Flaw in Ramer's "What Have We Learned So Far?" Logic

[Ruined]

If we are tracking video quality across formats, how about we include a plot of the age of the films on average and the budgets involved with said films? If you are going to claim your reviewing is unbiased and want to graph it, fine, but at least use films that have source material remotely in the same ballpark qualitywise.

There are far more big budget recent blockbusters exclusive to BD than HD DVD - many of the HD DVD exclusives are 90s catalog titles. No matter how much you work on an encode, a movie with average budget from the 90s is not going to look as good as a 2007 big budget blockbuster - which BD has more of.

Definite BD bias in Ramer's flawed analysis. It has been proved that BD's extra space has no significant improvement on video quality as evidenced by previous Paramount AVC encodes that used higher bitrate on BD with no perceivable improvement.

[elfman]

That, and he's tried to make a "scientific" analysis of his own opinions. wth?

[Sanjuro]

Hey, when did Mr Hunt start writing for DVDFILE??

[Ruined]

Being discussed at AVSFORUM now:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=925545

This inaccurate front-page article is most definitely making DVDFile look bad, as if the site is run by novices. I'd recommend some more knowledgable and less biased writers for the next "analysis." Ramer might as well have said Blu-Ray is better "because it goes to 11," because that makes just about as much sense as what he did write.

[Merridew]

Hello!

I am a movie and home theatre enthusiast from Germany (so please forgive me graciously any grammatical or orthographical mistake). After being a 'lurker' for quite a while, this is my first post as a new member of this forum. Let me start with a big thanks to the DVD File staff and to all those members who post interesting, illuminating and entertaining opinions and facts! Usually, it is a pleasure to visit DVD File – unfortunately, it is not always equally pleasant and satisfying to read some forum posts.

And that is the reason for my first post. Here it comes…

To 'Ruined' and to all his sisters and brothers in spirit.

Initially, I was determined never to take part in this stupid format war. But after reading your reaction to Mr Ramer's opinion, I cannot bear any longer to see how easily some people are willing to question their fellow human being's respectability and dignity.

I share your passion for high definition television and I even understand that sometimes – in a heated argument – one tends to say or write things one should not have said or written. But I am sick and tired to see immature HD DVD and Blu-Ray fanboys popping up like self-proclaimed grand inquisitors, lord protectors of the absolute truth, questioning the honour and credence of those who did commit the 'crime' of publishing something positive about the other format.

It is obviously not enough for people like you to try to refute such statements with counter-arguments, no, you have to attack your opponents personally. 'He gives DVD File a bad name', 'someone less biased should write'. Right, burn him! Silence him! We cannot stand people whose opinions differ from ours and we are not prepared to respect them any longer! That someone more unbiased should write articles is a particularly funny demand coming from you, regarding the fact that you spread – I put it as politely as I can – 'inaccuracies' about Blu-Ray in the signature of every single of your posts.

When it comes to people like Bill Hunt or Dan Ramer, I do not need to agree with everything they write in order to respect their long-time and manifold contributions to the enlightenment of everyone interested in DVD and HDTV, published on 'The Digital Bits' or 'DVD File', two sites which continue to rank among the most interesting internet sources for information about films on disc – in spite of the many disgusting character assassinations and insults aimed at them. I explicitly want to thank them and all the other staff members for their efforts. Sometimes one disagrees with them; from time to time they may even get things wrong – so what? Is everyone else without sin or fault? They just state that sometimes one format offers more, or that they prefer one format over another – nothing more, nothing less. Neither did they sell state secrets to Al-Qaeda, nor did they slaughter their wife and children. Mr Ramer's article, based on his considerable experience, is just an interesting and meaningful opinion piece about two only slightly different discs formats, both offering almost equal quality. And, as outrageous as this may sound to you and like-minded people, he is actually entitled to such an opinion!

I admit: every time I read Blu-Ray fanboy nonsense I wish HD DVD would win – every time I read a 'Ruined' post I hope Blu-Ray will be victorious. It is extremely sad to see what this format war does to a frustratingly large number of people, and for that reason alone I wish this war would come to an end immediately – so we can continue to enjoy movies on DVD and it's successor and can discuss content, picture and sound quality, special edition extras and a lot more – passionately but respectfully, without constantly questioning each others credibility.

