I guess I'm buying the Star Trek HD-DVD set now

[Outpost4]

Wal-Mart has a sale going on right now on the Toshiba HD-A2 HD-DVD player. I bought one this morning for $98.87. The junkie I am, I couldn't pass it up.

I wasn't planning on buying the HD-DVD release of Star Trek before today but I am now. The only problem is I will be on vacation when it's released and won't be home until at least ten days later, maybe longer. You know how bad Trekkies are at delayed gratification.

I'll compare the HD-DVDs with the regular DVDs. I also just bought a new Panasonic 42" 1080p plasma and a Oppo DV-981HD DVD player that upconverts regular DVDs to 1080p. It should be an interesting comparison with the 1080i output of my new Toshiba HD-DVD player.

I'll start a thread. Don't expect it before the second week of December.

I just checked. Amazon.com has the Star Trek HD-DVD set for $132.95. Anybody know of a cheaper price?

 

[23skidoo]

Just remember that the HD-DVD version is a different show. If you want to see the original version of the series, it's got to be the standard DVD edition. (Unless Paramount changed its mind and agreed to include the original versions of the episodes on the discs).

Cheers

Alex

 

[Outpost4]

I know what I'll be buying. That's part of the attraction.

As for comparisons between the two, I'll compare the over 90% of the episode that's identical on the two formats.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

23skidoo said:
Just remember that the HD-DVD version is a different show.

How is it different, other than the effects?

 

[Cyrus]

Outpost4 said:
I'll compare the HD-DVDs with the regular DVDs. I also just bought a new Panasonic 42" 1080p plasma and a Oppo DV-981HD DVD player that upconverts regular DVDs to 1080p. It should be an interesting comparison with the 1080i output of my new Toshiba HD-DVD player.

Congratulation on the new equipment. HD is the way to go. I thought HD-DVD players could output 1080p, and that was the main advantage that they had over broadcast HD.

I am too cheap myself to buy HD-DVDs. I am still hoping one of these days they actually broadcast the bloody show in HD.

I'll start a thread. Don't expect it before the second week of December.

Looking forward to reading this.

 

[Outpost4]

Cyrus said:
I thought HD-DVD players could output 1080p, and that was the main advantage that they had over broadcast HD.

A Blu-ray player can output 1080p. The maximum output of my HD-DVD player is 1080i. I don't know if this is in the HD-DVD standard or not. Either should look outstanding.

 

[Matt]

Actually...

HD-DVD maxes out at 1080i, which is REALLY 1920x540 resolution.

1080p is 1920x1080 resolution, therefor 1080p would be double the horizontal resolution, so double the detail.

Right now, Trek on HD-DVD is the best you can get, but as soon as they put it on BluRay, the BluRay version would be superior, PLUS more episodes would fit on one disc.

For example, all ten Star Trek films in HD format would fit on less than four BluRay discs.

 

[Outpost4]

It's not quite as simple as that, Matt. This is not the forum for getting into a Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD discussion but what we're dealing here is the difference between fields and frames. Two fields generally equal a frame (let's not get into 3:2 pull down, can we?) with the frame the whole picture. On a 1080i system, yes, a field with the resolution Matt describes is put up on the screen roughly every 60th of a second. Another field, quicker than the eye can detect, is then put up right after that. Together they combine, or interlace, the "i" in 1080i, to make the full frame or the total picture. In 1080p, the whole frame makes up the field. There should be less flicker in the picture with 1080p as interlacing is the cause of that flicker.

It isn't as simple as 1080i gives you less of the picture. It gives you the same but maybe at lower picture quality than 1080p. In the demos I've seen, I prefer the picture of Blu-ray over HD-DVD but those were not in situations controlled by me. As soon as Sony makes a cheap Blu-ray player, I'll add that into my system, too, and make the comparison myself.

Considering a DVD is generally considered 540p, both are quite an improvement.

My tests of resolution? One of them will be if I can read the dedication plaque using HD-DVD. I want to do that just to drive the Starship/Enterprise/Constitution class argument people batty.

 

[Avilos]

Only $98.87??? hmmm I have had a HD set for over a year but been waiting to get a player until the price was low.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Actually I think the A30 could output 1080p the A2 was a low end player can only output 1080I

 

[Outpost4]

I think you're right. It looks like the second generation of players will output 1080p. One place I read said current European players already do.

