My rant for this week, or day...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Lately I have been doing a lot of traveling for work, so to pass time along while waiting in airports I surf other hometheater sites to see what everyone is yappin about.

I have been lurking at hometheaterforum just kinda reading what people had to say, and I stumbled into the HD-DVD/Bluray area and man what infighting they have going on over there about which is better. Now you have two formats, both unfinished (no 1.3 HDMI), one player for each format, both littered with problems (bluray somewhat fewer than HD DVD) and limited amount movies for both formats. You have people saying that because Bluray is using MPEG-2 encoding and not VC-1 for the video, the format is not good as HD-DVD. Is that not stupid or what?? The both support the same video and audio codecs, Sony has decided to use the more well known and more familar codec as opposed to a newer untried codec. Who cares that it is not as efficient, as long as it doesn't turn out bad images whats the beef??

I am a hometheater nut. But I also have a life, and do not have time to argue with people over the menutia of each disc based HD format. Its seems like majoring in minors. I seems to me that before all of these arguments take place, you need a finished product from a few more manufacturers, and lots of titles to compare. We currently have neither. I am glad this website has degenerated into this kind of stupid sniping over this issue. AVS forum is three times worse than Hometheaterforum on this issue with know it alls chiming in whenever their favorite HD format is commented on.

Bah!!

[GMichael]

We haven't?

[Tarheel_]

that is just one reason i remain loyal to this site....sure a few can go off on a tangent, but overall this site seems willing to discuss and help one another about our shared interest.

[likeitloud]

Agreed 100%

[Woochifer]

Refreshing (or distressing) to see that the fanboy mindset does not stop with video game console and compact car tuning discussions!

I really don't see the point of these debates at this stage. As you said, neither format is a finished product, and things like the new audio formats aren't even fully implemented yet. It's about as pointless as computer nerds arguing about CPU specs -- yah, it's interesting and all, but what does it actually mean in a real world application?

The discs themselves are all over the place. Some of them feature nothing more than the same Dolby Digital soundtracks as the regular DVD, while others (e.g. Sony's first Blu-ray releases) reduce the video data in order to use uncompressed 5.1 PCM audio. Has anything come out with DTS-HD?

With some studios committed to both HD-DVD and Blu-ray, it's only a matter of time before we start seeing titles released in both formats. At that point, it might be possible to debate the finer points of VC-1 vs MPEG-2, but in the meantime it seems like a whole lotta argument for its own sake.

[drseid]

Lately I have been doing a lot of traveling for work, so to pass time along while waiting in airports I surf other hometheater sites to see what everyone is yappin about.

I have been lurking at hometheaterforum just kinda reading what people had to say, and I stumbled into the HD-DVD/Bluray area and man what infighting they have going on over there about which is better. Now you have two formats, both unfinished (no 1.3 HDMI), one player for each format, both littered with problems (bluray somewhat fewer than HD DVD) and limited amount movies for both formats. You have people saying that because Bluray is using MPEG-2 encoding and not VC-1 for the video, the format is not good as HD-DVD. Is that not stupid or what?? The both support the same video and audio codecs, Sony has decided to use the more well known and more familar codec as opposed to a newer untried codec. Who cares that it is not as efficient, as long as it doesn't turn out bad images whats the beef??

If you think hometheaterforum.com is bad, try my other hangout on avsforum.com ;-)

As for the MPEG-2 encoding, actually it *is* a big deal. The reason is that it is really screwing up the picture quality right now for Blu-ray (when coupled with the single layered 25GB discs being used), and it is pissing their owners off mightily on AVS, most returning their players and discs (no joke). It is true that Blu-ray can do VC-1 (and they promise dual layer discs too) -- I would be shocked if they don't make the switch in the next year as it is a major problem. Sony needs to get its act together *now* or they risk losing the war to HD-DVD and they have a lot of money invested in the format. On AVS, so far the battle has almost subsided though, as most of the Blu-ray supporters now support HD DVD due to the initial poor Blu-ray picture quality (and the relatively superior HD DVD quality). These guys are early adopters (some are insiders) with a ton of disposable income as a general rule... Now they don't reflect the average Joe, but they do have a lot of influence. If I were Sony, I wouldn't be surrendering by a long stretch, but I *would* be somewhat concerned, as these guys were the biggest Blu-ray proponents initially (count me in that initial group that has switched sides).

