 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
192.91.171.36
In Reply to: RE: I find avs biased against all things blu-ray to the point of intolerance posted by Jazz Inmate on August 16, 2007 at 10:05:39
The Blu-Ray folks keep hammering HD DVD concerning storage capacity and bandwidth and possible impacts on movie releases. E.g. "30G is good enough" is not the mantra I'd want to try to defend.
Toss in a few discussions on comparative software sales and studio/CE support and it's starting to look a tad more bluish over there.
Follow Ups:
Noone has to defend it. BD has yet to prove the extra space gives a better picture.Paramount has different codecs for the different formats, yet the picture looks the same on both.
I beleive that the Prestige BD is 37G, but the import HD DVD is only 23G, and looks the same, according to folks who compared them. The BD mantra "more must be better" doesn't really hold water.
Check out posts 9 and 20 in the thread linked below.
enjoy,
Jack
Including a certain author of HD DVD and Blu-ray versions using different encodes. Of course, different people will have different agendas and points of views to "encourage".
I've personally seen stuff on VC-1 edge motions I didn't particularly care for. Whether that's a result of low bitrate encodes typical of HD DVDs or something else remains to be seen. Curious, they weren't so prevalent on Blu-ray discs with higher bit rate and/or different encodes. Of course, since most everyone has <50" screens, it might not be so noticeable. Good enough is good enough; Unless, maybe you are dealing with 100+" screens...
I might just have to invest in separate low and high bit rate encodes of same movie for serious A/B sessions (e.g. "Flags of our Father"). And/or actually spend serious time watching bits and pieces of different HD DVD and Blu-Ray movies to get a better "general feel"; especially now that "KIng Kong" (sans lossless track - curious since this is supposed to be a reference disk) is now in my current library.
But what happens when you've got a 120" screen at 720p? Twice the size at half the resolution? That can't be a good combination.
For the record, I like AVC encodes too, though I'm not sure about MPEG-2.
As far as a general feel goes, I get a the same feeling from both, but to be fair, I haven't seen enough of BDs since there are very few I want to own. HD DVD seems a bit more consistant, but the same caveat applies.
Outside of The Fifth Element, which is very good and comperable to Chronicles of Riddick on HD DVD, my other BDs are average. BTW, of the seven I have, two froze up on me and one won't play at all. So much for being more reliable.
enjoy,
Jack
But then again, I see "soft" images on the Big theater. I have to keep reminding myself it's much harder to make a movie look "hidef" on the 10000" screen than on the itty bitty ones we have at home.
Sometimes the directer wants a soft image. Sometimes people complain about that, bu the disc may be true to the source. this makes AVS's disc rating thread somewhat iffy, since we usully don't know accuracy to the source. There's alot of people over at AVS that complain when they see film grain. Many just want an idealized model of perfection that doesn't exist.
Jack
That's for darn sure.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
I'd like to see more direct comparisons between AVC and VC1 encodes of the same movies. Who knows, maybe AVC would really shine on HD DVD as well.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