[Ruined]

It's fine for Ramer to have his own opinion, but attempting to quantify not only the quality of codecs but also the quality of formats simply by using different films of different budgets and ages is ridiculous. If you want to present your opinion, fine, but don't attempt to call it an "analysis" if it isnt even remotely looking at all the evidence.

I already offered a counter-argument that blows titanic sized holes in Ramer's article - it is in the first post. Scroll up. If Ramer didn't make such a poor argument with sweeping generalizations that do not take all the facts into account, he would not have gotten torn a new one.

P.S. - You used significantly more attacks on me than I did on Ramer - Pot, kettle, black.

P.S. #2:

Originally Posted by Dan Ramer on 7/11/07 News From The Front

I must admit that I hope Blu-ray Disc triumphs

Originally Posted by Dan Ramer's 8/19/07 article

Now, one could argue that I gave HD DVD lower ratings from bias, but I can assure you that’s not the case... I have no vested interest in either format

Who do you think you're fooling, Dan?

[Sehnzeleid]

If you guys don't mind me saying, I view this board and the main site to be two separate entities. I don't even visit DVDFile, I just shoot right to this forum. Even though I primarily roam the HD related topics, this is one of the most "understanding" HD/BD boards I've found. Everyone seems to more-or-less see eye to eye with well-thought opinions and interaction without having topics erupt into all-out flame wars.

Except I still can't understand why Derb seemingly buys every HD DVD and Blu-ray released.

[Merridew]

Thanks, Ruined, for taking the time to read my post and for your replay.

It is important for me to stress this: It was not my intention to insult you, and if you feel insulted by my post, I regret my choice of words.

My post, a little bit born out of anger and frustration (about the fact that more and more once respectable forums get infested with 'fanboyism'), was not so much aimed at you personally, but at the concept of yours not to take someone seriously as soon as he states his preference for one format. That simply means to insinuate that he is dishonest when it comes to his remarks about the other format. And to accuse someone of dishonesty ('Who do think you're fooling, Dan?') goes a little bid too far for my taste.

I know enough people who have chosen a format and – believe it or not – still remain decent and honest human beings. They certainly did not loose their credibility by going blue, red or purple.

I still find Mr Ramer's article quite interesting and can certainly not see holes of 'Titanic' size blown into it. He never stated that it was scientific, just a summary of his personal impressions, which I consider perfectly acceptable.

But I have no intentions of causing fatigue by prolonging this specific discussion. I wrote what I wanted to get off my chest and continue to hope that this war will end soon – even though the chances for it are rather slim right now.

May you all have a nice evening (here in Germany it is already 1:43 am).

[Ruined]

Yeah, I understand what you're coming from. Part of the problem, IMO, is that with the manufacturers and camps putting out lots of misinformation on the subject, having sites put out misinformation too is frustrating. Dan's article would have held a lot more water if he took a closer look at the age of the films he was grading and their budgets as well. You can't expect movies like Liar Liar, Daylight, and Sneakers to hold up videowise to Bridge to Terabithia, X3, and Pirates of the Carribean simply because the source for the former films is much older and they were shot with lower budgets in mind. Hopefully with Paramount on board with HD DVD the "eye candy" skew will be more balanced, as currently BD has significantly more recent films.

[Derb]

Merridew,

Welcome to the forum. Hope you visit & share your thoughts about these 2 HD formats more often. I really enjoyed your well thought out post.

I re-read Ramer's latest post. Simply put, his opinions of the 2 are just that & nothing more. He stressed more than once that he is an observer of these formats & has no bias sinse spring of 2006. If true, I can relate. When HD DVD arrived I was one of few lucky Canadians to get my hands on a HD-A1 player for $799.99 & the 3 initial launch titles. (Phantom of the Opera, Serenity, The Last Samurai) I had vested no interest in Blu-ray at all. In fact, I believe I was supporting HD DVD well before 2006. Even though I knew 30GB was their limit on space & only 3 major studio's were backing them at the time, I considered myself more vested in HD DVD than Ruined. (I have the receipts to prove it ) To HD DVDs credit, they have gave consumers who were interested in high-def to easily make the plunge. Prices on hardware & software were very reasonable & imo they still are. The first HD title I watched on the A1 was The Last Samurai & the PQ was excellent to say the least. The first disc I put in the HD-A1 was actually the DVD copy of The Last Samurai & I thought even that looked great sinse I went through 3 different model upconverting dvd players before the HD-A1. I'm getting to a point, trust me. Sinse May 2006, every HD DVD has shown me the same level of picture quality regardless of codec. (The Interpreter AVC, U2: Rattle & Hum AVC) I usually do not need to raise my expectations of a transfer based on CODEC. I've seen MPEG-2 look just as good as the best HD DVD VC-1. All them Blu-ray Disney titles which are AVC have trailers before the film & all are MPEG-2 & all look just as good as the film itself. I've read the opposite of what Ruined states in regard to "films of age" or "films chosen for HD by studio". I don't know if I buy it, but HD DVD has more newer restored high-def catalogs (mainly Universal) than any other studio supporting either format. Regardless of age, the films chosen have gone through recent thorough re-masters in HD. I don't deny nor support this theory. I'm just sharing what I've read by a fellow author or.