It is indeed early days, and Blu-ray can definitely still turn their early predicament around with some quality software and hardware (as you rightly point out, there are relatively few titiles to evaluate yet), but definitely round one goes to HD DVD, and that was a shocker for me, at least.

---Dave

[Worf101]

Go to any gaming site, I subscribe to a few cause I do game a little, and see what passes for discourse over there. The AMD vs. Intel, ATI vs. Nvidia or "FarCry" vs. "Halflife 2" threads can absolutely set your hair on fire. Hey, you put any bone between two dogs you're gonna git a fight. But the smaller the lives of the participants the stiffer the fight on the screen. Some people, just like gang bangers, have NO life outside of their online personae. They must always be right and defend it to the death cause.... quite simply, it's all they have...

Da Worfster

PS Good Rant!!!

[edtyct]

AVS is a proven resource, but it comes at a price. For every valuable piece of information, there are scores of filler posts, pissing contests, debates, and mood swings. It's the L.A. or NYC of A/V country--not for everyone. After many years, I find it a nice place to visit occasionally, but I wouldn't want to live there. Thousands do, however; more power to 'em.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you think hometheaterforum.com is bad, try my other hangout on avsforum.com ;-)

As for the MPEG-2 encoding, actually it *is* a big deal. The reason is that it is really screwing up the picture quality right now for Blu-ray (when coupled with the single layered 25GB discs being used), and it is pissing their owners off mightily on AVS, most returning their players and discs (no joke). It is true that Blu-ray can do VC-1 (and they promise dual layer discs too) -- I would be shocked if they don't make the switch in the next year as it is a major problem. Sony needs to get its act together *now* or they risk losing the war to HD-DVD and they have a lot of money invested in the format. On AVS, so far the battle has almost subsided though, as most of the Blu-ray supporters now support HD DVD due to the initial poor Blu-ray picture quality (and the relatively superior HD DVD quality). These guys are early adopters (some are insiders) with a ton of disposable income as a general rule... Now they don't reflect the average Joe, but they do have a lot of influence. If I were Sony, I wouldn't be surrendering by a long stretch, but I *would* be somewhat concerned, as these guys were the biggest Blu-ray proponents initially (count me in that initial group that has switched sides).

It is indeed early days, and Blu-ray can definitely still turn their early predicament around with some quality software and hardware (as you rightly point out, there are relatively few titiles to evaluate yet), but definitely round one goes to HD DVD, and that was a shocker for me, at least.

---Dave

Dave, sorry I do not buy the fact that MPEG-2 is screwing up the picture quality. An increased data rate can take care of MPEG-2 if the compression is done well. Besides, the source material could be the issue, and or the enabled video filter in the Samsung could be the issue. Without more players on the market, it is impossible to fault the video codec. Not too long ago I had the opportunity to tour Pioneers disc manufacturing plant. They had a Samsung and Pioneer player in use to detect compatibility issues. The Pioneer player looked consistantly better than the Samsung on simular disc regardless of which output was used. I saw clips that were authored in VC-1, and MPEG-2 with a high data rate. The both looked very good, not either having an advantage over the other in terms of picture quality.

Some of those guys over there are so smart they are stupid. I think it is a knee jerk reaction to complain about Sony using MPEG-2. They have only released 14 movies to the format thus far, and if you player isn't broken why return it? When DVD first came out the picture sucked. I knew the what the formats potential was, so I just wade through the intial titles and guess what, the picture quality improved. The Samsung was released with their video filter enabled. They can fix that with a firmware update. Neither player does well using the HDMI input. The Toshiba has crushed blacks and peak white through its HDMI (this I know for a fact), and I already mentioned the Samsung.

Neither format is even 6 months old. It is just too early to judge either as critically as many have. Neither format is turning out titles that are consistantly top rated HD state of the art video. Both have so so titles video wise, and excellent titles Some of HD DVD early titles had their volume mastered too low, and Sky Captain has the same problem.

Let each of these HD formats mature a while before you go into a critical evaluation about which is better. I am willing to believe that it will not come down to player performance at all, they are about equal on paper in most respects except disc capacity. What will drive this race is manufacturing and studio support.

