. I've read lots of posts by HD DVD owners claiming HD DVD looks better than Blu-ray. On the other hand I haven't read very many claiming otherwise. Give me a better Blu-ray player and maybe I'll change my tune. ;)

The recent objective test data for Blu-ray players would suggest it isn't possible that what you are seeing is real.

Like I said, there are player differences, and those ARE real. Accept that fact.


I have never claimed that Blu-ray can take an identical file and make it better than HD DVD. I have always stated my belief that the 60% higher maximum bitrate and over 60% greater capacity for Blu-ray can and sometimes does result in a better encode than was possible with HD DVD. I never believed the difference would be enough to matter much and the most important issues were the PS3, studio support and cost.

The 60% higher bitrate capacity hasn't yet manifested itself into any visual benefits. I guess HD DVD's max bitrate was good enough after all. Once you get to a certain point, throwing more bytes at an encode does nothing more than increase the file size. But then why not, Blu-ray has more than enough of that too, right? The only advantage I see is that it cuts encoders more slack, but it doesn't improve the PQ over what HD DVD offered.

Just weighing in, I find little difference in the software with some titles looking better on one or the other. Where Blu is better, is the hardware. I wish that there had been more CE companies to make HD DVD and there may have been a future for HD DVD. Having owned 1 Blu Ray player, 2 HD players and 1 dual player, I can say through experience, that my Blu player was better in playing the movies, with few problems. My D3 and A30 froze often, where my Blu player didn't often hang up at all. My dual player has played movies flawlessly on both formats. Problem disks were no problem with my Samsung UP5000. It's nice to get some of those exclusives from both formats and that's all that matters, from my perspective.:2cents

Just weighing in, I find little difference in the software with some titles looking better on one or the other. Where Blu is better, is the hardware. I wish that there had been more CE companies to make HD DVD and there may have been a future for HD DVD. Having owned 1 Blu Ray player, 2 HD players and 1 dual player, I can say through experience, that my Blu player was better in playing the movies, with few problems. My D3 and A30 froze often, where my Blu player didn't often hang up at all. My dual player has played movies flawlessly on both formats. Problem disks were no problem with my Samsung UP5000. It's nice to get some of those exclusives from both formats and that's all that matters, from my perspective.:2cents

Well that's another aspect of the hardware (reliability). Chris and I were discussing whether it's possible some players process HD video noticably better than others, particularly between formats.

Regarding reliability, it's really not fair to compare at this point, since the average HD DVD player is about a year older and because Blu-ray has undoubtedly improved in that aspect (as any format would do) since HD DVD stopped production.

Yes he did, and? He was just making an initial observation (having just bought the player) and not trying to bash Blu-ray.


I'm not sure, probably the implemention of the hardware. Just like DVD players offer differing PQ, I would think the same holds true of HDM players. Why would it not?


Toshiba's HD DVD players are highly regarded for their upscaling, so that's evidence enough to me that they can get DVD playback right. And the same hardware on these players is used for HD DVD playback, so it's not a stretch to say that a Toshiba HD DVD could play HD DVD a little better than Blu-ray player X plays Blu-ray, that has worse upscaling. I don't know, I'm not a hardware geek, but my eyes tell me the XA2 looks a little better.



Well, my opinion is not significant, but it is worth one man's opinion. I've read lots of posts by HD DVD owners claiming HD DVD looks better than Blu-ray. On the other hand I haven't read very many claiming otherwise. Give me a better Blu-ray player and maybe I'll change my tune. ;)



Like I said, there are player differences, and those ARE real. Accept that fact.




The 60% higher bitrate capacity hasn't yet manifested itself into any visual benefits. I guess HD DVD's max bitrate was good enough after all. Once you get to a certain point, throwing more bytes at an encode does nothing more than increase the file size. But then why not, Blu-ray has more than enough of that too, right? The only advantage I see is that it cuts encoders more slack, but it doesn't improve the PQ over what HD DVD offered.

Well that's another aspect of the hardware (reliability). Chris and I were discussing whether it's possible some players process HD video noticably better than others, particularly between formats.

Regarding reliability, it's really not fair to compare at this point, since the average HD DVD player is about a year older and because Blu-ray has undoubtedly improved in that aspect (as any format would do) since HD DVD stopped production.

Of course it is possible, my point is that I have seen nothing first hand after owning both formats for over two years and have read nothing with all of the objective testing that indicates one manufacturer has bucked the odds and beaten all others. When the one you claim has done it happens to be the sole manufacturer of stand alone HD DVD players, I suspect you are actually seeing what you want to see. Although I prefer Blu-ray, I would never claim to be able to tell the difference between the Blade Runner HD DVD and the Blade Runner Blu-ray using two properly working players from both formats and there are plenty of Blu-ray players that meet that criteria and plenty of identical encodes to compare.

I don't know if the dual format players are on a par with separate players for each format. I have played a few discs with my LG BH200 and thought it looked great then I read about some issues that need firmware updates and set the player aside waiting on firmware which is hopefully coming in a couple of months. It is possible that a player designed to handle both formats might not be on a par, we will have to wait on LG to get this one working right.

I have never seen anything that makes me believe that picture quality differences among Blu-ray players is much and this is nothing at all like DVD players which do rely on player processing a lesser source for an HDTV. With Blu-ray/HD DVD a primary goal is to decode and output precisely what is on the disc, a 1080/24p encode and deliver that to a display that accepts a 1080/24p source. No scaling, no deinterlacing and probably no further processing at all is best with a stellar encode.

