Blu-ray Review Happy Feet HD DVD/Blu-ray Reviews... (1 Viewer)

[Tim Glover]

Just in from Highdefdigest.com



Looks like a terrific high-def release & a stunning demo type disc. Got my pre-order already in...

 

[ppltd]

FYI.

HD DVD review
Blu-Ray review

 

[Yumbo]

The DVD picture is as shocking as The Departed DVD. Mosquito noise EVERYWHERE.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

Hey Warner, how about not short changing BD for a change. No lossless audio? Not utilizing BD50? As Casino Royal has just shown, there is a lot of money to be made on the blu side of the isle, but I won't spend a dime on crippled releases like this.

 

[Norman Matthews]

"Crippled"? How dramatic.

 

[BrettB]

DD 5.1 EX. No sale. Warner continues to disappoint and play bs games.

 

[Rob Young]

I have both formats and ordered the bluray version a couple weeks ago because it was cheaper. I didn't know at the time it wouldn't have the same audio (ie didn't think it had truehd on hd dvd) so figured it made sense to save a few bucks. Seeing that it just had the reg DD track I probably should switch it for the hd-dvd version but I think I'll still go for the bluray version as I like saving the 4 bucks and my folks recently got a PS3 for bluray playback so this way I can lend them the disc. I like top audio but I think I can "suffer" with the inferior audio for this one movie.

It is odd that Warner isn't doing PCM on bluray like they did with the Departed. Seems like Warner is cheesed off with bluray and the slow java process and lack of real truehd playback on the players.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Wouldn't you say that if the BD version only got 720P video instead of 1080p?

The difference between lossy DD at 640 and lossless PCM/Dobly TrueHD is just as apparent (if not more-so).

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

If that is what it takes to get their attention.

They did a great job with The Departed, why stop on their next big release?

 

[Norman Matthews]

"Inferior"? "Compromised"? Sure, those would apply. But not "crippled." It still works.

 

[Daniel-M]

As far as i'm concerned MPEG2-encoding adn no lossless on a BD is a crippeled disc really

 

[Sean Bryan]

Where did you get the MPEG-2 for the BD? This BD uses the same VC-1 encode that is on the HD DVD (as all WB releases now). Or were you just speaking generally?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Also, BD titles from Fox and Disney have provided LOSSLESS AUDIO ON ALL TITLES.

How in the world someone can suggest that BD isn't providing lossless audio is beyond me, when the two studios with the biggest HD DVD support (WB and Universal) use lossless rarely if ever.

PCM, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA... it's all lossless.


p.s. thread started here for telling WB to use lossless on BD:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/....php?p=3115517

 

[Daniel-M]

I was talking in general. A BD coded in MPEG2 and/or lack lossless is a crippeled disc

 

[ppltd]

I will add to this. I was a firm believer that MPEG-2 was the reason for the dismal performance of early BD disks, as many of us were. But I think that issue has been put to bed. There have been many superb MPEG-2 releases on BD. If the space and bandwidth allows, I see no problems using it on BD. Bandwidth and space will probably restrict it's use on HD.

While, like with the Audio Codecs, I would like to see standardization on one video compression, let the studios continue to use them all until one codec proves out.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

A top-drawer MPEG2 encode that looks indistinguishible from VC1 would be much preferred to lossy audio.

Though in general I want BD to use VC1 and AVC for efficiency reasons, it's important for everyone to understand that with enough bit-space (like a 50GB BD) MPEG2 can look just fine.

 

[Tim Glover]

But DaVid wouldn't you rather have VC-1 or AVC since they use less space thus allowing at least on paper a better chance of getting a lossless track?

Seems to me if those video codecs were used by all, then there would be no reason to avoid not using lossless audio.

And I agree with your comment on Warner & Universal. The biggest users of VC1 and still not using TrueHD near enough.

I still stand by my comment that these studios and the whole HD launch for both formats was a year too soon. Might not have been any better but you got to wonder with more time they could have ironed out some of the discrepancies.

 

[Neil Joseph]

Warner used the same vc1 transfer for Superman Returns on both hd-dvd and blu-ray, yet hd-dvd got the better soundtrack when the disk has less space (30Gb) compared to the 50Gb blu-ray. They had better start changing their tune, and soon. And I hope they are reading this thread.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

But bear in mind that most titles that don't provide lossless now actually have PLENTY OF ROOM for it. The disc-producers just didn't do it. In other words, the lack of lossless on these WB titles isn't necessarily a bit-space issue (in fact, BD has more bandwidth which could have allowed a 20 or 24 bit encode as opposed to the 16-bit Dolby TrueHD WB provided on HD DVD). WB simply chose not to do it. There's lots of speculation as to their reasons. Possibly it's a way, despite their official stance of dual-support, of still helping Toshiba/HD DVD out in the short-term by providing an added incentive for HD DVD over BD for those titles where Lossless has been provided (on the HD DVD only).

There are some very complicated political games being played right now with royalties, long-standing business relationships, and perceived alliances. Imagine having your mistress over for dinner while your wife is doing dishes in the kitchen. That only vaguely touches on some of the complicated issues WB is probably working through with Toshiba and Sony.

 

[Tim Glover]