While both formats can use both formats, Dolby True HD (lossless) and Dolby Digital Plus (lossy) are both optional on Blu ray while they are mandatory on all HD-DVD releases. In addition, the encoding bitrate for DD+ on HD-DVD is nearly twice of Blu-ray. So Basically your shit is guaranteed to sound great with HD-DVD and a compatible audio system while it can be decent with Blu-ray movies. Although if you go with the TrueHD codec through either it'll sound the same because it's lossless and should be 1:1 if you have the same movie on both. Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats#Capacity.2FCodecs
The argument regarding Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD with regards to sound quality is null in the context of PS3 versus 360, as according to the recent Eurogamer article on the Elite, the 360 (including the Elite) cannot output undecoded sound, even with HDMI. http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=78001&page=6 Bigger questions relate to whether any of us can differentiate between VGA and HDMI, undecoded versus other audio set-ups? I think judged in this way, there's no appreciable difference between the 360 and the PS3, except for the games and the online experience (360 winning on both counts). I have a PS3 set up to my 1080p TV and HMDI AV Reciever, and I think it's bloody ace, but haven't used a 360 to compare. My opinion (and only my opinion, based on what I've read) is that the PS3 and 360 graphics are on a par at the moment, however I really believe that in the long term, the PS3 will move ahead as developers figure it out. The big caveat to this is that by the time this might happen (especially with the lack of exclusives on both consoles), the next xbox might be out, and take the battle to the next level. Buy whichever one you want and let's move on.
I'm sure this started off as a PS3 vs Xbox 360 graphics thread and has turned into a Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD thread but what the point of talking about it as the Xbox 360 only has a DVD ROM drive and although it can use a HD-DVD drive to watch movies, thats the only thing you can do with it...
Stangely enough, the developers (Dolby Labs) are stating that in actual fact both forms are "optional" on both formats. Check their list. It states clearly that it's optional so I'm not sure whether it is a producer who is stating it will be madatory on a particular format, but it means very little. Frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find one producer releasing a film with it on one format & not on the other as a matter of strategic suicide! Lossless is still compression and although it is often stated that it is an exact reproduction of the original data it actually depends greatly on the original sound source and the overall frequency of the audio in order to successfully achieve the compression rates necessary. Hence the reason for their being more space required as lossless doesn't compress as well given audio parameters as lossy. Lossy just chops the top & bottom off thinking you can't percieve it anyway. I.e. both are perfect for speech as most of the data is expendable. You don't need a wide bandwidth for speech (phones for example) and thus they can be simply & effortlessly compressed in lossy & lossless methods. Nobody would notice the difference either way. Not so good when it comes to an orchestra for example due to the lack of compression over wider frequency variables. It simply means that the wider the frequency range the less that compression can be achieved to ensure exact decompression and ultimately reproduction. It's like trying to stuff more into a box. With lossless you just need to find a bigger box, although there is a limit. With lossy it's a bit crap because you only have one sized box and in order to get around this artificials are included to make it sound ok - not right, just ok! The lower the bandwidth, the smaller the size of box, the less data is kept and the poorer the audio. In a nutshell. I agree that lossless should in theory provide a far better audio output and there is no arguement from me for instance that FLAC beats MP3 audio coding hands down. The very same source you have pointed to suggests that to "compare bitrates" is an inaccurate comparision "due mainly to their efficiency". Also you have to remember that some of that space on HD DVD is going to be taken up with other foreign languages on HD DVD (oops, it's mandatory) whereas Blu-ray does not require it as other languages (other than origin) can be encoded in Dolby Digital. I am sat here wondering why mandatory is such a great thing. It may impede things in future if / when a new agreement of standards is required as further Dolby technology arrives (as it inevitably will). I'd hate to be a producer effectively being told you must provide audio in a particular format if it was no longer applicable. Of course agreements can change, however if you require agreements to be made across the board rather than allowing various audio standards apply then it may in the longer term actually be rather limited. As we all know, agreeing isn't easy and can lead to delays. I'm neither defending one format or slating another. The proof will not be the disc or the machines capabilities, but the material produced for our enjoyment. If anything this appears to be the way of the PS3! Hardware good, produced material for it thus far...poor.
If that is true, that is f***ing awful. All that technology going to waste and one reason why the HD DVD player for the 360 is so cheap. It's only doing the minimum, not the maximum that HD DVD stand alone players can produce in audio terms.
Its so cheap because its just a disc drive. MS should be albe to impliment better audio, but it seems like they have little motivation to do so.
Does VF5 run in 1080p? Also I can't escape how much those screens remind me of Soul Calibur. The smoothness and the textures. Maybe it looks better in motion.
Not that it really matters in this topic, but despite it being widely believed this is NOT correct. The philosophy was a little different (one could say the PSX did sprites by manipulating polygons, whereas the Saturn did polygons by skewing sprites), but 3D had always been part of the Saturn's spec (which, in itself, was indeed changed a few times).
nice one man! I recall seeing that the NBA game had perhaps better texture filtering on the PS3 version. (i only saw a video comparison, so I can't put my hand on the bible for it )