I am going to have access to both players for about a week in the near future. This will give me a chance to look at both side by side before I pick a fomat to purchase. Heck, I may get both formats when more players come onto the market

[edtyct]

Both formats emerged with seriously compromised hardware. I don't know about anyone else, but I find it kinda funny that the player chosen to represent the Blu-Ray camp, which was delayed partly to make a better first inpression than the Toshiba, came to market with the wrong parameters in its noise reduction filter. How can that happen? As for MPEG2, every time you see a well-presented standard DVD or HDTV program, you can include that particular codec in your thank-you note. Sure, it, like anything else, is subject to improvement, but it is hardly responsible for everything bad that comes down the pike.

[Woochifer]

If you think hometheaterforum.com is bad, try my other hangout on avsforum.com ;-)

As for the MPEG-2 encoding, actually it *is* a big deal. The reason is that it is really screwing up the picture quality right now for Blu-ray (when coupled with the single layered 25GB discs being used), and it is pissing their owners off mightily on AVS, most returning their players and discs (no joke). It is true that Blu-ray can do VC-1 (and they promise dual layer discs too) -- I would be shocked if they don't make the switch in the next year as it is a major problem. Sony needs to get its act together *now* or they risk losing the war to HD-DVD and they have a lot of money invested in the format. On AVS, so far the battle has almost subsided though, as most of the Blu-ray supporters now support HD DVD due to the initial poor Blu-ray picture quality (and the relatively superior HD DVD quality). These guys are early adopters (some are insiders) with a ton of disposable income as a general rule... Now they don't reflect the average Joe, but they do have a lot of influence. If I were Sony, I wouldn't be surrendering by a long stretch, but I *would* be somewhat concerned, as these guys were the biggest Blu-ray proponents initially (count me in that initial group that has switched sides).

It is indeed early days, and Blu-ray can definitely still turn their early predicament around with some quality software and hardware (as you rightly point out, there are relatively few titiles to evaluate yet), but definitely round one goes to HD DVD, and that was a shocker for me, at least.

---Dave

I think this is slippery slope argument similar to many of these other format debates. All of the other format debates that have raged over the last few years -- DD v. DTS, SACD v. DVD-A, CD v. vinyl, etc. -- have the same fundamental flaw in that consumers simply lack access to the master sources and information about how the discs were mastered to draw any kind of definitive conclusion.

In the case of Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD, how does anybody know whether any perceived picture quality advantages for HD-DVD discs are due to the VC-1 encoding? Have they actually had an opportunity to see what that picture would look like if it was encoded using MPEG-2? As in any other format debate, consumers cannot make any conclusive statements about the actual causal effect of any variable because so many of them are in play during the mastering process. The Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD debate isn't even at the level of the others because thus far there have been no dual format releases, which means that everybody is drawing conclusions about a format based on viewings of different titles, all done under different conditions using different allocations of disc space for audio and video.

The reviews I've read of Sony's Blu-ray releases to date seem to indicate that the picture quality has been a disappointment, yet other Blu-ray releases from other companies have fared better. One of those articles pointed out that Sony has chosen to include uncompressed 5.1 PCM audio on their discs, which significantly cuts into the bandwidth available for video.

And as you pointed out, none of the Blu-ray releases so far have gone with dual-layer disc media. Just think of how bad some of those early single-layer DVDs looked. It would have been premature to judge the merits of the DVD format based on those early releases, just as it is now with Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

[drseid]

I think this is slippery slope argument similar to many of these other format debates. All of the other format debates that have raged over the last few years -- DD v. DTS, SACD v. DVD-A, CD v. vinyl, etc. -- have the same fundamental flaw in that consumers simply lack access to the master sources and information about how the discs were mastered to draw any kind of definitive conclusion.

In the case of Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD, how does anybody know whether any perceived picture quality advantages for HD-DVD discs are due to the VC-1 encoding? Have they actually had an opportunity to see what that picture would look like if it was encoded using MPEG-2? As in any other format debate, consumers cannot make any conclusive statements about the actual causal effect of any variable because so many of them are in play during the mastering process. The Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD debate isn't even at the level of the others because thus far there have been no dual format releases, which means that everybody is drawing conclusions about a format based on viewings of different titles, all done under different conditions using different allocations of disc space for audio and video.