Ramer's take is that he observed AVC produces a more film like presentation than VC-1. A group of panelists from the DVD forum would easily disagree but again its "Ramer's" take on the CODEC's & it is his opinion. From what I've seen (Roughly an equal amount of AVCs & VC1s) both share similar attributes when it comes to "new" source material but when older material goes through the encoder, VC-1 yields better results, though not night & day & certainly not results which would sway your opinion of format wars. So my opinion is, VC-1 has the edge but not enough edge to make consumers take notice.

Ramer may claim to be bias free, but in order to be bias free, you first have to be format free. He stated he was & yet told the people reading that it would basically be ill advised to buy into HD DVD. I disagree. Currently, both HD formats need to punch consumers in the head with a sledge hammer to gain their attention & the (sad but true) only way they can do that is by offering features which they can not get with the same title purchased on the DVD format. Now if you take HD DVD out of the picture, you loose HDi which currently gives consumers a wide array of features for them to drool over which currently BD can not offer yet. My stance is, I don't give a crap about extra's at all but I am definitely in the minority & I bet it shows on paper when a HD DVD gets released with HDi (300 or Transformers for example) so without HD DVD, so goes these features which are at least turning non HD enthusiasts into ones.

The best advise you can give to someone interested in buying HD or BD is to tell them there is a possibility one might go debunk. It is still a gamble to jump aboard but if you truely love films shown in the best presentations possible today, than go for it!

[Merridew]

Thank you, Derb, for your kind words and your interesting post.

My own 'preliminary summary' (very personal and subjective, certainly not scientific) is simple and will most likely sound amateurish to experts: I honestly cannot tell the differences between both formats with regard to picture and sound quality. Usually, both offer a significant and fascinating improvement over DVD.

Since I am the one who is asked by my friends and relatives what to buy, the only advice I have for them is, to base their decision on the movies they most want, because of studio exclusives.

The typical reaction is this:
'What does 'exclusive' mean?'
'If you want James Bond or Disney – you must buy Blu-Ray, if you want Lost In Translation or Transformers – you have to opt for HD DVD.'
'I thought I can choose between the formats for every movie'
'Nope'
'That's stupid! I want a player for both formats'
'No problem, it costs around 1000 dollars'
'That's stupid, too! I won't buy at all – I wait and purchase a HDTV Sat Receiver instead!'

The situation in Germany is different from America, because the average HD DVD/Blu-Ray costs between 40$ and 52$ - and I mean the price you actually have to pay in the big stores. Best online offers vary between 30$ and 42$ accordingly. Real bargains are scarce and deductions not very impressive. That is indeed a particularly stupid way of introducing new formats – one can hardly call that 'pushing'.

But enough for now – watch a movie on Blu-Ray or HD DVD, have a glass of red wine and enjoy yourself!

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Derb

I've seen MPEG-2 look just as good as the best HD DVD VC-1.