My HD DVD and Blu-ray players are great and holding up well. I had to return an Onkyo DV-HD805 and I am waiting on Onkyo to tell me what will be done. It sat at a local authorized repair facility for a couple of weeks before Onkyo sent me an email and instructed me to return it for replacement. I find it unlikely Onkyo has a replacement but I should know soon, they have had it for a week now. I also returned a Samsung BD-P1000 which wouldn't load too many discs and although recent firmware updates have improved it based on what I have read, I am glad to be rid of it. The warranty would have expired without it working acceptably if I hadn't acted when I did.

Chris

As many others on the forum I own both an HD DVD (only A3) and Blu-Ray (PS3) and there are some movies that are on both where and I tend to believe it's the transfer of the movie it looks better on HD DVD....Transformers on HD DVD....a must own if you like special effects great sound and action........On Blu-Ray.....I was not all that impressed.....Batman Begins HD DVD....Looks great sounds great...but on Blu-Ray....They got it right....Can't say that much for the Bourne series I have watched both and for me its HD DVD....

I would lay the blame on the transfers and then players.....I personally like them both they have their place......I have built a fairly decent collection thanks to Ebay, on new never opened HD DVD both singles and combos but also scored some great blu-rays as well...I look at it from a High Def standpoint it all looks great and makes movie night with the family that much more enjoyable.

Peace out.

Of course it is possible, my point is that I have seen nothing first hand after owning both formats for over two years and have read nothing with all of the objective testing that indicates one manufacturer has bucked the odds and beaten all others. When the one you claim has done it happens to be the sole manufacturer of stand alone HD DVD players, I suspect you are actually seeing what you want to see. Although I prefer Blu-ray, I would never claim to be able to tell the difference between the Blade Runner HD DVD and the Blade Runner Blu-ray using two properly working players from both formats and there are plenty of Blu-ray players that meet that criteria and plenty of identical encodes to compare.

I don't think my eyes will play tricks on me, but I am going to rent The Departed Blu-ray to check again. Last time I couldn't make an immediate comparison with the Samsung BD-P1200, because it would lose the HDMI handshake whenever I switch away from the player. But I set the player not to do that so I can swap back and forth in a few seconds.

My HD DVD and Blu-ray players are great and holding up well. I had to return an Onkyo DV-HD805 and I am waiting on Onkyo to tell me what will be done. It sat at a local authorized repair facility for a couple of weeks before Onkyo sent me an email and instructed me to return it for replacement. I find it unlikely Onkyo has a replacement but I should know soon, they have had it for a week now. I also returned a Samsung BD-P1000 which wouldn't load too many discs and although recent firmware updates have improved it based on what I have read, I am glad to be rid of it. The warranty would have expired without it working acceptably if I hadn't acted when I did.

Chris

So far so good with my HD DVD players [knock on wood]. I use the XA2 almost exclusively, although I have 3 other players scattered in other rooms of the house. I also have the BH200 connected in the bedroom where the XA2 is, but I just use it for Blu-ray, when I discovered that the XA2 outputs a slightly sharper picture. I've only found one HD DVD title that the BH200 will play but the XA2 won't (an obscure adult title). On the other hand, there are several movies the BD-P1200 won't play (the Bond and Criterion titles) so I use the BH200 for anything the BD-P1200 won't play (and for BD region coded movies). I want to try to get my money's worth out of the BD-P1200 before I retire it and also want to limit use on the combo player so it'll last longer, as they won't be making those anymore.

Samsung and Blu-ray player firmware updates go together like a teenager and logical thinking. You can wait for something that makes some sense but I think it is less painful to just bang your head against the wall. I still own a BD-P1200 and I like the performance when it works properly but it is even worse than the BD-P1000 in my experience as far as loading discs and trouble free playback. It is officially a clunker as far as I am concerned. I too would like to use mine but unless I read it has been improved, I am going to keep it in the closet. My only problem HD DVD player was DOA out of the box. I just called Onkyo and a replacement was sent last Friday. A replacement what I don't know but I should have it in a couple of days.

Chris

Samsung and Blu-ray player firmware updates go together like a teenager and logical thinking. You can wait for something that makes some sense but I think it is less painful to just bang your head against the wall. I still own a BD-P1200 and I like the performance when it works properly but it is even worse than the BD-P1000 in my experience as far as loading discs and trouble free playback. It is officially a clunker as far as I am concerned. I too would like to use mine but unless I read it has been improved, I am going to keep it in the closet. My only problem HD DVD player was DOA out of the box. I just called Onkyo and a replacement was sent last Friday. A replacement what I don't know but I should have it in a couple of days.

Chris

I got the Sumdung BD1500 onsale for like $199 and at 1st thought is was a great deal. It was a b-day present for my dad who just got a new 46'' TV. Got it over there and hookied it up. It wouldn't read Shawshank and took like 2 minutes to load 3:10 to Yuma. And then after a while got a read error on that. Did a firmware upgrade but no joy. I also noticed the bottom of that thing got so hot you could fry an egg on it. After reading a bunch of info on it, I seen a allot of people complaing about the heat. Some clamed certain versions did not come with a fan?? Took that puppy back and exchanged it for a different brand.. I like Samsung LCD's a bunch, but hate their BD players.. Shoulda just got him a Panny like mine to begin with, but too cheap I guess. Love the PQ of the BD35, not impressed with the load times on that 1 either. But not too bad..

Well that's another aspect of the hardware (reliability). Chris and I were discussing whether it's possible some players process HD video noticably better than others, particularly between formats.

