- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,429 (0.85/day)
- Location
- Tennessee
System Name | AM5 |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen R9 7950X |
Motherboard | Asrock X670E Taichi |
Cooling | EK AIO Basic 360 |
Memory | Corsair Vengeance DDR5 5600 64 Gb - XMP1 Profile |
Video Card(s) | AMD Reference 7900 XTX 24 Gb |
Storage | Crucial Gen 5 1 TB, Samsung Gen 4 980 1 TB / Samsung 8TB SSD |
Display(s) | Samsung 34" 240hz 4K |
Case | Fractal Define R7 |
Power Supply | Seasonic PRIME PX-1300, 1300W 80+ Platinum, Full Modular |
Mr. Bay states that his movie looks "superior" on Blu-Ray.
Since both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD can use the same codecs (MPEG-2, Microsoft Video Codec 1 (aka VC1, WMV HD, etc.), H.264 / MPEG-4 AVC) why would this be the case?
Due to the tighter track pitch (.65 for HD, .85 for Blu-Ray) Blu-Ray is capable of storing more data than HD, but if that data is the stored in the same video format (codec) why would it look any different?
Unless the studio making the disks is using an inferior codec, I don't see how there would be any difference.
Just because they have the same codecs doesn't mean they are going to have EXACTLY the same quality. I remember when I worked at Best Buy we plugged our best Blu-ray player and best HD-DVD player up on our best HDTV in the store, and Blu-ray looked better playing Planet Earth. Ever since that time, I've been a Blu-ray enthusiast. I'm sure someone will come up with a post that counters this, but my eyes weren't deceiving me.
I'm not trying to support Michael Bay here or anything, I'm just telling you how I feel about both players.