It's rare to see an MPEG2 transfer without significant artifacting at places that isn't there or isn't nearly as pronounced on the same transfer in VC-1. For example, take a look at these direct screencaps from PowerDVD of highly regarded BD MPEG2 transfers versus their VC-1 HD DVD counterparts (with problem areas zoomed, to simulate watching on a 120"+ screen):

Underworld Evolution - BD MPEG2 vs. VC-1 HD DVD
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/underwor...detail_2x.html

Training Day - BD MPEG2 vs. VC-1 HD DVD
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/training...detail_2x.html

Mission Impossible 3 - BD MPEG2 vc. VC-1 HD DVD
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/missioni...detail_2x.html

World Trade Center - BD MPEG2 vc. VC-1 HD DVD
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/worldtra...detail_2x.html

These are some of the top-rated MPEG2 encodes, too, not some random weird example I picked.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Ruined

It's rare to see an MPEG2 transfer without significant artifacting at places that isn't there or isn't nearly as pronounced on the same transfer in VC-1. For example, take a look at these direct screencaps from PowerDVD of highly regarded BD MPEG2 transfers versus their VC-1 HD DVD counterparts (with problem areas zoomed, to simulate watching on a 120"+ screen):

These are some of the top-rated MPEG2 encodes, too, not some random weird example I picked.

Underworld Evolution looks great & I am sure the HD DVD does too. The only issue I have with the BD of Training Day is it isn't OAR. To have to zoom in 200% to see a significant difference is a stretch. One anybody can overlook at normal viewing playback. Top rated MPEG-2 encodes.. Give All the King's Men or Ice Age a spin. Ahh but those are not on HD DVD.

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by Derb

Top rated MPEG-2 encodes.. Give All the King's Men or Ice Age a spin. Ahh but those are not on HD DVD.

I vote for Transporter 2 as well, surprisingly great MPEG-2 transfer crammed onto a BD-25GB disc.

[ganthc]

You might also look at "The Covenant" as a demo worthy transfer too.

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by ganthc

You might also look at "The Covenant" as a demo worthy transfer too.

[superthreadhijack]Is the movie any good?[/superthreadhijack]

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

[superthreadhijack]Is the movie any good?[/superthreadhijack]

It's pretty bad, but the video and audio are really good.

[dugpa]

I didn't read Ramer's article since he usually doesn't know what he's talking about and thus not worth reading. But I will just say that unless you are comparing the exact same film using the same transfer compressed with the same codec, any comparison is not valid from a scientific standpoint and thus should be ignored.

[kjeldsen.dk]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Originally Posted by Dan Ramer on 7/11/07 News From The Front
I must admit that I hope Blu-ray Disc triumphs

You forgot the context, afaik that comment was made in the context that he thought back then that Blu-Ray releases looked the best.

This new article just proves that he was right. And honestly how could he not be? More bits = better quality on both Video and Audio. And if the AVC codec really does provide a more movie like experience then where is the surprise in that? Being that most Blu-Ray exclusives never will see a VC-1 encode :-)

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by kjeldsen.dk

You forgot the context, afaik that comment was made in the context that he thought back then that Blu-Ray releases looked the best.

If he says he hopes one format triumphs over another, then that is called obvious bias regardless of his reasoning for it; he has moved beyond objective individual reviews and has made a decision in his mind. I don't see Peter Bracke on HighDefDigest making comments like that. Bill Hunt makes them though, and we all know where his credibility stands.

This new article just proves that he was right. And honestly how could he not be? More bits = better quality on both Video and Audio. And if the AVC codec really does provide a more movie like experience then where is the surprise in that? Being that most Blu-Ray exclusives never will see a VC-1 encode :-)

I guess MPEG2 is the best then since it uses the most bits of all!

The only thing Ramer's article proves is that he doesn't know how to create an "analysis" that has remotely useful or accurate results.

[kjeldsen.dk]

Originally Posted by Ruined

If he says he hopes one format triumphs over another, then that is called obvious bias regardless of his reasoning for it; he has moved beyond objective individual reviews and has made a decision in his mind. I don't see Peter Bracke on HighDefDigest making comments like that. Bill Hunt makes them though, and we all know where his credibility stands.

I guess MPEG2 is the best then since it uses the most bits of all!

The only thing Ramer's article proves is that he doesn't know how to create an "analysis" that has remotely useful or accurate results.

Yes he hopes Blu-Ray wins because he thinks it´s the format that can deliver the superior movie experience. Should he say doesn´t care if the inferior format wins?

And why do you pull MPEG2 into this? It´s clearly stated in the article that AVC is the Codec that performs best. He doesn´t mention MPEG2 in regard to being superior, or did i miss something?

