niko084I was thinking more on the ripping side with DVDFab, I have about 15 HD movies and I watch them on my computer more than anything.

anydvd from slysoft i heard is a good product for ripping hd movies to your harddrive...never tried it but hey...a matter of fact as i am watching batman begins right now while talking to u using my hd dvd addon to my vista pc...i also hooked it up to my xp setup... i might jump and get planet earth.. though 30 bucs cant beat that...i dont care about hd dvd being dead because i had my 60gig ps3 from way back when which i got free in some deal...my hd dvd collection actually surpasses my bluray 14-10...and thats only because my dvd collection is very extensive and i dont see the purpose in buying movies over...

Dont get either coz HD DVD is obselete and Blu Ray sucks. HD downloads are a much better option.

If HD DVD was still around and there was movies being made at this price it would dominate the market.

I think every company knew in advance that Blu Ray would win i think this was all a joke to get people to buy Blu Ray. I mean i think this coz when Transformers came out on HD DVD and Michael Bay kicked up a fuss about it not being Blu Ray exclusive.

At that price well it might be worth buying just for the upscaling i mean they upscale good, at least HD DVD owners get an upscaler.

EDIT : Dont just get a PS3 for blu ray that seems dumb to me.

Well when it comes down to it Blu-Ray or HD 1080p is 1080p period....

So as far as thats concerned I don't care... I don't own a HD tv, and probably wont buy one, honestly I don't think I even like the way they look, but being I have a few Blu-Ray and HD movies I may as well get a player for them so I can rip them, then whatever happens I can just burn them to a new type later.

I'll have to pick one of these up then.

kieran_fletchDont get either coz HD DVD is obselete and Blu Ray sucks. HD downloads are a much better option.

If HD DVD was still around and there was movies being made at this price it would dominate the market.

I think every company knew in advance that Blu Ray would win i think this was all a joke to get people to buy Blu Ray. I mean i think this coz when Transformers came out on HD DVD and Michael Bay kicked up a fuss about it not being Blu Ray exclusive.

At that price well it might be worth buying just for the upscaling i mean they upscale good, at least HD DVD owners get an upscaler.

DD is not feasible option for 1080p HD quality movies quite yet as the above pictures show. Furthermore, the fiber optic infrastructure cannot support 1080p movies because the movies will be entirely to hard to transfer if DD does become a mainstream option.

Secondly, many of the things you posted above are just totally false, and I don't see why you feel the need to post things like that.

Pretty much, Blu Ray is looking into a quad layer for 100gb, where Toshiba gave up at 3 layers.

IMO- multi layer disks need to be tossed in the trash and they need to come up with something new... I'm royally sick of my multi layer disks separating because I don't have them standing up.

If you got a Blu-Ray player then this is not a good deal for you, but if you only got an upscaling DVD player or nothing at all, then this is an excellent deal to get into HD movies. Also there are many people who will simply never buy a Blu-Ray player because it is made by Sony. For those people, they really should pickup one of these $50 HD-DVD players. On top of that I'm sure all the HD-DVDs will go on crazy sales. $5 1080p HD movies anyone? Everything I have ever read has said that HD-DVD quality is excellent and even a bit above Blu-Ray. So sounds like an excellent way to get some cheap HD content for you new 1080p LCD that you just bought.

Just wait for this instead:

www.techradar.com/news/portable-devices/portable-media/new-affordable-and-portable-blu-ray-player-249186

Water DropEverything I have ever read has said that HD-DVD quality is excellent and even a bit above Blu-Ray.

Thats not true... At a pure quality level they are exactly the same... Any differences noticed is player dependent and between movies that were made on both disks, some are slightly different from the other and then it goes both ways, blu ray or hd slightly better than the others, but its so close its not even funny.

niko084Thats not true... At a pure quality level they are exactly the same... Any differences noticed is player dependent and between movies that were made on both disks, some are slightly different from the other and then it goes both ways, blu ray or hd slightly better than the others, but its so close its not even funny.

I should have been more clear on that. HD-DVD was superior in the beginning because it used Microsoft's video codec and all the reviews written said so, but due to Sony now using Microsoft's video codec for Blu-Ray, the quality is quite equal. Yep, Microsoft's codec was in both formats. One more reason they didn't give a crap about the format war?

The codec is called VC-1 by the way.
www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/vc1techoverview.aspx

Water DropI should have been more clear on that. HD-DVD was superior in the beginning because it used Microsoft's video codec and all the reviews written said so, but due to Sony now using Microsoft's video codec for Blu-Ray, the quality is quite equal. Yep, Microsoft's codec was in both formats. One more reason they didn't give a crap about the format war?

The codec is called VC-1 by the way.
www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/vc1techoverview.aspx

VC-1 didn't make a difference in the best quality picture...

H.264 is the best quality codec that is installed on both players.

Well the quality of Blu Ray an HD DVD looks the same to me i think it depends on the quality of TV and actual the coding. For example if a movie is coded exactly the same and played on exact same tv it should be the same quality.

A PS3 is a okay console but i prefere the Xbox myself, i mean they have both got multiformat games and i like the exclusives on xbox 360. The 360 isnt a media box for me i use my pc for that but i like being able to stream DivX to my 360 for a bigger picture. I like using my 360 pad on my pc aswell. The Xbox hasnt failed me yet and has a warranty so its not a problem. I dont see a problem for paying for live either as it pays for good servers and service.