The reviews I've read of Sony's Blu-ray releases to date seem to indicate that the picture quality has been a disappointment, yet other Blu-ray releases from other companies have fared better. One of those articles pointed out that Sony has chosen to include uncompressed 5.1 PCM audio on their discs, which significantly cuts into the bandwidth available for video.

And as you pointed out, none of the Blu-ray releases so far have gone with dual-layer disc media. Just think of how bad some of those early single-layer DVDs looked. It would have been premature to judge the merits of the DVD format based on those early releases, just as it is now with Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

Well stated... I have to concede that the MPEG-2 *may* not be to blame as it is difficult to prove without seeing the master material. I *do* however think it is the likely culprit, when coupled with the single layer discs and uncompressed audio you rightly mention, however. In any case, the Blu-ray releases are extremely disappointing to say the least, video-wise (poor master, MPEG-2, both, or any other reason withstanding).

Warner has some releases that will be on both formats that should be on shelves next month, so then we will have a better idea. I am pretty confident how it will play out, but I am still open to the contrary...

Honestly I don't really care who wins the "war." I just want the best for the consumer. Right now in my mind it is an easy call (in HD DVD's favor). Could that change in the future?... Absolutely.

---Dave

[drseid]

Dave, sorry I do not buy the fact that MPEG-2 is screwing up the picture quality. An increased data rate can take care of MPEG-2 if the compression is done well. Besides, the source material could be the issue, and or the enabled video filter in the Samsung could be the issue. Without more players on the market, it is impossible to fault the video codec. Not too long ago I had the opportunity to tour Pioneers disc manufacturing plant. They had a Samsung and Pioneer player in use to detect compatibility issues. The Pioneer player looked consistantly better than the Samsung on simular disc regardless of which output was used. I saw clips that were authored in VC-1, and MPEG-2 with a high data rate. The both looked very good, not either having an advantage over the other in terms of picture quality.

Some of those guys over there are so smart they are stupid. I think it is a knee jerk reaction to complain about Sony using MPEG-2. They have only released 14 movies to the format thus far, and if you player isn't broken why return it? When DVD first came out the picture sucked. I knew the what the formats potential was, so I just wade through the intial titles and guess what, the picture quality improved. The Samsung was released with their video filter enabled. They can fix that with a firmware update. Neither player does well using the HDMI input. The Toshiba has crushed blacks and peak white through its HDMI (this I know for a fact), and I already mentioned the Samsung.

Neither format is even 6 months old. It is just too early to judge either as critically as many have. Neither format is turning out titles that are consistantly top rated HD state of the art video. Both have so so titles video wise, and excellent titles Some of HD DVD early titles had their volume mastered too low, and Sky Captain has the same problem.

Let each of these HD formats mature a while before you go into a critical evaluation about which is better. I am willing to believe that it will not come down to player performance at all, they are about equal on paper in most respects except disc capacity. What will drive this race is manufacturing and studio support.

I am going to have access to both players for about a week in the near future. This will give me a chance to look at both side by side before I pick a fomat to purchase. Heck, I may get both formats when more players come onto the market

Sir T, I addressed several of your points in Wooch's post above so I won't repeat them here. Bottom line is I am certainly willing to concede it could be other factors, but I doubt it.

As to the Samsung player being faulty... Yes, I heard that one too, but others on AVS have proven it is not the reason for the relatively poor performance of the discs (video-wise). It certainly does not help though obviously, and I am sure it has an effect.

The Toshiba problems you mention are fixed in Firmware version 1.4 for HDMI, but there are other DVI blacker than black issues that still need to be resolved (I should know about those as I use DVI unfortunately).

While I have not seen the Pioneer Blu-ray player in action (but would love to when it is released), I have read on AVS that others also noted it played the current discs better than the Samsung. That said, the posters also said they still did not like the results and found them inferior to HD DVD (which costs a third of the selling price (for the HD-A1)).

As for the titles, I would agree that both have their share of "so so" titles... Where I disagree is that I have not seen any good Blu-ray titles, and I have seen the vast majority of excellent quality HD DVD titles. That is the primary difference. Both formats are indeed in their infancy, so you rightly point out that things can (and most likely will) improve in time.

---Dave

[GMichael]

I love these threads. So full of inside information.

Thanks guys. Wish I had more to add other than the fence is getting very uncomfortable.