Regarding reliability, it's really not fair to compare at this point, since the average HD DVD player is about a year older and because Blu-ray has undoubtedly improved in that aspect (as any format would do) since HD DVD stopped production.My Blu Ray player was older than my HD DVD players. The Samsung P1000 was the first, first generation Blu Ray player and my two HD DVD players were third generation. The first generation BD player outperformed the third generation HD DVD decks. I could understand the comparison, if the Blu Ray player and HD DVD players were out at the same time, like an A1 and a P1000, but that is not how it played out. The Blu Ray player was older and had fewer problems playing disks, with both formats being firmware updated to the latest firmware.

The first generation BD player outperformed the third generation HD DVD decks. I could understand the comparison, if the Blu Ray player and HD DVD players were out at the same time, like an A1 and a P1000, but that is not how it played out.

Too bad Sumsungs 4th gen (or whatever it is) player took like 5 steps back. I never seen the P1000 , but the P1500 is a real hunk of crap. Made my A2 look like a XA2...Disk read issues and crazy load times. Got hot as hell too. My Panny BD35 is on par with my A2 other than the bit slower load/play times of the BD35. But the 35 has the obvious AQ performance over the A2..

Too bad Sumsungs 4th gen (or whatever it is) player took like 5 steps back. I never seen the P1000 , but the P1500 is a real hunk of crap. Made my A2 look like a XA2...Disk read issues and crazy load times. Got hot as hell too. My Panny BD35 is on par with my A2 other than the bit slower load/play times of the BD35. But the 35 has the obvious AQ performance over the A2..

The 1200 and 1400 were the models made to date for BD and Samsung probably knows this by now I would think.

My Blu Ray player was older than my HD DVD players. The Samsung P1000 was the first, first generation Blu Ray player and my two HD DVD players were third generation. The first generation BD player outperformed the third generation HD DVD decks. I could understand the comparison, if the Blu Ray player and HD DVD players were out at the same time, like an A1 and a P1000, but that is not how it played out. The Blu Ray player was older and had fewer problems playing disks, with both formats being firmware updated to the latest firmware.

True, some people have had bad luck with players from both formats. Sorry to hear about your problems.

True, some people have had bad luck with players from both formats. Sorry to hear about your problems.So far, I'm liking my dual player. It has played everything that I've thrown at it and it's also Profile 1.1, so there is an opportunity to use it for interactive stuff also. Hell, for $188.99 Canadian, I should have bought two.

So far, I'm liking my dual player. It has played everything that I've thrown at it and it's also Profile 1.1, so there is an opportunity to use it for interactive stuff also. Hell, for $188.99 Canadian, I should have bought two.

That's a great price, glad you like it. I've got one myself stashed in the closet. :hithere:

blu ray is better, i think

Welcome!I think there some problem with adjustment in different input,that's what you face the problem.Thanks......

I have an HD-A3 and ive only watched 3 HD movies on it but so far i like how it fulls the screen on my HD tv.

Will there be blueray tvs that actualy fill the screen using them?

So far i like how the HD movies look at i dont have to mess with changing the screen size every time i play a movie.

I have an HD-A3 and ive only watched 3 HD movies on it but so far i like how it fulls the screen on my HD tv.

Will there be blueray tvs that actualy fill the screen using them?

So far i like how the HD movies look at i dont have to mess with changing the screen size every time i play a movie.

Filling the screen has nothing to do with the format, DVD or HD DVD or Blu-ray but everything to do with the source aspect ratio. If the program on the disc is in the original aspect ratio and the original aspect ratio (width:height) is different than 1.78:1 (16:9), the program won't fill your screen. So the answer is yes there are many Blu-ray titles that will fill your screen and there are many DVD titles that will fill your screen. There are also many HD DVD titles that won't fill your screen.

Chris

Filling the screen has nothing to do with the format, DVD or HD DVD or Blu-ray but everything to do with the source aspect ratio. If the program on the disc is in the original aspect ratio and the original aspect ratio (width:height) is different than 1.78:1 (16:9), the program won't fill your screen. So the answer is yes there are many Blu-ray titles that will fill your screen and there are many DVD titles that will fill your screen. There are also many HD DVD titles that won't fill your screen.

Chris

i hope were not going to get into the black bar thing again,this has been going on since the laserdisc days.so far there doesn't seem to be a demend for fullscreen on blu-ray.
one ? i have ,with all this debate with hddvd looks better then bd is when the hell is toshbia going to jump in the game and make a bd player,not that i miss them,but how stupid can a company be.i always thought compareing hd tobd,bd looked more film like to me.
[movies after 2006]
i will say one thing about hd dvd it wasn't offen you got a bad looking movie.with blu-ray you have to read the reviews before buying.
my hope is that the studio's will stop using the dnr crap,clean up the print,and give us the film.hd dvd to me didn't use dnr etc.,but thats me

Since virtually all HDTVs are 16:9 (1:78:1) I don't see BD releases having a full screen (4:3/1:33:1) release. BD is intended for 16:9 HDTVs and one shouldn't be watching them on 4:3 SDTVs anyway.

Since virtually all HDTVs are 16:9 (1:78:1) I don't see BD releases having a full screen (4:3/1:33:1) release. BD is intended for 16:9 HDTVs and one shouldn't be watching them on 4:3 SDTVs anyway.

The question here is only relevant to 16x9 displays and cropped to fit the screen would be mean cropped to fit 16x9, not 4:3.

Chris

On paper it makes a difference, but it just hasn't shown itself yet to be an advantage. Many Blu-ray titles have been released after the HD DVD, with a higher bitrate, and in nearly every case the PQ is rated the same. In fact, on some titles the HD DVD is more highly regarded (such as The Thing, Band of Brothers, The Mummy, to name a few), even though the BD bitrate is higher, because the BD version has excessive DNR.

They may rate the AQ 1/2 star higher at HDD, but it's a spec rating and even when they admit not hearing any difference, they award the 1/2 star simply because the BD is lossless and is 'supposed to' sound better. Lame.