For $98 I can put up with the difference.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Matt said:
Actually...

HD-DVD maxes out at 1080i, which is REALLY 1920x540 resolution.

Not correct. Just like Blu-Ray, HD-DVD maxes out at 1080p (1920 x 1080 progressive). Toshiba's first generation HD-DVD players (and the $99 player being sold at Wal*Mart) can't deliver 1080p, but that's a limitation of the players, not the disc format. I have a second-gen Toshiba HD-XA2 HD-DVD player and it outputs 720p, 1080i and 1080p.

 

[Corran Horn]

Outpost4 said:
I think you're right. It looks like the second generation of players will output 1080p. One place I read said current European players already do.

For $98 I can put up with the difference.

Agreed. I made the same call. It's a good price for simply its upconversion abilities alone. And if HD-DVD wins the format war, so much the better for us. Sure it's only 1080i when my TV can handle 1080p as well, but when/if HD-DVD definitively wins the war I'll get a new player.

 

[guardian]

Professor Moriarty said:

Matt said:
Actually...

HD-DVD maxes out at 1080i, which is REALLY 1920x540 resolution.

Not correct. Just like Blu-Ray, HD-DVD maxes out at 1080p (1920 x 1080 progressive). Toshiba's first generation HD-DVD players (and the $99 player being sold at Wal*Mart) can't deliver 1080p, but that's a limitation of the players, not the disc format. I have a second-gen Toshiba HD-XA2 HD-DVD player and it outputs 720p, 1080i and 1080p.

Thanks for posting this.....

A lot of folks think HD DVD players don't have 1080p--some do.


I have a TV that only has 1080i so I didn't need to spend the extra cash for the other model, because I'll replace both several years later and I am gambling that the player will wear out first since I play a lot of DVDs and it has moving parts where my Sony TV should last longer.
Of course next time I'll get a 1080p TV.


The funny thing is 75% of the folks who bought '1080p only' Blu-ray players are using them on HDTVs that only go up to 1080i

On the subject ofthe TOS HD DVD box sets.....

Is Amazon still the lowest pre-order price?
Who thinks or knows if the chain stores might go lower than 132.95 ???

 

[guardian]

Oops, I should have mentioned that the HD DVD discs themselves are ALL 1080p, so they are ready to go whenever you buy or upgrade your player or HDTV

 

[The Transformed Man]

Matt said:
Actually...

HD-DVD maxes out at 1080i, which is REALLY 1920x540 resolution.

1080p is 1920x1080 resolution, therefor 1080p would be double the horizontal resolution, so double the detail.

Right now, Trek on HD-DVD is the best you can get, but as soon as they put it on BluRay, the BluRay version would be superior, PLUS more episodes would fit on one disc.

For example, all ten Star Trek films in HD format would fit on less than four BluRay discs.

Do you work for Sony or something?

I work in video production for a living. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both offer 1080p, granted the A2 which the original poster bought is 1080i but it is still displaying all 1080 lines of resolution. All LCD, Plasma, DLPs, and similar flat panel screens are "fixed pixel" displays... they are ONLY CAPABLE of displaying PROGRESSIVE images, so the image you will see is 1080p even if you have a 1080i only TV. Now a 1080i flat screen will still need a good de-interlacer or have your TV properly calibrated to avoid some very minor image defects(almost imperceptible unless you have your face right in front of the screen or have a 70" display).

Only CRTs, tube style televisions are capable of displaying interlaced images because they are constantly displaying every other line of resolution in a matter of microseconds to the point your eyes deceive you into believing you are watching a full image.

As for image quality between the two, they are identical (I have both formats). What matters is the encoding of the disc... not the disc size. For example Warner Brothers and Paramount (before they went HD-DVD exclusive) released titles on both formats... they used the same encodes for each version of the disc. For example, Superman Returns was encoded using VC-1 on BOTH formats, same bitrates, same everything. The Untouchables was encoded on MPEG4 for Blu-Ray and VC-1 on HD-DVD... result.... identical image quality.

