Standard DVD and if UNIVERSAL do it right it will look awsome in HD but i bet it will look even better on BLU-RAY and sound double awsome in PCM if we ever get it

[Sheepking]

Originally Posted by jaffa69

Standard DVD and if UNIVERSAL do it right it will look awsome in HD but i bet it will look even better on BLU-RAY and sound double awsome in PCM if we ever get it

Please clarify why would it look even better and what this opinion is based on?

[Pecker]

'Hot Fuzz' is only 2 hours long (121 min).

'King Kong' is over 3 hours and looks superb.

Just imagine 'King Kong's PQ + 50% extra space, and you'll see why the idea of a Blu-Ray Disc version looking better than HD DVD is absolutely ridiculous.

BTW, isn't 'Jason and the Argonauts' a good film, too? It'd look great on HD DVD. But it just seems far more suited to BD.

Steve W

Its only based on wishfull thinking.Im thinking that if the dvd looks this good then seeing it in HD and in PCM which im sure is better than standard dolby 5.1 is going to be eVen better.Is unconpressed PCM better than Dolby Digital plus?Is the Universal Hd DISC going to be PCM or Dolby Digital Plus?Or is the HD release going to be in TRU-HD?if so is this better than PCM?

Ok HOT FUZZ is out on HD in DOLBY DIGITAL PLUS.What im saying is if it came out in UNCOMPRESSED PCM would it sound better?The standard dvd release is great so im guessing that on BLU-RAY if it came out in PCM then it would be even better or am i wrong?Are any titles on HD in PCM?

[Moosh]

There are lots of films in HD with a PCM sound track. But I believe most if not all of them are Blu-ray.

Maybe HOT FUZZ would LOOK BETTER if they released the video part uncompressed too?

Cheers
Moosh

[unheardof]

Aye it will look and and sound great along with Shaun of the dead...

...only on HDDVD along with the rest of universal's releases

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by jaffa69

Ok HOT FUZZ is out on HD in DOLBY DIGITAL PLUS.What im saying is if it came out in UNCOMPRESSED PCM would it sound better?The standard dvd release is great so im guessing that on BLU-RAY if it came out in PCM then it would be even better or am i wrong?Are any titles on HD in PCM?

Yes, but in your original post you specifically said that, quite seperate to the sound, the BD would look better.

Your words were "...it will look awsome in HD but i bet it will look even better on BLU-RAY..."

Why?

Steve W

[stevos]

The answer to why is simple, bluray has more space to fit the better less compressed codecs on.

However in reality almost all my hddvd's look better than my bluray discs, so no guarantees either way.

[LOXjet]

Originally Posted by stevos

The answer to why is simple, bluray has more space to fit the better less compressed codecs on.

That's a common misconception.

Encoding bitrates and the law of diminishing returns go hand in hand.

Bitrates get to a certain point where, even if you turn them up a notch, you really wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two.

King Kong is a classic example. I would be willing to bet money that even if the film was encoded at a higher bitrate, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[JagoPlasma]

Originally Posted by Vasquez

That's a common misconception.

Encoding bitrates and the law of diminishing returns go hand in hand.

Bitrates get to a certain point where, even if you turn them up a notch, you really wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two.

King Kong is a classic example. I would be willing to bet money that even if the film was encoded at a higher bitrate, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

thats debateable, nothing compares to uncompressed video

[Indiana Jones]

I havent watched Hot Fuzz all the way through yet but I put in the DVD on Tuesday and I wasnt that impressed by the picture quality, maybe I was watching a bad example?

[stevos]

Originally Posted by Vasquez

That's a common misconception.

Encoding bitrates and the law of diminishing returns go hand in hand.

Bitrates get to a certain point where, even if you turn them up a notch, you really wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two.

King Kong is a classic example. I would be willing to bet money that even if the film was encoded at a higher bitrate, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

At the levels of compression we are talking about and the relative extra space on bluray, you should be able to see a noticably better picture.

However lord of the rings dvd should look exactly the same as every other dvd and yet we know that clearly isn't the case. The old saying 'size doesn't matter, its what you do with it' comes to mind

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by stevos

At the levels of compression we are talking about and the relative extra space on bluray, you should be able to see a noticably better picture.

However lord of the rings dvd should look exactly the same as every other dvd and yet we know that clearly isn't the case. The old saying 'size doesn't matter, its what you do with it' comes to mind

As we're talking about 'Hot Fuzz', I think it's important to note (yet again) that 'King Kong' looks absolutely superb. Some Blu-ray Disc fans try to doubt this, but I've not yet seen an independent review that doesn't say it looks awesome - even The Blu-ray Bits gave it 19.5/20 for both picture and sound:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...1307b.html#kin

'King Kong' is over three hours long (188 mins).

'Hot Fuzz is only 116.

If something looks and sounds 19.5/20 at 188 minutes, how could it look significantly better with a higher bitrate at only 116 minutes?

Steve W