Warner has gone Blu-Ray Exclusive, HD-DVD owners enjoy anal sex. More at 11.

Lots of misinformation in this thread. How many of you have actually had experience with both formats, with real HD equipment? Doesn't sound like too many.

Although I have plenty of releases from both parties, I prefer HD-DVD.



Let me correct some of the misconceptions regarding Blu-ray.

1. Blu-ray is better because it has a higher peak bitrate.

Incorrect. This is only relevant in regards to MPEG-2 transfers, which require a high bitrate for quality transfers. The main reason why Blu-ray has a higher peak bitrate is that the media was originally designed for MPEG-2, so it was mandatory for the spec. However, in light of advanced and highly efficient codecs such as VC-1 and AVC, this peak bitrate is unnecessary. Some releases such as F4: ROTSS have video bitrates that peak higher than the HD-DVD spec, so theoretically, the BD version would look superior. However, my opinion is that BD's bitrate simply allows the studios to encode their transfers in a more relaxed fashion, meaning less effort and reliance on advanced compression techniques to ensure a top quality transfer...but ultimately, you would get a transfer that would look identical on both formats due to how flexible the next-generation codecs are.

Also, let's keep in mind that a majority of films released in both formats have been far superior on the HD-DVD format. One particular example is Silent Hill, which was a considerable disaster in light of the superior transfer offered by the overseas German release on HD-DVD. Silent Hill on Blu-ray was encoded in MPEG-2, while the HD-DVD version was encoded in VC-1. Even with BD's high bitrate, Silent Hill's transfer was dissapointing, with some very obvious noise in scenes. The German release was far superior, with no such deficiencies. So ultimately, it's really all about the efficiency of the codec, not the bitrate capability. And the HD-DVD format has used the best codecs since day one.

2. The audio on Blu-ray is always better because there is usually some form of lossless track.

Incorrect. Although most titles have PCM tracks, few of the tracks represent the original masters. This is because a large percentage of these tracks have been downgraded from 24-bit to 16-bit, which is arguably much more damaging than creating a lossy version of a 24-bit track. When you degrade the bit-depth of a track, we're talking about losses not only in dynamic range (which is the most noticeable side effect of basic compression), but changes in the actual fidelity of the audio...bass that isn't as tight, highs that aren't as clean...etc. So when you look at the back of a Blu-ray case and it says "lossless" it isn't lying to you...but keep in mind that it isn't the best audio track possible either. I guess you could consider most of the PCM tracks on Blu-ray to be .wav files compressed into a high-quality .mpc, then re-encoded back into a lossless format...but that would be a gross exaggeration, since let's face it...the PCM tracks still sound very good. However, only a small percentage of them are indeed the cream of the crop...which are only on a handful of titles, most of them by Disney, such as the POTC discs, which are all 24-bit/48kHz, and are identical to the original masters. Although a 16-bit master sometimes is the best you will get, since the master was originally 16-bit to begin with, such as Spider-Man 1.

Also, it is inappropriate to call audio on releases such as Transformers to be a dissapointment, just because it isn't a lossless track. There's what I said before, about how a 24-bit/48kHz track compressed into 1.5mbps would sound potentially better than a lossless track created from a 16-bit version. But you simply don't know unless you are the actual person doing the sound mix. In many cases, 1.5mbps is absolutely indistinguishable from the original master, which is why many releases simply do not bother with a lossless track. Although in Transformer's case, I think it could have been an excuse for them to release another version with a lossless track whenever the sequel rolls around. Ultimately, anything at or over 1.5mbps should be considered "HD" audio...although the correct term should be high-fidelity, since HD is more of a video term. It is, afterall, more than twice the bitrate of the standard DD peak of 640kbps.

I actually just came back from Joke Buy with three BDs for $27:



I'm not sure if I want to keep them, since the blue cases really do seem juvenile, especially for catalog releases.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I forgot...HD-DVD still has this to be excited about:

YouTube Video

There's nowhere I can't reach.

It's weird, but the Flyboys case is royal blue, unlike every other release:



Much more tolerable than the standard bright blue BD case. Hopefully someone will start selling the darker ones seperately.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.