Flags of our Fathers "sharper" on Blu (1 Viewer)

[Douglas Monce]

I don't know if VC-1 is better than MPEG-2. It is however much more efficient, taking up much less space to deliver the equivalent quality. I'm looking forward to working with it.

Doug

 

[Kevin EK]

I don't have an HD-DVD player, but I can attest that the Blu-Ray transfer of FLAGS is indeed great. (I just posted my review - it took me an extra night to go through all the supplements)

That's not a slam on HD-DVD - I'm sure the transfer on it is also great. Is it possible that both disc formats have an excellent picture?

 

[Phil Menard]

Dave H, do you mean MPEG-4 as opposed to MPEG-2, which is what the Blu FOOF is?

 

[Shane Martin]

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I thought the Blu-ray FOOF was AVC, not MPEG2? The VC-1 HD DVD does indeed look great--it's a huge improvement over the standard DVD; probably the biggest difference between a standard and an HD DVD that I've seen, due to all the smoke and prominent jagged lines that the standard disc has trouble with.

LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA HD DVD has a lossless audio track and it's incredible. Looks great too.

 

[Shane Martin]

FooF is AVC.

 

[PeterTHX]

How?

It's not FUD, it's fact.

Only a handful of HD DVD releases have had lossless soundtracks. Hence the word "consistent". It's the exception to the rule. when a title is announced without specs from Warner or Universal can you safely assume it will have TrueHD?
Most BDs have lossless soundtracks, certain studios ALWAYS have lossless soundtracks, be it PCM, TrueHD, or DTS-MA. Part of it is the extra space, but a BIG part of it is the 54Mbps peak datarate that allows titles like "Identity" or "Stomp The Yard" to have even multiple lossless tracks. You know if there's a Disney, Sony, Fox, or MGM it will have a lossless track. The only studios where its questionable is Warner and Paramount, who happen to be neutral studios.

BTW: Yes, I know I'm leaving Weinstein and Lionsgate out of this. I'm talking major studios here.

 

[Shane Martin]

Because your "Guess" is not fact. You are merely saying "Because there are xyz amount of hd dvd titles without lossless" HD DVD is incapable of it because of disc space.

Give me a freaking break. The logic here is just ridiculous. How do you KNOW FOR A FACT and SHOW US that the studios couldn't fit a lossless track on the discs?

Put up or shut up. You have Zero evidence but hyberbole to make such a conclusion.

The reason its FUD is because FUD = Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. A simple post that says alluding to how "crippled" HD is audio wise by comparison is a good example of that.

 

[Kevin EK]

FOOF is indeed AVC.

Hope I didn't make anyone's conclusions go POOF...

 

[PeterTHX]

Because your "Guess" is not fact. You are merely saying "Because there are xyz amount of hd dvd titles without lossless" HD DVD is incapable of it because of disc space.

Give me a freaking break. The logic here is just ridiculous. How do you KNOW FOR A FACT and SHOW US that the studios couldn't fit a lossless track on the discs?

Put up or shut up. You have Zero evidence but hyberbole to make such a conclusion.

Titles like "Hulk" and "King Kong" take more than 29GB of disc space. Titles like "Mummy Returns" and "KK" have peak video bitrates that would cause HD DVD to exceed its 36Mbps limit if a lossless track was added (assuming space wasn't an issue).

Not to mention Microsoft's Amir on another forum has admitted these issues.


So FUD it is not.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Given that some big action movies like Batman Begins and Superman Returns have had lossless audio and still had a spectacular picture (granted Superman has some problems with the underwater stuff.) I think the idea that there isn't enough bandwidth on HD DVD is highly questionable.

I'm not sure why you would need more than one lossless audio track.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

This doesn't mean that the peak rate couldn't be reduced with out the picture quality suffering. The authors of those DVDs knew they weren't using lossless audio so they maxed out the peaks. If they had been using lossless they would have simply backed it off to accommodate the audio track. It doesn't mean that they COULDN'T have put a lossless audio track on as Batman Begins clearly demonstrates.

Doug

 

[PeterTHX]

Hmmm. I watched "BB" on a calibrated 52" Sony XBR2 from a Toshiba A2 and it looked a bit soft and noisy in some shots. Reviews for "Superman Returns" were also disappointed in the picture quality, especially since it was shot digitally using the Panavision Genesis camera.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I guess its all a matter of opinion. I've watched both on my 42 inch Hitachi UltraVision Director's Series calibrated with the Video Essentials High Definition disc. Batman Begins looked like it did in the theater to me. Superman as I said I noticed some problems with banding in the underwater shots, but other than that I thought it looked spectacular and very film like.

Doug

 

[Shane Martin]

More conjecture at best. We need facts not opinion. Saying peak video rates means squat. Just look at The Matrix and it's sequels. HD DVD 30 gig disc, IME, True HD, pretty long movies, reference PQ.

Keep trying.

 

[Tim Glover]

Since we've moved from Flags possibly being the tiniest bit sharper ...to lossy audio stuff....I'll say this: I'll put the space cramped HD DVDs 1.5 mbs DD+ tracks for Serenity, Bourne Supremacy, King Kong etc....against any HD title. I just can't imagine them being anymore immersive or frightening. Yes, their THAT good.

One thing that was mentioned and no one bit on it is can't we celebrate that both of these Flags HD editions are getting rather high marks. That's pretty cool.

 

[ppltd]

Talk about rewriting history. I read a half a dozen of reviews on SR and every one gave raving reviews of the PQ quality. The only issue seemed to be the reviewer’s bias on HD vrs Film originals which has nothing to do with there ratings on the HD DVD PQ quality as you infer. To turn this into an argument supporting your view of perceived lack of adequate bandwidth of HD DVD is a simply fallacious.

 

[PeterTHX]

Hmmm. You must have missed the personal user reviews & comments on this and other forums very disappointed in the picture quality. Even my *Dad* commented that it didn't seem to be much of a step up from the DVD version.

 

[ppltd]

I tend to ignore 'personal user reviews' and look for the more unbiased reviews posted in mags or by individuals set to review films. They at least have some perceived objectivity, as the designated reviewers on this forum tend to. When it comes to personal reviews, especially when they contradict what I can see myself, I question their motives.

I will take the work of these reviewers, or mags like 'Widescreen Review' and HTM over the 'personal user reviews' any day of the week. They have not steered me wrong yet.

 

[TonyD]

somebody said the supes returns hd dvd hardly looked better then the sd dvd?