# HD vs Blu-Ray.....



## Rodny Alvarez (Apr 25, 2006)

this is pretty good info........ 
http://www.projectorcentral.com/retailing_HD-DVD_Blu-ray.htm


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

That's a good article and indeed interesting how the consumer is being somewhat deceived. It will ultimately be interesting to see what happens a couple of years from now.


----------



## toecheese (May 3, 2006)

It was interesting (not surprising- I'm sure Sony et al pay for those displays out front), but I take issue with this:



> The transmission interface is simply a matter of the order in which the scanlines are read and transmitted to the video display. If they are transmitted in 1080p, they are sent sequentially. If they are transmitted in 1080i, they are sent in two fields, with one containing the odd numbered lines and another the even numbered lines. These two fields are then reassembled into sequential frames by the video processor in the TV or projector. Either way you end up with the full 1080p frame being used to create the picture, so there is no difference in the end result.


That's saying that interlaced and progressive are the same thing. They aren't. Interlacing depends on the human eye not noticing a delay between the alternate images- and usually you don't (regular TV is interlaced).


----------



## Snatcher (Jan 8, 2007)

toecheese said:


> That's saying that interlaced and progressive are the same thing. They aren't. Interlacing depends on the human eye not noticing a delay between the alternate images- and usually you don't (regular TV is interlaced).


You are right when talking about a signal that is interlaced. But if you are talking about a progressive signal, there is not alternating image on screen. It is just the way it is drawn in the internal buffer before display. So in reality, there is no difference when it is a 1080p set and the signal is either 1080i or 1080p.


----------



## toecheese (May 3, 2006)

Are the HD players interlaced or not? The specs imply that the BR does 1080p, whilst the HD does 1080i.


----------



## Snatcher (Jan 8, 2007)

They are not. Both formats have the movies encoded at 1080p. In the case described above, it is just how the signal travels.

You can view it this way, 1080i at 60 frames per second is equal to 1080p at 30 frames per second. And since the movies in both format are at 24 frames, and the player need to convert that to either 30 or 60...

It is just a matter of the signal and the display. if the signal is either [email protected] or [email protected] it won't matter on a 1080p display.

regarding teh specs you describe, you are probably talking about specific players. There are players in teh market that cannot output 1080p as a signal. Liek the Toshiba HD-A1. But teh A2 can do that and the ones that are on teh pipeline can do that as well.

The other side of teh coin is the samsung blu-ray player, that can output 1080p, but in reality it is just a deinterlaced 1080i from the internal bus (the same thing the TV does).


----------



## wbassett (Feb 8, 2007)

I have both now and I have to say that right now the movies that we have, HD DVD looks better. I got the A2 when I was down in PA. That four free movie deal plus the five from Toshiba was too hard to pass up. Our set is a 55" Sony SXRD 1080p. 

What surprised me was my wife. I put Batman Begins in (believe it or not she picked it out) and there was a 'commercial' for HD DVD and all the 'cool' interactive menus. I hit skip and she got ticked and said "Hey that was interesting, I was watching that!" and actually made me start the disc over. She was asking why the Blu-ray player didn't have that. I told her it does to an extent, but the 'infomercial' bowled her over.

Then the WB logo came up. I didn't even have to ask her, she said she didn't know why, but eveything just 'looks better'. I have to say I agree so far, but I also don't have a ton of BD flicks right now either. Both formats are incredible compared to SDVD that is a definite. I can say now though that feeding a 1080p set with a 1080i signal is not inferior to a 1080p player, at least not from what I have seen so far.

Next year I'll probably get a 1080p HD DVD player but mainly for the reon chip and its better upconverting abilities. The A2 will move to the bedroom so we can watch high def movies up there. Right now we're stuck at 480p upstairs


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

I own both formats, and I think picture quality on both formats is a wash. If you were to look at a compulation of professional reviews on all titles for both formats, blu-ray wins overall, but not by much. When it comes to audio quality on both, its no contest, blu-ray wins hands down because of the its extensive use of uncompressed PCM versus Dolby Digital plus for a majority of HD DVD titles. 

On movies released in both formats, I have done some comparisons between these titles. I have found no difference in most cases, and what differences I did find were just that, differences and not anything that would add to a better or superior opinion. Each of my players are calibrated seperately via the HDMI connections by a very good friend who is ISF, THX and Cedia certified. My television is custom made with 9" CRT's in a Toshiba 65H84 chassis with a custom made Da-lite screen. My video processing is done by a beta version of a high end broadcast quality video switcher/processor that will be made by Grass Valley. 

