Maybe I am using the wrong term then... After experiencing HD DVD the picture quality of Blu Ray I've seen didn't look right...so much for an explanation but that's my feeling. I could be wrong. Let's hope for a unified next gen optical format. 2 formats is nonsense. The pad feels cheap at first but in the end I like it (yes I like something on PS3!!!) Especially the L2 and R2 feels much better than before for racing games too bad there no decent racing games on PS3 :dance: at the moment. Sabre
I borrowed a mates PS3 yesterday so I can give a valued opinion on this soon Buggar me though, plugged in to my little old 26in LCD and he had set his to 1080p, mine only does 1080i, so no display OH: so I have to go to my parents or bro`s to get it changed.....balls!!!!! Probably Bro`s as he has a HD-DVD on his 360
Did you update the firmware? I had to in order to use it properly as anything below the current V1.81 has issues with output. I also agree with the poster stating that the original film, not the codec is to blame for any residual grain or noise that you saw. Nothing could have been further from the truth on the film I tested. Makes you wonder whether the companies are relying upon the HD logo rather than committing to improve the transfer from one format (original film) to the other (viewable medium). This happened a lot with Laserdisc, not so much with DVD and will probably iron itself out with HD formats. It comes down to shoddy production skills & cheap mastering methods. If you get another chance, have another look. HD DVD "should" technically be the better medium but only from the point-of-view of those expressed by the previous poster. Between them in terms of actual perceivable output quality there's currently nowt in it!
Sorry Barc0de we've shifted the topic slightly to an overall 360 v PS3 thread.... must....push......it......back!!!! OH:
Hehe silly barc0de. I am not sure how VF5 will look better on the 360 other then some additional filtering. For me my beef with 360 is lighting which in most games is just flat out too dark. Anyway Ps3 coders need far more time and most studios atm are doing poor ports to the ps3 since the market is not very huge right now. A huge benifit 360 has going for it is its development tools, directX api and a full year to get into it. Hell I remember the complaints that x360 titles at launch looked like xbox 1 titles in HD. Ps3 developers will really start to understand the HW alot better getting into early 08. Oh also if you want some pretty ps3 games to look at, go find video of ninja gaiden ps3. Yum.
Currently yes. In 2 years? Probably not. When Lair and Heavenly Sword get released maybe even not. HS especially looks absolutely spectacular and makes me want to buy a PS3. As to the BR vs HD-DVD debate, BR is clearly better in terms of graphical and sonic output.
you can have perfect non grainy HD content even using the MPEG-1 codec with high enough bitrate. with it they managed (and in italy actually BROADCASTED) perfect quality HD contents already in the 1980s. so you can bet it being the film's fault. anyway, for the cost the both have i think BR is the way to go... also the intreactivity is mandatary on BR players too since it uses special java machine able to make you ven connect to internet to add contents
I tend to start by disbelieving anything that I hear in a tv store, it saves time. On the original topic, 360 has better shaders. So it can make everything look pretty, while the PS3 should be able to produce a more realistic environment ( AI etc ). However there isn't much of a rush to produce PS3 games at the moment. Sony seemed to have dropped the ball on launch titles & even the 2nd wave of releases. smf
Surely HD DVD's mandatory support for Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD makes it the better format in terms of audio? A lot of people don't realise that BD and HD DVD are basically just optical disc systems. You could encode basically any video and burn it to either kind of disc, and it'd look identical if both players were good.
On Paper the PS3 is more powerful BARELY The RSX was tacked on at the last minute kinda like how the Saturn 3d was. The Cell was going to handle all the graphics it self. The cell it self is a rubiks cube The RSX+Cell is like a Rubicks Dodecahedren. Meenwhile 360 has everything streamlined and most developers know direct X well so it's MUCH MUCH easier to get the most out of the 360.
Hey, i m open to persuation here! I just need evidence numbers and theories are good for discussion, but I m just wondering on the results really. I do hope the PS3 will have better stuff to show off, because i m a supporter of new technologies, and considering it took so many years to prepare, and costs so much, it better be good.
Really all I have sadly is bench mark test done which have the ps3 running laps around the 360 in a decompression test. I think people will need to give the ps3 a year to really show whats hidden in the system. Ps3 seems to still very much keep with the concept of ps2 where the system is cpu driven and not gpu driven like 360/pc.