The lower bitrate has no relevance in audio. Lossless is lossless. If there was a difference in one lossless encode over another, using the same source, then the lesser encode couldn't be called 'lossless', could it? HD DVD has just as much capability for lossless as BD does and like I said it has 100's of lossless titles to choose from. Very rarely did they not include it because of space concerns.

Sure, now that lossless has been developed and perfected, making it easy to incorporate. Blu-ray is a newer format and it still exists, and most of the titles on Blu-ray were released after HD DVD threw in the towel. In the format war days, Blu-ray was seeing a lot of lossy releases as well, so your point is off target and not a result of capacity or bitrate issues. Isn't it true that you don't even have equipment capable of playing back lossless audio?

On the contrary, I find HD DVD better than Blu-ray in PQ, simply because my XA2 outputs a better picture than either my Reon-equipped Samsung BD-P1200 or my LG BD200 (which is no slouch either). Why that is, I'm not sure. But if the OP is experiencing the same, he's entitled to his opinion without being told that he's FOS. I find it simply amazing that you can definitively comment on the fact that the difference between lossy and lossless audio is sooo minimal, but then go on this diatribe about how you can see such a dramatic difference between the XA2 and the P1200 which both use the same damn REON chip. Something doesn't add up here.

If anything, the differences would be just as slight as the difference between lossy and lossless audio, since they are even closer in design and spec. But yet you minimize the difference in perceived audio quality but yet maximize YOUR perceived difference in the video quality. Wonder why???

Here is my take, you are minimizing the consensus advantage that bluray indeed had more lossless audio support by poo-pooing on the differences between lossy and lossless (since HD DVD relished in lossy DD+), but yet maximizing the fact that HD DVD had top notch playback via the XA2. You are biased bruce. Plain and simple.

In fact, in regards to the XA2 and the P1200 which BOTH use the SAME Reon chip, the only reason you can give for why the HD DVD looks better is "Why that is, I'm not sure". Boy, that sounds real technical. I will tell you why you think the XA2 is better - because you are biased toward HD DVD and WANT it to look better.

It is just unfeasible to me that you can comment on lossy vs. lossless audio as if there were no discernible difference and then try to state that the XA2 and the P1200 (which use the same chip) show such a noticeable difference.

The only reason this little scenario works for you is because I believe you don't even have the equipment to listen to lossless audio, therefore you don't care much for audio in the first place, and also you WANT HD DVD to be better because it is your preferred format. So naturally you are going to dismiss audio in lieu of video since 1) you can't take full advantage of the audio (and bluray was traditionally better at audio than HD DVD, so you want to minimize that to make your world rainbows and sunshine) and 2) You want so bad for HD DVD to be "better", even though the appreciable differences are negligble for HD content. Especially when you are talking about two players, the XA2 and P1200, that use the same fricking chip!

Come on man!

It is the same reason you constantly bring up the DNR'ed Universal HD DVD ports on bluray. You want to forever live in the fact that a few HD DVD titles might be a tad bit better to help you sleep better at night. It's like you hang your hat on it as some crowning achievement, when in actuality, the differences are so incredibly slight and would largely be unnoticed unless you are comparing a 4x still frame of the HD DVD versus the bluray, like they do at AVS.

And I find it funny that you never seem to mention that a lot of the same HD DVD ports which are superior to the bluray have less blocking during motion on the bluray than on the HD DVD counterpart due to the increased bitrate of bluray. And blocking is MUCH more noticeable than slight DNR when the film is actually in motion, you know, like during real world playback and not in freeze frame mode! I mean, unless you watch your movies paused with frame by frame advance, I think most people watch them in motion.

You constantly selectively filter out the good of HD DVD and compare it with the bad of bluray, surely as some self-comforting exercise. It is painfully obvious.

I say again, come on man!

Bmore:

Just ask Chris G (never a bigger BD fan has been here) and ask him about the differences between the XA2 vs the BD-P1200. He is not happy with the 1200 either so is he biased towards HD DVD too? :rolleyes:

It is apparent that Samsung has implemented that same chip differently with these players and if you researched more, you would KNOW that this is fairly common with different mfg implementing the same chip differently with surprisingly different results for both BD and SD DVD. ;)

Last I remembered, BRuce DOES have equipment to listen to HD audio, so I believe you are making a false assumption with that. I believe it is true that Bruce has countless times said that PQ matters more to him than SQ so that is just HIS preference that is shared by countless people (but not me) also.

Now which SPECIFIC HD DVD titles had motion blocking that you are stating here that does not happen with the BD version? Have you seen this yourself or are you going by someone else who may have been biased, since you never owned HD DVD correct?

I know that the Mission Impossible III sequencies for that bridge explosion looked better on HD DVD when compared with actual screen captures on the BD version so it is title dependent, but there is an example where the HD DVD for the same movie with different encodes from the same master showed HD DVD did a better job. It is true that it is very hard to see this, but it is there. ;)

Lastly, you seem to defend BD like it is your child and not look at it as just another format that was created to make money for big corporations and NOT line your pockets with even 1 cent. Why are you STILL so passionate about the BD format when the war has been over for 14 months now? :banghead:

All this does is make you look like a angry person always looking for a fight IMO, and it really does no one including yourself any good here. Why not turn over a new leaf and just laugh (to yourself) when you see such things that make you angry. I have said the same thing to HD DVD supporters also as THIS is a sound life lesson that can help in all aspects of life.

Just let the format war go man as it IS already long over. :hithere:

Isn't it true that you don't even have equipment capable of playing back lossless audio?

No, I can listen to TrueHD via analog outs.