The problem I have with this article is that it is VERY dated in a fast changing world. They mention the Samsung player, the worst of all blu-ray players out there. I would like for him to make these same comments about the Sony or Panasonic blu-ray player which are true 1080p players unlike the samsung. 

His comments on the bitrate are not exactly real world comments. First he is correct about the data rate until you get to complex highly detailed scenes. Even Joe Kane admits that the larger buffer size of the Blu-ray format IS a advantage over HD DVD under these conditions. There is already one Blu-ray movie who peak bit rate would exceed the HD DVD spec, I just cannot remember which one it is. 

For another perspective:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/feature-article-1080p-3-2007-part-1.html


----------



## Tommy (Apr 20, 2006)

Sir Terrence said:


> I own both formats, and I think picture quality on both formats is a wash. If you were to look at a compulation of professional reviews on all titles for both formats, blu-ray wins overall, but not by much. When it comes to audio quality on both, its no contest, blu-ray wins hands down because of the its extensive use of uncompressed PCM versus Dolby Digital plus for a majority of HD DVD titles.
> 
> On movies released in both formats, I have done some comparisons between these titles. I have found no difference in most cases, and what differences I did find were just that, differences and not anything that would add to a better or superior opinion.


I'd have to disagree. Overal ratings for picture quality put HD as the winner and BR for audio. 

As to for audio, only about a 1/3 of the tracks on BR use PCM, 1/3 use DD, and 1/3 use DTS HD MA.

There seems to be the speculation that PCM is better since there is nothing that needs to be decompressed at all. But first this wastes double the space and secondly lossless means there was no quality loss. 

And to show how much pre-conceived notions that PCM was better plays apart in favortism even in reveiws you can see how titles with PCM were automatically marked higher. When it was later pointed out that these PCM titles at 16 bits actuaclly have a lesser quality then the TrueHD tracks at 24 bits you can already see the recent review ratings starting to change. So the quality is less and costs twice the amount of space.

The same would go for the lower rate DD on BR vs the higher rated DD+ on HD. As for the DTS HD MA that is on almost 1/3rd of all titles ::shrugs:: thats anyones guess since there is not a single player released by Blu-ray that can fully decode DTS HD MA only lesser versions of it.

Considering that picture and audio may lean of favor one side slightly; both are very similar in most cases. The added features available on the HD DVD definetly put it over the top and are not matched by Blu-ray. Full interactive menu systems IME, U-control, picture and picture, the ability to play combo discs in a regular dvd player, twin discs in either a dvd player or a HD player, internet interactivity that allows me to connect to the web an have even more content all for about 1/3 what I paid for my Pannasonic Blu-ray player.

Blu-ray brags about disc space advantages but 70% of all movies released are actually on 25g discs which is less space then HD DVD. Add into that the use of MPEG-2 and PCM which both use more space then more advanced codecs, you wind up with alot of 90 minute movies with less extras then the dvd version.

Being as most BR players currently released will not be compatiable and will need to be replaced in order to be fully functional once profile 2.0 comes out, I would definetely not say this is worth $500-$1,000 over the $300 HD DVD players now available.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

I guess there's more than I originally thought to the format differences, and much like any of the new technologies it's easy to get lost in the info. I think when the time comes for me I'll just go with the format that boasts the least expensive (reasonably good) player and run with it for a while.


----------



## Tommy (Apr 20, 2006)

Owen, I wouldnt suggest putting off buying into either. I've been enjoying both for over a year now and would be dissappointed to be without now...

Comparing the two though, I would only recommend HD DVD to family and friends at present time. For $300 it is rated one of the best dvd upconvertors this year, plus the added bonus of HD movies, extras and internet interactivity.

BR has not finished there specs and still has 3 more versions due out before its completion. I spent $1k on my BR player and its a kick in the but to know that it will not be fully functionial once profile 2.0 comes out... 

At the current time there is not a single manufacturer that has claimed current BR players will be compatiable with profile 2.0 including the PS3 (although I would hope that it is). Until they publicly gurantee this I would not suggest purchasing one until then or at least understand that it may not remain fully functional in the near future


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

Tommy said:


> I'd have to disagree. Overal ratings for picture quality put HD as the winner and BR for audio.