Well i think it was a set up from the start and everyone was going to go Blu Ray at one point but thats my view of the situation.

For a DVD upscaler and for a few HD movies then that player is kinda worth the $49.99 and in UK if its $49.99 thats about £25 and thats cheaper than most upscalers.

jocksteelukSony lost millions getting Blu-ray in as many homes as possible to establish the format and the gamble worked, what Sony lost on the consoles the will no doubt make billions being the gatekeeper of the next gen media format, kudos to Sony for the superior strategy.

are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

RavenasVC-1 didn't make a difference in the best quality picture...

H.264 is the best quality codec that is installed on both players.

mpeg4 avc is the proper compression format. h264 is a codec and is not the same.

Easy Rhinompeg4 avc is the proper compression format. h264 is a codec and is not the same.

Yes, mpeg4 avc is also a universal format that is used by everyone (except MS and some of its partners).

RavenasYes, mpeg4 avc is also a universal format that is used by everyone (except MS and some of its partners).

ok, cause the codecs and their various containers along with compression formaats confuse me.

Microsoft's VC-1 codec is superior without a doubt, if you think otherwise, then you haven't done your reading. So much so that, most of the newer Blu-Ray movies use the format. They had to so they could compete with HD-DVD's superior quality. Now, they are equal cause they both use primarily VC-1.

Water DropMicrosoft's VC-1 codec is superior without a doubt, if you think otherwise, then you haven't done your reading. So much so that, most of the newer Blu-Ray movies use the format. They had to so they could compete with HD-DVD's superior quality. Now, they are equal cause they both use primarily VC-1.

Not true. MPEG-4 avc & H624 and VC-1 are the same picture, it all depends on the content and implementation.


VC-1 Encoding
Profil & Level: AP@L3 except specific restrictions
Max GOP lenght: 14 frames
Maximum bitrate: 20.0 Mbps, 24.0 Mbps and 28.0 Mbps
Buffer size: 14745 Kbits for principal HD video stream
Horizontal Vector Range: unlimited
Vertical Vector Range: unlimited
Other Restrictions Setting: max adaptative GOP at 14, max adaptative bframe at 7

H264 Encoding
Profil & Level: HP@L4.1 except specific restrictions
Max GOP lenght: 14 frames
Maximum bitrate: 20.0 Mbps, 24.0 Mbps and 28.0 Mbps
Buffer size: 14745 Kbits for principal HD video stream
Horizontal Vector Range: +/- 1024 pixels
Vertical Vector Range: +/- 512 pixels
Other Restrictions Setting: max adaptative GOP at 14, max adaptative bframe at 7,
Max reference at 4, Max breference at 3, no film grain modeling

D - Conclusion

At this time for this movie

1) I use certainely the best MPEG2 encoder available in the area for metric: Libavcodec. The result is simply impressive for the old MPEG2 codec. With PP4 the result is even better. Libavcodec produce by far much better metric result here than all the other implementations (HCEnc, TMPGEnc, Mainconcept, Procoder ...).

2) VC1 is a very good surprise for me. For "low/medium bitrate" (high quantisation level) VC1 in unable to fight with H264 but for "High bitrate" the SSIM for VC1 is close to H264. MS say "VC1 is particulary optimized for high bitrate with high resolution" and it's true. Anyway MS claim that VC1 is able to produce the same metric that H264 but it's clearly false here.

3) H264 is simply the best for metric in all situation and particulary for "low bitrate" situation. Anyway differences between VC1 and H264 are not so high for low quantisation encoding.

4) VC1 and H264 at 6/20 Mbps (average bitrate/max bitrate) are unable to produce better quality than MPEG2 at 12/24 Mbps. H264 at 12/24 Mbps produce better quality than MPEG2 at 18/28 Mbps but not VC1. H264 at 12/24 Mbps is unable to produce better quality than VC1 at 18/28 Mbps. MicroSoft annonce ratio between 1:2 and 1:3 for MPEG2 vs VC1 but it's really not the case here. The x264 particularly optimized in its development to obtain very good PSNR is not able to obtain a ratio of 2:1 with MPEG2 in this challenge.

5) Use constrained vbv rate control produce very inconstant quality and use overall or average metric results in this case is very difficult because complex part (motion and/or texture) can produce very bad results for metric. For better results it will be better to use metric graph for part by part comparison. If a codec want produce good overall/average metric here then the codec must have particulary good vbv Rate Control optimization.

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, TRY WITH YOUR ENCODER ... !!!

forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=128498

EDIT: In my personal opinion, MS should have adopted MPEG-4avc/H264, but instead they make a proprietary hook codec that is used for MS products instead of using a universal code that is equally good, if not better.

RavenasNot true. MPEG-4 avc and VC-1 are the same picture, it all depends on the content and implementation.

yup

You can use that add-on with XP/Vista, or so I've heard...

hell for $50 bucks, that would be a nice piece of nostalgia and one bad ass Souvenir FTW!!!:rockout:

Anyone who's got one able to test to see if it can read CD/DVD in general? Would make for a good external if it was :)

Time To Buy!!! :d