Is it impossible to do a direct comparison between bluray and hddvd?

[yoda313]

I was wondering since you can't play the same disc on both players and the same movie isn't released for both players doesn't that make a meaningful side by side test impossible?

What about recording hdtv transport streams to the next gen discs? You won't be able to get 1080p off of hd signals but 1080i would be comparable to an extent. But since bluray and hd-dvd have different recorders they still won't be able to be a true side by side test.

I guess the only true way would be to record a 1080i or 720p broadcast and author a bluray and hd-dvd disc from the same source file. Then your playback on the respective machines would be the closest to a side-by-side you can do in the home setting. Of course not that many homes have both a bluray/hddvd burner AND a bluray and hddvd player

Am I getting at the right point about not having a truly valid side by side comparison in a realworld setting for the two next gen players? Because until the same commercial movie is released on both players (which won't happen) the home recording of a hdtv broadcast seems to be the only legitamate test.

[caffe_espresso]

Blue Ray and HD-DVD are medias with different capacity, that's all.
They both have the same output capacity (1080p). For now, it seems that the HD-DVD (Toshiba HD-A1 at 1080i) is a better choice than the Samsung Blue-Ray. Half the price, outstanding video and better upscaling capacity. I think that HD-DVD movies are best encoded too.
I saw a few samples of Blue-Ray movies and the result was a deception. They are on a single layer because double-layers are not available. They are encoded with mpeg2.
But, this is for now.
In next months, new stuff will come out and this race will end with dual readers or the commercial death of one format.
So the output quality is more about the way the movie was encoded, the quality of the reader and the quality of the HDTV/projector/screen.
Both formats support mpeg2 and HD-DVD is supporting VC1 codec (high quality - half the size).
Hope it helps.
Excuse my bad English writing.

[jman98]

I have seen some postings on a forum dedicated to Asian movies. Everyone who has tried both is insisting that HD-DVD is better. One guy speculated that it's because VC1 doesn't work yet on BluRay, so they have to use MPEG-2 at very high bit rates and it's not as good as VC1 on HD-DVD. Nobody knows when BluRay will get VC1 working.

[edDV]

Best to wait for the 5x better players at 5x lower prices.

Player firmware may be upgradable but I don't want to bet my megabuck$ that they will care about or invest in the few early players sold.

[Krispy Kritter]

Regardless of any comparison, it won't be any indication of the quality of each individual release. Just look at the huge difference in quality on normal dvd releases.

[adam]

I was wondering since you can't play the same disc on both players and the same movie isn't released for both players doesn't that make a meaningful side by side test impossible?

There are only a few studios that exclusively support one format or the other. Most support both. There will indeed be blu-ray and HD-DVD releases for the same movie. Warner Bros. is doing this for Batman Begins for example.

Also Ricoh recently announced that they have developed a universal laser capable of reading both Blu-ray and HD-DVD discs as well as standard red laser DVDs. So universal players are that much more feasible now. (You could always do it but it would have required multiple lasers=$$$.) Now its just a matter of them becoming feasible to manufacture and and most of all, finding a way to cut through all the red tape of licensing the two formats. I'm sure its still a ways off but it will happen eventually.

[Marty2003]

But what exactly would you be comparing? You wouldn't be comparing the two formats because that would be like comparing apples to apples. If they both start with the same digital transfer, wouldn't the exact same thing be on both discs, just authored differently. All you would be doing is comparing the different players, but you can have a crappy player or an excellent player for either format. In the end both formats should be pretty much equal except for the amount of storage.

[vhelp]

-[ REVISED ]- add'l section at bottom, thank you..

Please refraise the question..
Actually, I think the question should be refraised in the direction of,
which "compression" format is better, because like the last postere noted,
the source will come from the same Commercial Houses. And, its all a
matter of the final outcome of the transfers. By now, you all know that
there are many outfitters (entities) that transfer or produce Commercial DVD
media. And, you all know that (from your own experience) that each media
"title" often varies in terms of quality, one from the other.

As such, this will be no differnt when HD finally comes (already is) and hits
the shelves, and we (at least, some of us) over time, who's eyes are tipically
open to credique'ing each media title.

Once "compression" has been analized and ultimately judged..
Then, the next question would be with respect to "equipment", which comes later.
That's another area to argue about, but for the most part, its the "compression"
that needs to be looked at.

Regarding 1080i vs. 1080p..
From my viewpoint, I can only say, based on my understanding of Interlace vs.
Progressive, that the 1080p is the obvious winner, in terms of quality.

Consider DV, where you take your cam and shoot footage. Most DV equipment in
the hands of consumers are 29.970i, where every frame is an interlace of two
fields, and each field is 240 pixels in Height.

You all know that Interlace is any enimy of MPEG. That means that, in terms
of quality, your mileage will be greater if you source is Interlace based.
Meaning, less detail potential when source is Interlace. And, Progressive
will win on this count, even if the 1080p is still fields, though progressive.

-vhelp 4048

[edDV]

-[ REVISED ]-

...

Regarding 1080i vs. 1080p..
From my viewpoint, I can only say, based on my understanding of Interlace vs.
Progressive, that the 1080p is the obvious winner, in terms of quality.

Consider DV, where you take your cam and shoot footage. Most DV equipment in
the hands of consumers are 29.970i, where every frame is an interlace of two
fields, and each field is 240 pixels in Height.

You all know that Interlace is any enimy of MPEG. That means that, in terms
of quality, your mileage will be greater if you source is Interlace based.
Meaning, less detail potential when source is Interlace. And, Progressive
will win on this count, even if the 1080p is still fields, though progressive.

-vhelp 4048

MPeg works equally well for interlace or progressive depending on the encoder. For 24fps film sources 1080p/23.976 is very similar to DVD 480p/23.976 except for resolution. Both get frame repeated 3:2:3:2 in the DVD player to a flicker free 59.94fps progressive display.

1080i gets the same telecine field repeat treatment as 480i for film sources. For live video, 1080i produces a field every 1/59.94 sec or a frame every 1/29.97 sec same as DV 480i.

Most Blu-Ray and HD DVD will be film source and 1080p/24 although 1080i/29.97, 1080p/29.97, 720p/59.94, 720p/29.97 and 720p/24 are also possible.