Blades of Glory/Face Off - BD HD differences (1 Viewer)

[Shawn Perron]

Actually over at AVS they have direct digital captures of flags and the Blu-Ray demonstrably has more detail. It's not exactly night and day, but it does have more high frequency information (both the encodes have a different tint to the picture, but that's a different arguement as to what happened and which is more correct). Short of mouseover digital captures to remove the equipment and calibration from the equation, I don't think a reviewer can adequately make a call as to which truly looks better.

Now you may argue that it's diminishing returns, but people spend big bucks to buy the nice equipment and have it properly calibrated just to eke that last bit of performance from thier equipment. I'll take the best transfers I can get even if it's just a teensy bit better.

 

[Tim Glover]

David, your post just implied that Paramount was offering a superior video encode for BD releases and I just wanted to show that if that was indeed true, they haven't shown any superiority. Flags possibly but in some cases both formats got equal encodes. And in those cases where they both got the bit hungry AVC, the HD DVD still got the 'superior' audio track. And no one here can really refute that "an insider" told you that since that was something only you were given.

Shawn, I agree that for me, image improvement is more important for my taste having a large screen and front projector. I own the Flags HD DVD and rented the BD version and I will agree with that review above. The Flags BD is a tiny bit sharper. I noticed it really with my first comparison. Just a tad more texture if you will...Granted, it's REALLY hard for we layman to do such tests having only one HDMI connection & one set of component inputs etc..but for all things being equal, I preferred the BD image. Audio was another matter. but lets dont' go down that road.

 

[Shawn Perron]

I starting to think lossy sound is going to end up being a feature that we'll regret in the future like non-anamorphic discs that we all still own from the early days of DVD. Sure lossy seems ok now, but some day when we get used to the higher quality of lossless, we'll be looking to upgrade just for the improved audio. It's really inexcusable for the studios to not be including it on every release on both formats. No lossless, no HD extras, old masters and I'm sure other reasons are going to make us look back at some of these early discs like they are dinosaurs.

 

[ppltd]

So tell me, where the screen shot dfferences due to the way they were captured, the hardware, the encode? Certainly not do to the format, as there have been other releases that the PQ edge, slight as it might be, was given to HD DVD. More likely do to they way the poster captured the image, whether done purposly or not.

 

[ppltd]

 

[Douglas Monce]

Well considering that the picture is stunning, and the sound track is stunning in spite of being lossless., yeah I would hold it up as an icon of how the HD DVD format can deliver the ultimate AV quality.

Doug

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The "ultimate" would have provided lossless audio, which would have sounded even better than the already-excellent lossy Dolby Plus track. If it can be improved upon (ie, if the source master looks or sounds better, even if marginally), then it's not the "ultimate" by definition.

 

[Douglas Monce]

By your definition.

 

[Dave H]

By any definition of the word "ultimate."

Do you not agree that lossless is better?

 

[Dave H]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Paramount was not doing their own encoding and that HD DVD and Blu-ray were being done by two different (outsourced) parties.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Only if you can tell the difference. The fact of the matter is that only about 10% of the population at large can hear the difference between original masters and even standard Dolby Digital. Honestly with King Kong I'm willing to bet that if you did a blind A/B test between the DD+ track and the original masters, you probably wouldn't know which was which most of the time.

Now add to that actually having audio equipment capable of reproducing the differences, and an environment that has the proper acoustics....for the majority of people out there the difference is irrelevant.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

I don't know that any of the studios are doing their own encoding. Most of the time encoding is contracted out to a third party company such as Deluxe.

Doug

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Thanks for correcting yourself, so I wouldn't have too again.
Did we not just go over this like a month or two ago?
Hasn't this been gone over since day one of "KK" release?
It was a studio decision.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

One of the first threads on this forum (THANKS!!!) was me trying to warn people to avoid non-lossless releases. Didn't work too good!!! ;-)

 

[Ed St. Clair]

You changed the meaning, again!
You said it couldn't be used as reference for HD DVD because it lacked a "lossless" track. When it was pointed out it is still a reference HD DVD A/V title w/DD+, you now say its not the "ultimate" KK audio.
Who can say what the "ultimate" KK will be???
Extended cut? Special features?
Better audio? Better visuals?
It will not stop cause "KK" will not stop making $$$!!!

EDitEDbyED:
Back on topic, I hope!
Any other examples of BD beating HD DVD on PQ?
This will be the 1st time I'll see "BoG" & want it to look the best.
HD DVD "lossing" (pi) the lossless track on this thing, is NOT good!
Heck, even Ron (hi!) is buying the BD version!!!
HD DVD can't afford ANY mistakes & this might just be one!
For me at least.

"KK" is an ultimate example of HD DVD A/V quality today.
Tomorrow, HD DVD will be even BETTER!!!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Uh, Ed, I never "changed the meaning". I never suggested that the lossy audio on this disc was the "ultimate". Someone else did that. I pointed out the error since, by definition, lossy isn't the "ultimate" representation of a linear PCM master.

 

[Douglas Monce]

The only place where I have been able to see something that would indicate that it didn't have True HD is the scan of the back of the case. Every site I have been to lists the specs has having True HD. Maybe someone could email Paramount for clarification.

Doug

 

[Shane Martin]

LOL. I'm sorry I can't believe you. I'll take that bet and win. Please tell me you can tell the difference between lossless and normal DD?

 

[Douglas Monce]

Yes but the difference is very slight and I have to actually go back and forth between them other wise I really wouldn't know which I was listening too. Also I have decent speakers but not what I would call an audiophile system. And the acoustics could be much better in my viewing room. The difference is somewhat more exaggerated with standard Dolby Digital.

Doug

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Doug,

the difference is slight to you. I happen to review BDs. I hear a demonstrable improvement with PCM/lossless on every BD I've reviewed. So do most other reviewers. So do most members hear and at AVS.