If you think HD-DVD should win because it´s cheaper or because it has the titles you love or something else, then fair enough. But saying that HD-DVD is the superior format when it comes to picture and audio quality is just plain wrong. Only cold facts matters in the regard, 50GB/48MBIT is just a better platform, no matter how many twist and turns you take.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by kjeldsen.dk

Yes he hopes Blu-Ray wins because he thinks it´s the format that can deliver the superior movie experience. Should he say doesn´t care if the inferior format wins?

He shouldn't comment on it at all if he wants to remain neutral, just like Bracke at HighDefDigest doesn't. Bracke simply writes his reviews and reports the news - no long winded editorials about which format he prefers. Writing an editorial meriting one format as superior as another and hoping said format wins does in fact show bias. Also, "inferior format" is not factual, but rather an opinion.

And why do you pull MPEG2 into this? It´s clearly stated in the article that AVC is the Codec that performs best. He doesn´t mention MPEG2 in regard to being superior, or did i miss something?

You did miss something. You were stating that more bits = better. Well, MPEG2 uses up a ton more space to achieve similar quality to VC-1/AVC. Therefore, the idea of more bits = better does not always hold true. There is also the case of diminishing returns. Just like a 320kbps MP3 doesn't sound much better than a 256kbps MP3, a 32mbps VC-1/AVC encode doesn't look much better than a 25mbps VC-1/AVC encode - there are diminishing returns.

This is evidenced by Xylon's direct screencaps from PowerDVD of HD/BD:

Nature's Journey 18gb/37mbps VC-1 BD25 vs 12gb/26mbps VC-1 HD15:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/naturesj...-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference.

Flags of Our Fathers - 32gb AVC BD50 vs. 20gb VC-1 HD30:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsofo...-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference.

The Prestige - 20gb AVC BD50 vs. 16gb VC-1 HD30:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/theprest...-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference.

HD DVD has the bandwidth and space necessary for nextgen codecs to display their peak performance. While HD DVD may have been at a disadvantage to BD if MPEG2 was the only codec option (due to its inefficiency), with the development of VC-1 and AVC there is no need for BD's extra bandwidth and even when used there is no improvement noticable. Therefore while HD DVD does have less space/bandwidth, the extra space/bandwidth is clearly not needed and the other merits of HD DVD push it ahead of BD IMO as a result.

If you think HD-DVD should win because it´s cheaper or because it has the titles you love or something else, then fair enough. But saying that HD-DVD is the superior format when it comes to picture and audio quality is just plain wrong. Only cold facts matters in the regard, 50GB/48MBIT is just a better platform, no matter how many twist and turns you take.

The evidence has proven that BD's extra space and bandwidth has NOT led to quality improvement. I challenge you to provide me with 3 titles where there is a significant and noticable difference between the HD DVD and BD edition - provide screencaps for evidence. Good luck, as there are little to none.

I believe HD DVD is the superior format because:
* It has more than enough space for reference quality picture and sound
* BD's extra space and bandwidth has failed to make a significant difference
* HD DVD has less intrusive DRM (no BD+ or ROM-Mark)
* HD DVD has no region coding (unlike BD)
* HD DVD has more robust interactivity layer with HDi (web-enabled features, PIP on all standalones)
* HD DVD is cheaper and a better value (nearly half the price for a standalone)
* HD DVD is able to put DVD on the same disc as HD DVD for backwards compatibility (not viable on BD)

Using the argument bigger is better without giving any visual evidence that there is a difference gained by that bigger space is fruitless. I've already provided evidence that bigger is NOT better with the above screencaps - the result is the same due to diminishing returns. Let's see some evidence on your part, and comparing 90s low budget catalog comedy HD DVDs to 2007 blockbuster BD's is an invalid comparison. Want to do a real "analysis"? Use the same title with the same master - one of the Paramount, international, or independent releases linked above, for instance. Let's see a few examples where BD's extra space/bandwidth makes a visual difference - I want screengrabs, real links and evidence, not just talk. I have laid out the facts and also provided the links and direct screengrabs to prove my point. I challenge you, and Dan Ramer for that matter, to provide an argument that is as cohesive as mine with the evidence to back it up.

[videoworx]

provide screencaps for evidence.

The purpose of AVC, Mpeg-2, and VC-1 is to provide decent motion video, and not decent still frames. It's ridiculous to interpret the quality of any motion codec, based on still frames.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by videoworx