Considering I have yet to see a single title put out by Blu ray that has been better than what HD DVD's 5 star efforts have produced, sorry but I need real worl proof before I buy into anything like this and I am sorry but there is no real world proof for this claim. Just numbers on paper.
• VC-1 Encode at 26 Mbps / 1080i @ 29.97
• VC-1 Encode at 37 Mbps / 1080i @ 29.97
It was played on the same screen when it was viewed, so it wasn't the modulation of the TV...and so, that either leaves the player or the transfer. So, you'd have to be saying that the Blu-ray player was better or the transfer was better (whether by tweaking or bandwith).
BTW: I thought you were going to hit the sack, guess you can't let this go huh! LOL!! I would say you're a HD-DVD fanboy because normally they go out of there way defending every way possible for their precious format.
I am outta here for tonite. By all means go out and find that title that has a picture quality that is above anything HD DVD has done thus far and then well talk some more. As is everything you guys are saying is 100% speculation and HD DVD's 5 star titles look just as good as BD's 5 star titles.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
But again, Mr. Bay, you are completely correct that you should know what looks best on what and I hope to see it soon in Blu-ray as I'm planning on picking it up as a double-dip. I had to get the standard version when it first came out so that I could at least watch it. (Want to include that it was only one of three I have picked up since I've switched to Hi-Def, so you should feel good.) I have seen it on HD at a friend's home and I hope that it will look much better on Blu-ray.
I don't doubt Michael Bay's eye for color, and can understand on the comparison with the Nature documentary with the Blu Ray having higher bitrate to the HDDVD release. But if they are both identical encodes, just on different media, I can't see how it could be different - other than maybe read errors?
"BDs can assign more bits to the video and audio (for example 40 Mb/s to video, 48 Mb/s to audio + video) therefore the image and the audio can have more information and be truer (have higher fidelity) to the source."
I'll let that be the final word I say tonight, because I am not cognitive enough to continue. Maybe I can direct someone else over here that is a more experienced member of this forum later on to answer that question.
I'm not sure you can understand the word "psychiatrist" but you sure need to see one. Perhaps you know Pearl Harbor and The Rock have been released on Blu-ray and he saw them? And maybe Transformers was ready to be released on Blu-ray and he got a copy before Paramount was paid to become Blu-ray?
Of course Mr. Bay would have access to more products (even if it was only a beta) and information than an average guy like you.
Richard optimized each disc to its maximum potential - with 60% more bandwidth you don't need a PHD to realise that the Blu-ray version would be closer to the original. Not only that but the Blu-ray manages to have a lossless audio track thanks to the extra 8 Mbps bandwidth above and beyond the video's maximum bitrate.
It's the same with the Nine Inch Nails release of "Beside you in Time" - technoguru and director Rob Sheridan even states in the HD FAQ that the Blu-ray would have better PQ than the HD DVD because of the advantages in bandwidth.
When Transformers comes out on Blu-ray, likely in time for this Christmas, you can compare it yourself and you'll see the difference. If they had come out at the same time, it would have been the Blu-ray version that would have won the HD 2.0 conference's award for best audio, hand's down.
I look forward to it very much.
In the meantime I get to enjoy some high bitrate AVC encodes of Bay's movies with lossless audio, encoded by the wizards at Panasonic. You haven't seen Pearl Harbor until you've seen it on Blu.
And tomorrow I can pick up The Rock as well!
However I have seen no credible source to suggest that Fox were considering going to HD DVD and the timeline is completely illogical. Fox were busy working on BD+ when Warner's talks with the BDA began in earnest - it sounds like more propaganda from the HD DVD camp if you ask me.
Universal do not release hardware - it is completely incongruent to suggest they are anywhere near in the same boat as Sony when it comes to picking sides.
Gates keynote speech last night didn't mention HD DVD once!
Universal will have no problem releasing on Blu. If Toshiba owned Uni, it might be a different story. I expect an announcement before Summer.
If you think that statement meant he supported HD DVD, you're a moron. He was basically owning up to the studio while not agreeing with the studios decision.