Blu-Rays 50GBs and increased bitrate capacity does offer some advantages, but they are minimal. For example, only two Blu-Ray titles have taken advantage of the increased bitrate capacity... both Pirates movies from Disney. While the increase is all fine and dandy the picture difference is imperceptible to the human eye. Most professionals generally accept there is very little difference in picture quality between an image which is displayed at 19mBps and an image displayed at 40mBps, and when you get to 26mBps the human eye cannot even notice the difference. In the end it's a selling point and something to sell to A/V geeks who have to have the latest and greatest... you know the guys who spend $1000 on gold plated speaker cables because it sweetens the sound, or spend $90 on Monster TV cables?

Now the disc capacity can be an advantage if you stuffed lots of extras on the disc with the movie, but most releases still have many of the extras on a separate disc, or like a lot of early Blu-Ray releases, have no extras at all (movie only).

Oh, final note, Paramount is HD-DVD exclusive and it's very doubtful this release will see the light of day on Blu-Ray for at least 2 years if ever.

Enjoy your set Outpost... pre-ordered mine last month!

Yancy

 

[!LuvKJ]

1080i is NOT 1920x540, it is still 1920x1080. The difference is the 1080p updates the picture 60 times a second while 1080i updates the picture 30 times a second. Since film is shot in a rate of 24 frames per second, both 1080i and 1080p require conversion to the standard therefore there won't be a significant difference. If you have a very new or very high end TV, your display may support 1080p@24 frames per second which eliminates this conversion and helps clean up the image in fast motion scenes. If you have a regular 1080p TV you will not see a difference between 1080i and 1080p. Unless you sit pretty close to the screen, you would be hard pressed to see the difference between 1080p and a 720p/1080i TV.

As for HD DVD and Blu Ray. 99% of the movies are encoded 1080p@24 fps. Both formats have 1080p24 players but the budget A2 is for those that don't need or those that don't want to invest to heavily in a format war.

If you use a 1080i Player and a 1080p60 TV, the conversion goes like this:

HD Player (1080p24-->1080i60)----HDMI CABLE to TV--->Display (1080i60-->1080p60)

1080p player
HD Player (1080p24-->1080i60-->1080p60) --HDMI Cable to display (no more conversion)

The only difference is where the conversion takes place, in the player or in the display? The only reason you might see a difference in quality is if the player has a better scaler than your display.

 

[Outpost4]

If you go to avsforum.com or other home theater forums, you'll find a lot of people like the Toshiba HD-A2 for its upconversion capabilities. It looks really good when playing regular DVDs. If anybody is interested, I did a review of this capability, comparing it to a highly regarded upconverting conventional DVD player, the Oppo DV-981HD. It's on dbstalk.com. Over there I'm ggergm and Carl looks out for me.

link

 

[Matt]

Are the TOS HD discs in 1080p format?

If so, maybe I'll order a set and transfer them to some dual layer 50GB BluRay discs. That should reduce the size of the collection to 1/3rd of the original size.

1080p is better than 1080i. This has been proven over and over again... Detractors often just say, "The fields are interlaced to be a single frame, so it's the same." or, "The human eye can't detect the difference." Well since we're on a Star Trek forum, I guess that logic also means Warp 9 isn't better than Warp 1.

BluRay is clearly the long term winner. Stores are dropping the HD-DVD format left and right and going with BluRay. HD-DVD will soon go the way of DivX discs.

If the TOS HD-DVDs are 1080p, that's great but there will be a BluRay set soon enough, so it'll be like having Star Trek: The Motion Picture on BetaMax. (Please, I'm fully aware that Betamax was better than VHS. I'm not drawing that comparison. I'm just saying that it was killed off because of the dominance of VHS, just as the dominance of BluRay is killing HD-DVD.)

 

[Outpost4]

Yes, the discs have 1080p information.

Explain one thing to me, though. Why would you spend $600-900 for a Blu-Ray burner, plus spend the money on the blank discs themselves, which seem to go for about $20 each, when you could buy a $98 player instead? How does it make sense to spend that many extra hundreds of dollars simply to save an inch of shelf space? Sort of seems space conscious and pound foolish to me.

How you can be so absolutely certain of the outcome of a worldwide technological battle is beyond me. But you go right ahead. Hubris is an old word. Humans have probably exhibited it since the first caveman tried to light a fire using wet wood.

It's funny you mention Betamax. Back when, I recommended all of my family buy a Betamax because I was as certain as you are that Beta would win that technological battle. My family followed my advice and never let me forget it. I hope you don't have to eat the 20 years of crow I ate.