Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by BrettB, May 21, 2007.
According to this review.
Battle of the codecs! This is a good thing.
For the money I spent on my speakers and receiver, I'll take better AQ over "tiniest bit sharper" any day!
Still no lossless audio. Paramount is really dragging their ass on the audio side. They use a BD50 and still cannot be bothered to put a lossless track, using any codec, on the disc. The video differences sound negligible if the review is anything to go by. Of course, I would take a review with a grain of salt when it states the following:
Probably has more to do with the hardware than the codec.
I don't know. FOOF is being touted on AVS as the hightest bitrate transfer ever, peaking higher than the POTC transfers.
Compared with low bitrate VC-1, a difference is to be expected.
Too bad Paramount couldn't give the BD even a DD+ track to make it a clear win.
I guess the choice between the HD DVD and the Blu-ray would be a tough decision for someone format neutral. And one's screen size might play a role.
What's interesting is that if this is indeed the highest bitrate ever for BD and to have the "tiniest bit sharper.....no advantage etc..."
Then that kind of puts the argument for more space to rest.
No it doesn't, but if you are more comfortable believing that.......
Is this "film" supposed to look "sharper"?
What a shock.....the higher bitrate video on the BD looks better and the higher bitrate audio on the HD-DVD sounds better. So for the best possible presentation of FOOF we'll have to wait for the double-dip BD with lossless audio a couple of years from now.
Amazing how the last statement is ignored. Sharper does not necessarily equal better.
Which one is more accurate. That's all the matters instead of the typical format hyperbole.
Assuming the sharper image is a more accurate presentation of the film and not artificial I would take his comment as meaning that the difference was enough to be noticable, he knew others would also notice so he mentions it, he is in denial about what it actually means.
And there's folks arguing lossless audio isn't as important as video quality as well, particularly when it's pointed out that HD DVD doesn't have the bandwidth or the space to consistently provide lossless soundtracks.
He noticed this in a side by side and said it was very minor not a "OH MY GOD THE HD DVD VERSION LOOKS LIKE VHS" type way.
Me thinks that the logical opinion (well, guess) is that these will look close enough most would not notice the diff in the "real world" unless compared side by side or using screencaps that are blown up to 300%.
Likewise, I bet msot would not notice the audio difference between the two.
FWIW with the ability to get either version I'm getting the bluray version but not because of this supposed slightly sharper image. I am getting it because my parents have a bluray player and they can borrow this from me.
I live for the day when people do not blow minor differences out of the water on web forums. Sadly, it will never happen.
Well this is still not even like when folks jumped on BD when they thought "Training Day" was slightly better on HD DVD....
Let us all make sure it doesn't get to that point!
Seems to me that this thread was started for the purpose of starting this type of bickering. It is getting real old as the same arguments have been posted over many threads.
Well, you would be wrong Thomas. I started the thread because I'm actually interested in noticable differences between formats/codecs/equipment.
I think the significance of this is, certain individuals on another forum have been very heavily mass marketing VC-1 to be much better than AVC and way better than MPEG-2....all of which is false (see MI:3).