This will probably be my last post on this issue as I believe I am much too controversial for this site and this topic. You information is not factually based. This is a compiled list of all the major online reviewers scores of both PQ and AQ

HD DVD PQ SQ TOTAL 
HighDef 3.92 3.64 3.78 
HTSpot 3.96 3.84 3.90 
DVDTalk 3.66 3.49 3.58 
HTForum 4.00 3.73 3.86 
UpDisc 4.02 3.81 3.91 
Totals 3.88 3.68 3.78 

Blu-ray PQ SQ TOTAL 
HighDef 3.98 3.83 3.91 
HTSpot 4.03 4.24 4.13 
DVDTalk 3.65 3.69 3.67 
HTForum 4.30 4.08 4.19 
UpDisc 4.04 4.13 4.09 
Totals 3.94 3.95 3.94 



As you can see, bluray outscores HD DVD in every catagory



> As to for audio, only about a 1/3 of the tracks on BR use PCM, 1/3 use DD, and 1/3 use DTS HD MA.


The last information I checked the total number of bluray disc with PCM tracks, the number was 93. On HD DVD I think there was thirty at most(maybe a little more than that). Just about every new release announced from the bluray exclusive studios(with the exception of Fox) comes with a PCM soundtrack. So based on what you have listed 2/3 of all Bluray releases have a lossless soundtrack in some form, can you say that for HD DVD? No, not based on facts. 



> There seems to be the speculation that PCM is better since there is nothing that needs to be decompressed at all. But first this wastes double the space and secondly lossless means there was no quality loss.


Since high bitrate AVC video and 24/48khz audio have been already used in great force on bluray, it is apparent that space in a non issue. HD DVD has a problem in this area because space and bandwidth is of a premium, and is limited. The reality is Bluray could go on forever without the use of Dts HD MA and TrueHD because the space limitation and bandwidth are a non issue. 



> And to show how much pre-conceived notions that PCM was better plays apart in favortism even in reveiws you can see how titles with PCM were automatically marked higher. When it was later pointed out that these PCM titles at 16 bits actuaclly have a lesser quality then the TrueHD tracks at 24 bits you can already see the recent review ratings starting to change. So the quality is less and costs twice the amount of space.


Can you fully explain lesser quality when there really is no audible difference proven between 16bits and 24bits on consumer equipment? Besides TrueHD tracks released on both formats have dialog normalization applied which reduces the bit depth, and secondly consumer equipment can only transport 20 effective bits to the speakers because of thermal noise within the equipment and the digital process itself. So you are going to have to actually prove with links that this favortism actually exists, or this will go down the circular file as more FUD(something we have seen too much of already.)

The quality could only be less if it creates audible degredation within that space. Based on my hearing and the hearing over most reviewers, the audio has increased in quality over lossy Dts and DD. So that space is not wasted at all. 



> The same would go for the lower rate DD on BR vs the higher rated DD+ on HD. As for the DTS HD MA that is on almost 1/3rd of all titles ::shrugs:: thats anyones guess since there is not a single player released by Blu-ray that can fully decode DTS HD MA only lesser versions of it.


One cannot assume that a higher bit rate will mean increased quality. Some soundtracks do not benefit at all from a higher bit rate, like soundtracks with more dialog than effects and music. DD+ has no benefits at higher bit rates, and that has already been confirmed by Roger Dressler on AVS. DD+ has real benefits as the channels increase, and the bit rate goes down. Example, 7.1 with 3mbps. 



> Considering that picture and audio may lean of favor one side slightly; both are very similar in most cases. The added features available on the HD DVD definetly put it over the top and are not matched by Blu-ray. Full interactive menu systems IME, U-control, picture and picture, the ability to play combo discs in a regular dvd player, twin discs in either a dvd player or a HD player, internet interactivity that allows me to connect to the web an have even more content all for about 1/3 what I paid for my Pannasonic Blu-ray player.


It has never been proven, ever, that interactive features drive a format. HD DVD has had these features since day one, at that has not sold more players. The facts point to price as a Most blu-ray owners don't even care about IME, U Control, and PIP, and I as an owner of both do not want my players in where near the internet which leaves it exposed to hackers, and potential control to a studio. Combo disc have reliability issues from player to player. However, the PS3 can currently support(with a firmware upgrade) PIP, online interactivity, download trailors, and everything a current HD DVD can do, and much more. I paid half of what you paid for your Panasonic, and got more to boot. 



