'World Trade Center' -- High-Def Digest review

[PeterB]

Well, I finally forced myself to watch it:

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/worldtradecenter.html

Honestly, I didn't want to see the movie. But I came away admiring it -- if nothing else, Oliver Stone was passionate and restrained. But no doubt about it, it is a fabulous disc. Great transfer, soundtrack, extras -- I can't find any fault.

If you're at all interested in the movie, a definite recommend.

[hmurchison]

I'm going to purchase this and United 93. Glad to know the quality is "HD DVD" quality

[Overseer]

Looking forward to getting this one in the mail from Amazon. Held off on the DVD release since I knew it was coming out on HD DVD.

[alfbinet]

Originally Posted by PeterB

Well, I finally forced myself to watch it:

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/worldtradecenter.html

Honestly, I didn't want to see the movie. But I came away admiring it -- if nothing else, Oliver Stone was passionate and restrained. But no doubt about it, it is a fabulous disc. Great transfer, soundtrack, extras -- I can't find any fault.

If you're at all interested in the movie, a definite recommend.

I have this on order from Netflix. I was over at AVS and was surprised to see how many folks will not rent this movie and not because of the emotions it evokes, but because of Oliver Stones politics!

[zzap64]

This is an interesting release. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is probably the first real head to head comparison of two different compression formats. The HD DVD release is encoded in VC1 and the Blu-ray release is given an Mpeg 2 encoding. The difference with this release is that the Blu-ray disc is 50GB and well encoded unlike some initial Blu-ray releases which will remain nameless. I know VC1 is the most efficient but would be very interested to know which codec produces the most faithful reproduction of the digital master?

[wickedbob]

Based on 'World Trade Center' alone, I certainly wouldn't claim one codec superior over the other.

Well this seems like a bizarre statement to me.
HD-DVD disc holds 30GB, BluRay disc holds 50GB.

the image on both is very similar

Hmmm.. a codec that makes the image look almost identical to an image almost twice it's size??

Seems to be a clear winner to me.

[PeterB]

Hey Wickedbob

Strange, yes, but VC-1 was designed and optimized for low bitrate applications. Meaning that it can usually encode at the same quality and resolution as an MPEG-2, but take up much less space. So even with identical quality (theoretically), an MPEG-2 encode will eat up a ton more bits than VC-1. Hence while so many VC-1-encoded HD DVD titles can fit gobs of extras on a HD-30, but a BD-50 with a MPEG-2 encode can only hold a long feature film and no goodies, such as 'Kingdom of Heaven.'

I really have nothing against MPEG-2, but I am surprised the blu-ray camp keeps using it. It seems they could fit more extras on their discs by using VC-1 and still maintain quality. Of course, AVC MPEG-4 is also very viable. Like VC-1, it tends to be much more space-friendly than MPEG-2 while still maintaining high quality.

[dkny75]

Originally Posted by zzap64

This is an interesting release. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is probably the first real head to head comparison of two different compression formats. The HD DVD release is encoded in VC1 and the Blu-ray release is given an Mpeg 2 encoding. The difference with this release is that the Blu-ray disc is 50GB and well encoded unlike some initial Blu-ray releases which will remain nameless. I know VC1 is the most efficient but would be very interested to know which codec produces the most faithful reproduction of the digital master?

The first Warner releases on BD were MPEG2 while their HD DVD counterparts were VC1. The same for Mission Impossible III.

[DanMacMan]

I saw both United 93 and World Trade Center in the theatre... I just received the WTC HD DVD for Christmas, and I agree the PQ is brilliant while watching on my 360 HD DVD drive connected via component cables. Also, contrary to the review, I had no trouble viewing the picture gallery.

[irascian]

I spent most of yesterday watching this and was very impressed. This is an excellent showcase for the high-def format.

[MarkForce]

I thought this was an incredible movie...It really invoked a lot of emotions. The movies looks incredible too, btw. On the other hand...I thought United 93 was one of the worst films Ive EVER seen. I feel almost like some kind of heartless beast saying that...like there's some sort of stigma that goes along with hating the movie. It wasn't because of the subject matter...I just think the movie was bad.

[Rob]

I'm looking forward to picking this one up soon. I recently caught it on DVD and thought it was a great film, but I also noticed that it was a good-looking film too, even in SD. So I can imagine that the HD picture is nothing short of excellent...except I'm a little scared that Maria Bello's fake blue eyes will be just that much more noticeable...

[MrChaos]

Just finished watching this one. Simply excellent. Reminds me of the older days when Oliver Stone films were sure-fire hits. Like Peter mentioned in his review regardless of how you view 9/11, this one is a must see.

[beyondmediaonline.com]

Is WTC a really good movie, I still haven't seen it?

[chipvideo]

Originally Posted by candymangt

Is WTC a really good movie, I still haven't seen it?

I loved it. Inspirational. In fact I think I am going to watch it again tonight.

Man I love my theater.