[edtyct]

Dave,

What are the black level issues with DVI? Does the Toshiba send PC digital grayscale values vs. video values to a DVI sink?

Ed

[drseid]

Dave,

What are the black level issues with DVI? Does the Toshiba send PC digital grayscale values vs. video values to a DVI sink?

Ed

That is it exactly.

---Dave

[edtyct]

I have no doubt that those who buy into either format or both of them at this point will enjoy watching their respective disks, once they get past the impediments. But what I find troubling about both launches is that many of their problems seem to have been avoidable. I'm not even talking about the unavailability of HDMI 1.4 or the audio formats not being ready; these technical delay aren't quality-control issues (though the advisability of coming to market without them is debatable). But the crushing of blacks/whites, the sending of the wrong grayscale information, the implementation of the digital filter, and other lapses are perplexing under these circumstances. These glitches should not have been sprung on consumers; they are not justifiable as unforeseen difficulties. The Samsung's problems with picture quality need not have occurred, especially if due mainly to a cross-section of variables involving the uneconomical use of disk space and a relatively inefficient compression scheme. The requisite adjustments could have been made. Didn't the manufacturers realize that the early adopters and the critical press would be precisely the ones who would notice such defects? Or did they simply think that these people could be safely ignored as the players went through their various stages of evolution? If so, they may have been right, but why risk saddling a product with a poor start and a bad name when a little more attention to technical detail, and the lessons learned within the last few years about digital video, might have resulted in a more flattering introduction to DVD in hi def?

[Woochifer]

I have no doubt that those who buy into either format or both of them at this point will enjoy watching their respective disks, once they get past the impediments. But what I find troubling about both launches is that many of their problems seem to have been avoidable. I'm not even talking about the unavailability of HDMI 1.4 or the audio formats not being ready; these technical delay aren't quality-control issues (though the advisability of coming to market without them is debatable). But the crushing of blacks/whites, the sending of the wrong grayscale information, the implementation of the digital filter, and other lapses are perplexing under these circumstances. These glitches should not have been sprung on consumers; they are not justifiable as unforeseen difficulties. The Samsung's problems with picture quality need not have occurred, especially if due mainly to a cross-section of variables involving the uneconomical use of disk space and a relatively inefficient compression scheme. The requisite adjustments could have been made. Didn't the manufacturers realize that the early adopters and the critical press would be precisely the ones who would notice such defects? Or did they simply think that these people could be safely ignored as the players went through their various stages of evolution? If so, they may have been right, but why risk saddling a product with a poor start and a bad name when a little more attention to technical detail, and the lessons learned within the last few years about digital video, might have resulted in a more flattering introduction to DVD in hi def?

It's obvious that these formats were rushed to market way before they were ready. And in both cases, I think external agendas have dictated the product release and the many shortcomings that have cropped up.

I think Toshiba was bent on getting HD-DVD to market in advance of Blu-ray, so they cobbled the introductory player together using a lot of off-the-shelf parts and leaving known bugs in the firmware. On the Blu-ray side, it's all about the Playstation 3. Once Sony tied the PS3 to the Blu-ray format, they've had to go full speed ahead. The Xbox 360's entry into the market makes it even more imperative that Sony meet its timeline with getting the PS3 into stores before the holiday season.

With the proposed $500/$600 list price on the PS3, the window of opportunity for manufacturers to profit from the early adoptors is now extremely narrow. This puts pressure on Samsung, Pioneer, and Panasonic to get their $1,000+ Blu-ray players onto store shelves knowing full well that the PS3 is due out in November.

All of these adjustments you refer to are probably fixable, but that would entail more time, and right now for the Blu-ray manufacturers, time is money. This seems to be a case where a format war and external agendas took precedence over the actual timeline needed to issue a quality product. If we had only one HD disc format that did not have to tie in with the next-gen Playstation's schedule, then there wouldn't be nearly as much pressure to rush a product to market before it was truly ready.

[edtyct]

Yes, this seems to be the scenario. And I believe that not only are these bugs fixable; they were avoidable in the first place. This rush to market was so harried that it resulted in players that were more compromised than they had to be. But corporate economics dictated. As a result, basic preliminary testing was shoddy--or it went by the boards. From what I have heard, however, Pioneer is being much more careful with its player. For many people who opt for an Elite component, the existence of a cheaper gaming console won't make any difference.