U-571 - HD DVD still has superior picture

[GizmoDVD]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1059419

Ouch.

The BD suffers from Edge Enhancement and apparently decreased bitrates.

[earthquake]

WOW!

Just cancelled my pre-order. If the people on this forum that think DNR is good can't see the difference on those screenshots they should they should just get out of buying HD altogether.

What a shame!

[Ben]

There is nothing wrong with the transfer.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ml#post3421632

I suspose there are some hanger ons within AVS that still
can't get used to the fact that Universal now supports only
blu-ray.

[Sporadic]

Originally Posted by Ben

There is nothing wrong with the transfer.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ml#post3421632

I suspose there are some hanger ons within AVS that still
can't get used to the fact that Universal now supports only
blu-ray.

Pictures don't lie.

Unless you are trying to say Xylon screwed with the pics to make Universal/Blu-Ray look bad

[GizmoDVD]

Originally Posted by Sporadic

Pictures don't lie.

Unless you are trying to say Xylon screwed with the pics to make Universal/Blu-Ray look bad

No, that would mean admitting that the reviewer here would need to edit his review since he claimed the Blu-ray is clearly "superior". That would mean lowering the scores of the BD since the HD DVD has a better picture, but that won't happen. Just like when Heroes Season 1 BD drops 3 features that the HD DVD had and it still maintains the same score as the HD DVD, but up the AQ goes higher for BD since it now includes a DTS MA track. Color me confused.

I should add that every reviewer is entitled to their opinions - so he may have thought the BD looked better. Could have been his TV, BD players vs HD DVD player etc. But the pictures above show the HD DVD to clearly be better, have higher peaks, and *gasp* have an additional 5GB of space.

Me? I kept by $5 HD DVD

[dkenne2586]

Originally Posted by Ben

There is nothing wrong with the transfer.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ml#post3421632

I suspose there are some hanger ons within AVS that still
can't get used to the fact that Universal now supports only
blu-ray.

This thread really belongs in the Smackdown forum but I'll just say this:

"I suppose there are some hardcore Blu fanboys on HDD that still can't get used to the fact that at least 3 former HD DVD exclusive titles have inferior video quality."

It's funny how you guys used to say "HD DVD...the look and sound of good enough" yet now with Universal (and other studios) DNRing their releases, it's "while it still looks better than the SD upconverted so that's all we really needed."

Good enough indeed.............

*Note that I'm not an HD DVD troll/fanboy....I infact own considerably more Blu titles and was Blu only up until last December. I just don't like hardcore fanboys of either side.

[urbeenjammin]

http://www.thecinemalaser.com/brd_2008/u571-brd.htm
http://www.dvdauthority.com/reviews.asp?reviewID=5721

[ben1080p]

wow. Do they do pix comparison of every universal rerelease!?

[Super-VHS]

^^^^^ I believe Xylon has posted DVD or D-VHS (when applicable) vs. HD DVD vs. BD comparisons for The Mummy, The Mummy Returns and U-571 (so 3 out of 7 (?) rereleases)

I would think that (at least for a little while) he'll keep doing comparisons....

He also does DVD vs. BD comparisons for a lot of titles.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by GizmoDVD

No, that would mean admitting that the reviewer here would need to edit his review since he claimed the Blu-ray is clearly "superior". That would mean lowering the scores of the BD since the HD DVD has a better picture, but that won't happen. Just like when Heroes Season 1 BD drops 3 features that the HD DVD had and it still maintains the same score as the HD DVD, but up the AQ goes higher for BD since it now includes a DTS MA track. Color me confused.

I should add that every reviewer is entitled to their opinions - so he may have thought the BD looked better. Could have been his TV, BD players vs HD DVD player etc. But the pictures above show the HD DVD to clearly be better, have higher peaks, and *gasp* have an additional 5GB of space.

Me? I kept by $5 HD DVD

Ummm. The reviewer at HTF is Robert Harris... Ever heard of him? He is the guy that remastered The Godfather Trilogy for Paramount and has lobbied the studios against using excessive DNR and EE.

Very odd.. Something is off here..

Very frustrating nonetheless.. I will keep my HD DVD version even though the BD has lossless. Uggh...

[earthquake]

You might also have your answer in your own post. RAH might not think that the use of DNR was EXCESSIVE.

It doesn't look anywhere near what was done to Patton but it's there. Sometimes you have to pick your battles.

[dat]

Damn this is silly,

Everyone's eyes and ears are different I personally like them both PIC looked the same for me..but I got rid of the dinosaur and moved to the real deal player.

[GamerGuyX]

Originally Posted by ben1080p

wow. Do they do pix comparison of every universal rerelease!?

What exactly is wrong with that?

[HD 335]

To my eyes, it's subtle and I doubt the slight DNR would bother me while watching the movie since it won't be extremely noticeable. I'll probably still pick this up on BD for it's audio.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by earthquake

You might also have your answer in your own post. RAH might not think that the use of DNR was EXCESSIVE.

It doesn't look anywhere near what was done to Patton but it's there. Sometimes you have to pick your battles.

Yes. I have been looking back and forth at the comparison pics and while you can detect the DNR (not really seeing EE) it is not excessive.

That said, it sucks that Universal did not maximize the BD50 and increase the bitrate on the encode. The lossless audio is a plus, but it seems this is a wash since I prefer the HD DVD video encode. I own the HD DVD and will most likely be keeping it.