I find it simply amazing that you can definitively comment on the fact that the difference between lossy and lossless audio is sooo minimal, but then go on this diatribe about how you can see such a dramatic difference between the XA2 and the P1200 which both use the same damn REON chip. Something doesn't add up here. I'm not going by what my perceived differences between lossy and lossless (particularly between 1.5 mbps DD+ and lossless), but by what folks much more knowledgeable than I say about it, for example Filmmixer at AVS and blind studies done like this one. (http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM)

If anything, the differences would be just as slight as the difference between lossy and lossless audio, since they are even closer in design and spec. But yet you minimize the difference in perceived audio quality but yet maximize YOUR perceived difference in the video quality. Wonder why???

Here is my take, you are minimizing the consensus advantage that bluray indeed had more lossless audio support by poo-pooing on the differences between lossy and lossless (since HD DVD relished in lossy DD+), but yet maximizing the fact that HD DVD had top notch playback via the XA2. You are biased bruce. Plain and simple. I never said the difference was dramatic between the 1200 and the XA2, just that it was noticable. It's actually very little and not consistent across all titles. DVD players offer varying PQ, so you really don't think that all HD/BD players have identical PQ, do you? True, they both have the Reon, but it's mostly used for SD and besides there's more to it than that. There's the implementation of the hardware as well.

In fact, in regards to the XA2 and the P1200 which BOTH use the SAME Reon chip, the only reason you can give for why the HD DVD looks better is "Why that is, I'm not sure". Boy, that sounds real technical. I will tell you why you think the XA2 is better - because you are biased toward HD DVD and WANT it to look better.

It is just unfeasible to me that you can comment on lossy vs. lossless audio as if there were no discernible difference and then try to state that the XA2 and the P1200 (which use the same chip) show such a noticeable difference.

The only reason this little scenario works for you is because I believe you don't even have the equipment to listen to lossless audio, therefore you don't care much for audio in the first place, and also you WANT HD DVD to be better because it is your preferred format. So naturally you are going to dismiss audio in lieu of video since 1) you can't take full advantage of the audio (and bluray was traditionally better at audio than HD DVD, so you want to minimize that to make your world rainbows and sunshine) and 2) You want so bad for HD DVD to be "better", even though the appreciable differences are negligble for HD content. Especially when you are talking about two players, the XA2 and P1200, that use the same fricking chip!
I have been biased towards HD DVD, I can't deny that, but I do recognize that both format offer the same quality, and always will. However there will be minor differences, irrespective of format, between codecs, players and titles, that can't be denied.
Come on man!

It is the same reason you constantly bring up the DNR'ed Universal HD DVD ports on bluray. You want to forever live in the fact that a few HD DVD titles might be a tad bit better to help you sleep better at night. It's like you hang your hat on it as some crowning achievement, when in actuality, the differences are so incredibly slight and would largely be unnoticed unless you are comparing a 4x still frame of the HD DVD versus the bluray, like they do at AVS.Funny you mention the DNR. I have an HD DVD-r of the Bond "From Russia With Love", and it has less DNR than the Blu-ray as well. I'm not on a crusade against DNR like others at AVS, but I will call DNR if I see it, especially if I something to compare it to to make it obvious. Same would go for an HD DVD title.

And I find it funny that you never seem to mention that a lot of the same HD DVD ports which are superior to the bluray have less blocking during motion on the bluray than on the HD DVD counterpart due to the increased bitrate of bluray. And blocking is MUCH more noticeable than slight DNR when the film is actually in motion, you know, like during real world playback and not in freeze frame mode! I mean, unless you watch your movies paused with frame by frame advance, I think most people watch them in motion. I haven't noticed the blocking you mention. Should I be noticing it? I really haven't heard much about that...

You constantly selectively filter out the good of HD DVD and compare it with the bad of bluray, surely as some self-comforting exercise. It is painfully obvious.

I say again, come on man!I just call it like I see it, what else can I do? I like Blu-ray, but I've always liked HD DVD more. That's why I supported it. In any event, HD DVD is dead, and here we are with just one format. I'm good with that, and I'll praise and criticize the format as I see it. HD DVD is legacy, but it's still around, and it will be discussed as well. Come on man, let's move on please! :hithere:

Bmore:

Just ask Chris G (never a bigger BD fan has been here) and ask him about the differences between the XA2 vs the BD-P1200. He is not happy with the 1200 either so is he biased towards HD DVD too? :rolleyes: but not because of upscaling performance. He said (in so many words) the original FW on the 1200 had good DVD performance:
I don't know if anybody here is still messing with this player but a new firmware version is available. If it fixes unplayable discs and DVD performance is as good as the original firmware version, I will connect my BD-P1200 again. I will wait to read about it before going to the trouble.

Chris



It is apparent that Samsung has implemented that same chip differently with these players and if you researched more, you would KNOW that this is fairly common with different mfg implementing the same chip differently with surprisingly different results for both BD and SD DVD. ;)

They got the same basic passing results when testing them with the HQV upscaling:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?function=search&articles=133

Last I remembered, BRuce DOES have equipment to listen to HD audio, so I believe you are making a false assumption with that. I believe it is true that Bruce has countless times said that PQ matters more to him than SQ so that is just HIS preference that is shared by countless people (but not me) also. could be, thats why i posed it as a question.

Now which SPECIFIC HD DVD titles had motion blocking that you are stating here that does not happen with the BD version? Have you seen this yourself or are you going by someone else who may have been biased, since you never owned HD DVD correct? I am basing this off of the same threads that bruce is basing his off of, Xylon at AVS.

http://www D O T avsforum D O T com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1137868

See post #5 from the Pitch Black *PIX* thread:
"Too small to see but if we are going to choose it will be Blu-ray because it has less artifacts, less blocky when in motion in some scenes based on these screenshots." from Xylon himself, the master of screenshot scientology. If you believe his DNR claims you also have to believe his artifacting claims. Can't believe one and not the other.