Both formats can use Dolby Digital Plus & Dolby TrueHD, and any decent production will utilise it especially if the alternative format usage is madatory. DD+ will work under 5.1 but is only of use if you have a 7.1 processor, so you'll have to fork out extra. Previously the additional 2 channels were descreet additions now they are mixable so you get a wider sweep which is excellent! Considering it has been picked up as the standard for all future DVB transmissions I doubt you'll see any DVD manufacturers NOT encorporating it into their productions. It would be odd that TV broadcasts could provide this form and not Blu-ray. I think DD+ will become like Dolby Digital standard in a couple of years time just as once upon a time we advanced from Pro-Logic. Dolby TrueHD is a natural progression from Dolby Digital. It's something that anyone familiar with recording processes has enjoyed the use of for many years and it's brilliant to see it final making it into home equipment. For anyone unfamiliar with it, the whole point of it is the use of complex software that allows the placement of your 6.1 or 7.1 speaker system without actually moving anything. I've only used studio versions, but I'd imagine the set up is similar. Position the speakers roughly where you would normally place them, add the new channels and you can then either use presets or cross-hairs to positions those additional channels by healing & toeing the stereo pairs! It's the mutts nuts and if it is NOT used widely by the main film producers then I'd be shocked! It offers audio engineers an amazing palette to work on. The first time anything similar was heard was on a Sting album where he used early versions of this technology to reconfigure stereo pairs. It meant that suddenly instruments appeared to be behind you despite the speakers actually being in front. The limitations are the engineers imagination. From what I have read, the six forms of Dolby are actually BETTER quality on Blu-ray. Although there is some conflicting information online, the Dolby site is clearly correct and in each instance Blu-ray is more accurate and carries more data. Contrary also to previous posts suggesting anything above DTS Digital Surround is mandatory, this is also wrong. All above 5.1 on both formats is optional. See for yourself: http://hometheater.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=hometheater&cdn=gadgets&tm=588&gps=401_1994_1148_731&f=10&su=p284.8.150.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.dts.com/dts-hd/
The difference is that Blu-ray has a lot more space to store the data on. That is the only real difference, but it makes it better ultimately. Only cost is the issue at present. This is incorrect. The RSX was not originally in the spec, a special kind of CELL processor was, but that was changed early on. The CELL on it's own was never intended to do both jobs. The Saturn's 3D really was a last minute bodge job.
blu-ray cant actually fit more. double layer HDDVDs are possible, easily, whereas dual layer BD discs are problematic
No, Blu-ray is more. Most current releases on BD are already using Dual Layer, I've not heard of problems related to that. Originally BDs were encoded in MPEG2 rather than H264/VC-1 but that is no longer the case. HDDVD are almost always dual layer though. Stats: .Blu-ray ROM single layer: 23.3 / 25GB ROM dual layer: 46.6 / 50GB RW single layer: 23.3 / 25 / 27GB RW dual layer: 46.6 / 50 / 54GB Highest test: 100GB Theoretical limit: 200GB .HD-DVD Single layer: 15GB Dual layer: 30GB Highest test: 45GB Theoretical limit: 60GB Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats is more info
the manufacturing process of dual layer BD discs is problematic, last time I checked. When I said "actually" i mean in practice, due to the fact that although HD-DVD has less capacity, it can efficiently use both layers, whereas this isn't the case with BD due to difficulties relating to the reading of the dual layer disks and their integrity.
RTFM! If you plug the machine in and press and hold the power button until the machine beeps again then it will reset the display so you can set it to what ever you want... Going back to the question... Does it really matter too much? So what if the Xbox 360 can draw more therotical polygons then the PS3, if the PS3 can process more data for things like physics then the PS3 will probably end up looking better despite the fact that the graphics may or may not be slighly worse. I'm for one and looking forward to Gran Turismo 5. ^_^ PGR3 and FM2 are nice but they still feel poor even compared to GT4.
I clearly recall reading this, as obviously i have no reason to pull arguments for any medium out of my ass - i don't owe them anything anyway. I think that this practical limitation might still exist on user recordable BD discs, regarding the second layer. Since i don't own a writer or a reader, I can't confirm either myself. PS: just a reason to like HD-DVD more, for me, is the fact that it's region-free