> Blu-ray brags about disc space advantages but 70% of all movies released are actually on 25g discs which is less space then HD DVD. Add into that the use of MPEG-2 and PCM which both use more space then more advanced codecs, you wind up with alot of 90 minute movies with less extras then the dvd version.


Where have you been in the last 6 months? Blu-ray has been using VC-1, AVC, and MPEG-2 along with PCM, and recently Dolby TrueHD. As far as extra's go, that is not a blu-ray issue, its a studio issue. BD-50 are now widely available as the company I work for has their own pressing line, and Sony has one. There are a total of 6 large pressing lines for BD-50, so its not storage, its the studio's decision to add, or not to add extra's. 



> Being as most BR players currently released will not be compatiable and will need to be replaced in order to be fully functional once profile 2.0 comes out, I would definetely not say this is worth $500-$1,000 over the $300 HD DVD players now available.


You are sidestepping some facts. Sony has a $499 player, Panasonic has a $599, Samsung first Gen can be found for about $400 on Ebay, and other manufacturers first gen bluray players for less on Ebay as well. One has to weight whether getting extra content and gimmicks is worth replacing their perfect good current player. Is the movie experience more important to you(which all current players do) or the other stuff more important(which will require a replacement). The A2 cannot do 1080p/24, nor does it have the facilities to access the advance audio codecs without purchasing a HDMI enabled receiver. At least the A1 had the component audio outs to hook into all receivers that had pre ins. Even the cheapest first generation blu-ray player could be hooked into current receivers which allowed every blu-ray owner to enjoy PCM audio right out of the box. 

While HD DVD has the price edge, the reliability of the players is all over the map. Both the first generation and second generation players have had stuttering issues, dropouts, and sync'ing issues. 

I am no longer going to post on any more controversial issues here at the shack. I just wanted to point out some issues that might add a little more balance to the entire thread. It is easy to ride down the "HD DVD rules" highway. However when facts are presented, HD DVD doesn't rule very much at this point.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

Thanks Tom, I'm sure I'd love either format, the main issue now is that I don't have an HD display. So when I get a new place this year, I'll be getting a nice new TV and an upconverting player, and possibly either HD or BD, depending how things go.


----------



## Tommy (Apr 20, 2006)

Sir Terrence said:


> This will probably be my last post on this issue as I believe I am much too controversial for this site and this topic. You information is not factually based. This is a compiled list of all the major online reviewers scores of both PQ and AQ
> 
> As you can see, bluray outscores HD DVD in every catagory


Actually I dont belive the above to be correct. Do you have a listing of what titles were rated to which scores, if so I will also provide my listings for comparisons. 

Additionally I dont see where your claiming much of a difference in either format so there really is no need to pay more for players & movies and get less content and features.




> The last information I checked the total number of bluray disc with PCM tracks, the number was 93. On HD DVD I think there was thirty at most(maybe a little more than that). Just about every new release announced from the bluray exclusive studios(with the exception of Fox) comes with a PCM soundtrack. So based on what you have listed 2/3 of all Bluray releases have a lossless soundtrack in some form, can you say that for HD DVD? No, not based on facts.


Umm 93 out of 271 blu-ray released titles equals what perctent? :duh:

So I dont see how your proving my statement wrong that only 1/3 are PCM. 

Needing to group Fox's DTS-HD MA tracks in to your lossless percentages is really only misleading people since in reality there is not a single blu-ray player that can decode the Master Audio tracks.

So it still winds up with 1/3 DD (not even the 1.5 DD+ that HD has), 1/3 of a audio no-one can use, and a 16 bit uncompressed track that still winds up less then HD bit for bit



> Can you fully explain lesser quality when there really is no audible difference proven between 16bits and 24bits on consumer equipment?


Ummmm I think ya did it again.... If theres no audible difference then wouldnt the the advanced tracks on both formats that use half the space be better then an uncompressed track that take up double the space. Specially when the majority of all blu-ray movies released so far have less disc space then HD DVD.



> It has never been proven, ever, that interactive features drive a format. HD DVD has had these features since day one, at that has not sold more players. The facts point to price as a Most blu-ray owners don't even care about IME, U Control, and PIP, and I as an owner of both do not want my players in where near the internet which leaves it exposed to hackers, and potential control to a studio. Combo disc have reliability issues from player to player. However, the PS3 can currently support(with a firmware upgrade) PIP, online interactivity, download trailors, and everything a current HD DVD can do, and much more. I paid half of what you paid for your Panasonic, and got more to boot.