I know that the Mission Impossible III sequencies for that bridge explosion looked better on HD DVD when compared with actual screen captures on the BD version so it is title dependent, but there is an example where the HD DVD for the same movie with different encodes from the same master showed HD DVD did a better job. It is true that it is very hard to see this, but it is there. ;) I was talking more about Universal ports since that is what bruce likes to focus on these days.

Lastly, you seem to defend BD like it is your child and not look at it as just another format that was created to make money for big corporations and NOT line your pockets with even 1 cent. Why are you STILL so passionate about the BD format when the war has been over for 14 months now? :banghead:

All this does is make you look like a angry person always looking for a fight IMO, and it really does no one including yourself any good here. Why not turn over a new leaf and just laugh (to yourself) when you see such things that make you angry. I have said the same thing to HD DVD supporters also as THIS is a sound life lesson that can help in all aspects of life.

Just let the format war go man as it IS already long over. :hithere:whatever. When I see things that I think are inconsistent I am going to comment on them.

No, I can listen to TrueHD via analog outs. Weird. If you can listen to TrueHD, then you can also listen to DTS HD MA, since your XA2 decodes both and can output them via analog to your receiver.

Why did you only mention TrueHD?:confused:

I'm not going by what my perceived differences between lossy and lossless (particularly between 1.5 mbps DD+ and lossless), but by what folks much more knowledgeable than I say about it, for example Filmmixer at AVS and blind studies done like this one. (http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM)

I never said the difference was dramatic between the 1200 and the XA2, just that it was noticable. It's actually very little and not consistent across all titles. DVD players offer varying PQ, so you really don't think that all HD/BD players have identical PQ, do you? True, they both have the Reon, but it's mostly used for SD and besides there's more to it than that. There's the implementation of the hardware as well.

Sure. But it's kind of like when people say they prefer TrueHD to PCM because they can hear a difference. DAC's can be implemented differently too. But such minor changes are barely discernible if at all. That is why when these people are asked to qualify themselves, the typical response is like your previous comment on the XA2 v. the P1200 "I don't know why, it just IS". Not good enough in my book.

I have been biased towards HD DVD, I can't deny that, but I do recognize that both format offer the same quality, and always will. However there will be minor differences, irrespective of format, between codecs, players and titles, that can't be denied.
Come on man!

Funny you mention the DNR. I have an HD DVD-r of the Bond "From Russia With Love", and it has less DNR than the Blu-ray as well. I'm not on a crusade against DNR like others at AVS, but I will call DNR if I see it, especially if I something to compare it to to make it obvious. Same would go for an HD DVD title. Can you name any HD DVD titles with DNR? Or were they all perfect?

I haven't noticed the blocking you mention. Should I be noticing it? I really haven't heard much about that... Coincidentally I am sure. Look at the Pitch Black thread at AVS in post #5. Xylon says the bluray is better because of less artifacting.

I just call it like I see it, what else can I do? Same here. But I guess we differ in how we see it.

[...]

I'm not going by what my perceived differences between lossy and lossless (particularly between 1.5 mbps DD+ and lossless), but by what folks much more knowledgeable than I say about it, for example Filmmixer at AVS and blind studies done like this one. (http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM)

[...]

Thanks for that link. Very interesting!

(will refrain from commenting on any of the format war'ish talk here. ;) )

Weird. If you can listen to TrueHD, then you can also listen to DTS HD MA, since your XA2 decodes both and can output them via analog to your receiver.

Why did you only mention TrueHD?:confused:

No HD DVD player will decode DTS HD MA, just the core (DTS HD). However the XA2 and clones and the A35 will bitstream MA, but my receiver doesn't decode any of the HD codecs. I need to update my receiver pretty soon.


Sure. But it's kind of like when people say they prefer TrueHD to PCM because they can hear a difference. DAC's can be implemented differently too. But such minor changes are barely discernible if at all. That is why when these people are asked to qualify themselves, the typical response is like your previous comment on the XA2 v. the P1200 "I don't know why, it just IS". Not good enough in my book.

It must be somewhere in the implementation, maybe even something specific with the player(s). But I don't know where it would be along the implementation chain. I've noticed a very slight difference in upscaling between the Onkyo 805 (XA2 clone) and the XA2, with the Onkyo being slightly better, so that tells me the software may have something to do with it.

Can you name any HD DVD titles with DNR? Or were they all perfect?

I know Tremors has a lot of DNR, and I'm sure there are plenty of others. DNR isn't a bad thing. It's a trade off between getting rid of noise, grain and defects at the expense of losing some high frequency detail as well. HD needs more DNR because the higher clarity brings out too much grain sometimes, and it would be distracting not to tone it down.

Coincidentally I am sure. Look at the Pitch Black thread at AVS in post #5. Xylon says the bluray is better because of less artifacting.

Xylon is probably right, I'll have to check it out.

Same here. But I guess we differ in how we see it.

Nothing wrong with that. ;)

The HD-XA2 is a much better player than the Samsung BD-P1200. I didn't do any in depth comparisons when the BD-P1200 was running the original firmware but I played quite a number of discs with it and I thought it was excellent. Subsequent firmware versions introduced problems and made it so I wouldn't use it. Audio dropouts and video stutters with DVD and problems loading Blu-ray discs meant it has been pretty poor for most of the time I have owned it. Version 2.6 is on it now, I have used it for two DVD's and didn't encounter any dropouts so maybe it is better once again but that would be a surprise, not expected.

