The whole point of this thread was that you made it seem that you couldn't notice the difference between the two, so why can I not compare them now?
The point of this thread is that there may be a new medium for HD-material - DVD instead of HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
:erm: Maybe I misinterpreted something before... In this case, you are right... Comparing the same movie in different resolutions would be an ideal test.
Hehe, sorry about that. We all make mistakes...
The HD-DVD's were encoded using the
original film used during the shooting of the movie, and not upscaled from the DVD.
I get that - but what is the original resolution?
My point is you like to bitch about Sony doing what every other electronics manufacturer does. It's the Sony basher in you though, you can't help it (trust me I understand your type).
Yes, I do bash Sony... but I'm not buying an HD-DVD either for the same reason I won't buy a Blu-ray (well, one of them anyway).
The more revisions there will be, the better quality, less bugs and less loading times! Or so I am inclined to believe. Then I'll probably guy a hybrid player if any. I don't want to settle for the wrong format but I do honestly hope HD-DVD wins.
I really do think so. Data (no matter how intelligent the compression scheme is) will show a loss in quality the more that's taken from it.
You're forgetting something...
We
will get better compression schemes, but that's not just to say for lossy. But for lossless as well. There's also a very heavy lossless codec out there that devliers good compression at terrible speeds. With more crunching power, we'll get better compression techniques. And the better the compression, the less bitrate we can use for the same material. So if we just upped the bitrate a little, we'd get better quality.
And a very intelligent compression will get you compression from which you can't tell apart from lossless. Such a solution already exists...
High bitrates and a good matrix will give you incredible results. Compression will just get better in the future. It has to. As we pump up resolution, we'll need better compression to store it.
And you'll bet all those TV stations will love compression to save precious bandwidth.
Point is: though it may remove data, we can still make it so it isn't noticable. It simply requires the correct knowledge and tools.
This I can't help you with. Just do a rip form any CD in your collection in both formats and see for yourself.
Fair enough, I guess... I could do that. Let me just rip a song and I'll update my post.
EDIT: Actually, ahaha, I seem to be missing the few CDs that I do have. Now where could they have gone? *shrug*
EDIT2: I found one CD, made a lossless rip via WMA, then to uncompressed WAV and finally to AAC. Tested both 24 and 32, and you know what? I couldn't hear a difference between the three.
Yes, there was some slight problem at the beginning of the AAC, but the rest was perfect. I'll keep the files for a while in case you want to do a listening test too.
My point was the final encode should be as lossless as possible.
And on this we agree :happy: Only the final encode should be lossy - and fine tuned as much as possible for best possible quality!
I'm sure nothing new matters to you, and you're willing to settle for yesterday's technology, which is fine for people that don't want the best. The rest of us prefer the best in our music, movies and games, and that's why HD is taking off like it is.
Don't be all too sure... I like technology. But sometimes I can't see the point. Like HD - it isn't all that hyped up like everyone wants it to be. To me, HD is a way to make sure movies don't look horrible on your new 100 inch TV.
I just don't care too much about small details...