The facts point to what

To even attempt to say blu-ray has these same features is false; the specs for the intereactivy are not even completed and most Blu-ray players dont even have an internet connection.onder:

The only release availble with PIP is a movie that was less then 90 minutes long being put on the disc twice. Most Blu-ray players dont even have an internet connection! The upgrade due in November will still not even include network/internet connectivity. And not a single manufacturer has claimed any players currently out that will be compatibile once profile 2.0 is released.



> Where have you been in the last 6 months? Blu-ray has been using VC-1, AVC, and MPEG-2 along with PCM, and recently Dolby TrueHD. As far as extra's go, that is not a blu-ray issue, its a studio issue. BD-50 are now widely available as the company I work for has their own pressing line, and Sony has one. There are a total of 6 large pressing lines for BD-50, so its not storage, its the studio's decision to add, or not to add extra's.


Thers a surprise you work for one of these companies... 6 months what about the last year since its launch or dont ya want to mention everything?

I can prove the percentages I've quoted and the majority of all titles released are encoded with MPEG-2 and on 25g discs!

Is it a studio issue for netrual studios like Warner to release extras on HD DVD version but not the Blu-ray versions. Looking at titles from this month like Blood Diamond and 300 and you say how many more hours of content the HD versions have. Or that even when a studio such as Disney does release extras such as on the Pirates movies that had to be added to a second disc.

By the way, how many titles has Fox released in the last 6 months, 1 or 2 movies?




> You are sidestepping some facts. Sony has a $499 player, Panasonic has a $599, Samsung first Gen can be found for about $400 on Ebay, and other manufacturers first gen bluray players for less on Ebay as well. One has to weight whether getting extra content and gimmicks is worth replacing their perfect good current player. Is the movie experience more important to you(which all current players do) or the other stuff more important(which will require a replacement). The A2 cannot do 1080p/24, nor does it have the facilities to access the advance audio codecs without purchasing a HDMI enabled receiver. At least the A1 had the component audio outs to hook into all receivers that had pre ins. Even the cheapest first generation blu-ray player could be hooked into current receivers which allowed every blu-ray owner to enjoy PCM audio right out of the box.


Can you point to any of the above players as even having an internet connection which will soon be required in the Blu-ray specs?

I'm not side stepping anything and I dont even need to point to obselete players, ebay, refurbed, sales etc but again you proved my point without me even having to debate it any further.

The HD-A2 HD DVD brand new at the Shack right now is as low as $246 - half the price with more features and options





> While HD DVD has the price edge, the reliability of the players is all over the map. Both the first generation and second generation players have had stuttering issues, dropouts, and sync'ing issues.


Stuttering issues i'll agree with but by far I think there the discs and the sensitivity of the players. I have practically eliminated all of these issues by using a disc cleaner before playing the discs.

But where as I will not over look issues I find on the HD player either you seem to be pointing out issues like this but not mentioning recent news reports claiming issues with Blu-ray discs rotting already. 

Blu-ray Disc Rot

or how about that Sony is being sued for patent infringment for stealing the disc coating that they now use on all discs and that the patent holds is calling for a permanent injunction preventing Sony from violating its patent rights

Sony Sued Over Blu-ray Patent Infringement 



> I am no longer going to post on any more controversial issues here at the shack. I just wanted to point out some issues that might add a little more balance to the entire thread. It is easy to ride down the "HD DVD rules" highway. However when facts are presented, HD DVD doesn't rule very much at this point


I dont feel I skimmed any issues at all, quite the opposite I feel I have pointed out where your issues are misleading dispite claiming everything as _facts_. This whole long response seem aimed at discrediting what I had originally stated and I dont feel you accomplished that at all. I believe it only furthered what I had to state as being true.

As someone that doesnt work for any of these companies but does own players from both formats I dont feel that I need to favor one side over the other either way. At this point I have about 4k total invested in both formats and will lose about half of that which everyone wins.


----------



## bobgpsr (Apr 20, 2006)

Sir Terrence said:


> BD-50 are now widely available as the company I work for has their own pressing line, and Sony has one. There are a total of 6 large pressing lines for BD-50, so its not storage, its the studio's decision to add, or not to add extra's.


Are you saying that Disney/Buena Vista has their own BD-50 pressing plant in use right now! Wow! That is news!

And five other BD-50 pressing lines are online and active? How many are Sony owned versus others?

Home Theater Shack gets this news ahead of AVS Forum or an Alex Millians post. Super! :bigsmile:


----------