As far as Blu-ray video quality when it plays a disc properly, it looks fine to me. Until firmware version 4.0 for the HD-XA2, the BD-P1200 easily beat the HD-XA2 for MPEG-4 1080/24p but nothing else. At 4.0 the HD-XA2 is a much better player because it works properly, something the BD-P1200 has yet to show it is capable of. The BD-P1200 uses Broadcom BCM7411 for Blu-ray decoding while the HD-XA2 uses an NEC EMMA chip. Advantage NEC EMMA although the difference in video quality between the two isn't much, but once again only when the BD-P1200 is working properly and with too many discs on too many occasions that hasn't been the case.

My opinion is now and has always been, same encode on both formats, there is no difference. There is nothing inherent about HD DVD, chips used, player design or method of retrieving and decoding data that can possibly make it better than Blu-ray with an identical file. Any HD DVD encode can be replicated on Blu-ray. That should just be the end of the discussion in my opinion. There can certainly be differences between players but there are many Blu-ray players that equal the HD-XA2 in video quality. Whether or not one believes the 60% higher maximum bitrate possible with Blu-ray can provide better quality than anything possible on HD DVD is another discussion but an opinion it will result in lesser quality is just silly.

Chris

but not because of upscaling performance. He said (in so many words) the original FW on the 1200 had good DVD performance:

Right. And with all the firmware updates after that they screwed it up. Read Chris G's reply about the BD-P1200 to confirm this.

They got the same basic passing results when testing them with the HQV upscaling:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?function=search&articles=133

I believe that shootout was based on the original firmware, so see above.

The point is that even with the same chip it was not implemented the same way and that CAN change the results.

could be, thats why i posed it as a question.

It didn't seem like it was a real question but OK.

I am basing this off of the same threads that bruce is basing his off of, Xylon at AVS.

http://www (http://www/) D O T avsforum D O T com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1137868

See post #5 from the Pitch Black *PIX* thread:
"Too small to see but if we are going to choose it will be Blu-ray because it has less artifacts, less blocky when in motion in some scenes based on these screenshots." from Xylon himself, the master of screenshot scientology. If you believe his DNR claims you also have to believe his artifacting claims. Can't believe one and not the other.

I do not have the time right now to read that but will try to read it later. Thanks for providing the link. No doubt both formats have had various issues with some movies but we do not know how much is based on the master, transfer quality, or encode quality. Much of this frame by frame analysis is very hard to see in normal playback as you have said yourself, but the issues are there and I imagine at 100" screens it would be more noticeable than on my 50" 1080p plasma.

I was talking more about Universal ports since that is what bruce likes to focus on these days.

I think that is just what he has been noticing most of the additional DNR being done on lately. He cannot control this and is just reporting what he sees. I would rather here this than ignoring this as it IS currently relevant IMO.

Like I said, I remember that MI:III scene being analyzed and showing the HD DVD version was not blocky as just an example I remembered off the top of my head.

whatever. When I see things that I think are inconsistent I am going to comment on them.

And maybe you are still looking through a too critical eye as to WHO is saying something based on what "side" they were on during the format war. I think it is time to stop that kind of format war position viewing as the war is long over now and nearly all HD DVD owners own both formats now. If something IS happening that is a negative thing, who cares which side of the war the "messenger" was on in the war at this point? :confused:

If something IS happening that is a negative thing, who cares which side of the war the "messenger" was on in the war at this point? :confused:

Easy.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861707424/ulterior_motive.html

Yeah so. I know what the term means. Are you trying to say that people who favored HD DVD when the war was going on always have an ulterior motive? Does that change as true statement to false if it is no doubt a true statement?

Now since most HD DVD fans also own BD players they have the unique opportunity to compare the two formats that people like YOU and a few others cannot know or understand. At least they own BOTH so they can talk from real world experience with BOTH formats. Also remember that HD DVD players/discs have not changed since the war ended but BD players/discs have still been improving as we all hope they would/do. ;)

I guess that means (according to YOUR logic here) whether something negative about HD DVD is true, it should be cast aside and discounted by everyone when a poster like you or Bmore who never owned HD DVD make this true statement right? ;)

NOW do you see the problem with attacking the poster/messenger when he makes a truthful comment based on the position held during the format war? Under your logic, none of you BD only members could ever post anything about HD DVD since you never owned it.

This is WHY we need to stop looking at someone's position during the war (that is long over) so we can get the facts out there instead of hiding them by fighting over WHO made the truthful comment as a diversion. ;) Nearly everyone has gotten beyond the format war now and only a few on both sides still try to cling to that in defense of their position. Our only HDM format that remains is BD but it is NOT perfect and people want to know both the god AND the bad so they can make an informed choice. Lets try to make THAT the goal going format ok? :hithere:

Yeah so. I know what the term means. Are you trying to say that people who favored HD DVD when the war was going on always have an ulterior motive?

No I'm saying that there are a handful of posters here that, IMO ,do have an ulterior motive when they post negative things about BD. Nothing more, nothing less.

No I'm saying that there are a handful of posters here that, IMO ,do have an ulterior motive when they post negative things about BD. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's right,In your opinion they have ulterior motives. Just because YOU think so and have that opinion, does not make it fact, no matter how you and bmore try to twist it. I don't get why you bother to attack anyone those that still feel HD DVD was/is better. I think it is a superior product too but it lost and now we have BD.

What fricken ulterior motive can they possibly have now that will make one bit of difference anyway? I just don't get you guys that seem to hunt down and call out those that you feel are still "eating sour grapes" or why you even care. :banghead:

IMO, you don't have to take the bait if you feel it is bait. Also, why do you even bother crowsing this section anyway? Looking for a possible "reddie" to redicule? :what:

That's right,In your opinion they have ulterior motives. Just because YOU think so and have that opinion, does not make it fact, no matter how you and bmore try to twist it. I don't get why you bother to attack anyone those that still feel HD DVD was/is better. I think it is a superior product too but it lost and now we have BD.

What fricken ulterior motive can they possibly have now that will make one bit of difference anyway? I just don't get you guys that seem to hunt down and call out those that you feel are still "eating sour grapes" or why you even care. :banghead:

IMO, you don't have to take the bait if you feel it is bait. Also, why do you even bother crowsing this section anyway? Looking for a possible "reddie" to redicule? :what:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism where a person's personal attributes, unacceptable or unwanted thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.[1]

As in: "warriors", who still can't let go of the past and therefore think others must feel the same way.

It's time to move on....

Typical RDF deflection.

Typical RDF deflection.

:rolleyes:

What purpose do you serve here?

Do you share your knowledge with others to try to help them?

Do you discuss future technologies with others?

Do you post informative articles?

The answer is NO to all of the above.

Just some self appointed "Blu Defender" who does nothing more than bait and troll this forum.

The format war ended 14 months ago - but not for you huh?

:rolleyes:

What purpose do you serve here?

Do you share your knowledge with others to try to help them?

Do you discuss future technologies with others?

Do you post informative articles?

The answer is NO to all of the above.

Just some self appointed "Blu Defender" who does nothing more than bait and troll this forum.

The format war ended 14 months ago - but not for you huh?

But Lee, you know that those guys must find something to fight about. If one does not embrace BD, then that person is STILL eating sour grapes.

We all wondered what would happen when the war ended. Most moved on but some cannot help but look for scabs to pick at. I agree that "he" does little more than make trouble here. That is why I asked what he was even doing in this thread since he was blu all along.

Just some self appointed "Blu Defender" who does nothing more than bait and troll this forum.

The format war ended 14 months ago - but not for you huh?


The irony is just dripping off this part of your post.

That is why I asked what he was even doing in this thread since he was blu all along.

Well since I have seen HDDVD players in action, and this thread is about comparing red to blu picture quality, I see no problem participating in it.


If someone has to OWN a format to comment on it, then maybe you should hold OTHERS to that same standard.

Well since I have seen HDDVD players in action, and this thread is about comparing red to blu picture quality, I see no problem participating in it.


If someone has to OWN a format to comment on it, then maybe you should hold OTHERS to that same standard.

I have got to agree with you there. This forum is notorious for having HD DVD advocates participate in Blu-ray threads despite not owning Blu-ray and knowing little or nothing about it. The opinions offered by that group as a whole here were so far out in left field and went unchallenged for the most part until I challenged all of the sky will start falling if Blu-ray prevails nonsense threads. According to many in that group, players should now be $1,000, movies $40, and DRM would be bricking Blu-ray players. Oh ya, and HD DVD was better quality than Blu-ray.

Chris

Well since I have seen HDDVD players in action, and this thread is about comparing red to blu picture quality, I see no problem participating in it.


If someone has to OWN a format to comment on it, then maybe you should hold OTHERS to that same standard.

It isn't about you commenting but about you saying the person has a ulterior motive for stating their opinion, which I cannot see where the heck you come up with that idea. What is ulterior about about it?

You didn't offer an opposing viewpoint at all, just stated the OP has an ulterior motive for saying he thinks HD DVD looks better than Bluray. Just because you have "seen HD DVD players in action" really doesn''t qualify as you having upclose and personal knowledge as opposed to ownign it! Heck, I have seen OLED TVs in action but I can't say they are good or bad without one in my living room.

Anyway... it's a moot point as you no doubt feel empowered by this attention.

The irony is just dripping off this part of your post.

Oh right. I must be eating sour grapes!:rolleyes:

YOUR agenda is transparent as a pane of glass . . .

Question ANYTHING about Blu-ray and you HAVE to be a sour grape eating, BD hater. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And to top it all off - you do what you accuse others of.

Startes with an "H" and ends with an "E.";)

I have got to agree with you there. This forum is notorious for having HD DVD advocates participate in Blu-ray threads despite not owning Blu-ray and knowing little or nothing about it. The opinions offered by that group as a whole here were so far out in left field and went unchallenged for the most part until I challenged all of the sky will start falling if Blu-ray prevails nonsense threads. According to many in that group, players should now be $1,000, movies $40, and DRM would be bricking Blu-ray players. Oh ya, and HD DVD was better quality than Blu-ray.

Chris

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/elmer_fudd01.jpg

:lol::lol: So.. Chris is personally responsible challeneging all the format war rhetoric? That has to beat all. :haha:

I thougth most had moved past all of that but.. I guess not. Elmer FUDD *knee slap* .. oh the memories. I don't think Chris will ever forgive me for handing him that moniker

YOUR agenda is transparent as a pane of glass . . .

More irony.

Question ANYTHING about Blu-ray and you HAVE to be a sour grape eating, BD hater. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

For some posters, yes.

And to top it all off - you do what you accuse others of.

Startes with an "H" and ends with an "E.";)

I'm sure you can link to all of the negative threads I created about HDDVD, in the guise of "concern for the format"

More irony.

Truth hurts doesn't it.

For some posters, yes.

Oh right - selective sour grape eaters.:rolleyes:

I'm sure you can link to all of the negative threads I created about HDDVD, in the guise of "concern for the format"

LMFAO!

We all know you don't start threads. You just make negative/attack posts.

And you don't have an agenda . . . riiiiiight.:rolleyes:

Looks like this thread has run its course. Closing...