DVDTalk HD-DVD Reviews
 

Toshiba HD-A1 HD-DVD Player review
Serenity HD-DVD review

And here's the main HD-DVD review index page:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/hd.php

More to come.

Right on the Money IMO. The Boot times and the remote are my major gripes as well. I didn't even notice the hidden cover on the remote until I read that!

Suggested corrections to the article:

1. Forgot to mention VC-1 as one of the codecs used (especially since its the codec of choice right now)
2. No need to comment on that other article (composite connection). Sounds unprofessional.
3. No need to comment on 1080p. Personal opinion. Sounds unprofessional.
4. Bias: you mention how HD-DVD is cheaper, but then say the wider studio support is only initially greater for Blu-Ray. Are you suggesting that HD-DVD will always be cheaper? Even in 2 years? Remove the "at least initially" or at it to the HD-DVD price.

But it is cheaper. He's writing a review about what's available now for HD-DVD and what's available for Blue-Ray in the next few months. When the Blue-Ray players come down in price, he can change it. For now, it's a spot on comparison of each camps offering, so that consumers can make an informed decision. Your "nitpicks" are just your Sony bias rearing it's head again.

Then why just say that Blu-Ray has larger studio and CE support? That is what is true now. Why make opinionated predictions about the future? I thought it was a review? Not an opinion piece.

Isn't a review by definition an opinion piece?

Mentioning 1080p is worthwhile because I've read a number of people who point to the lack of 1080p output in this player as one of the major stumbling blocks. I've seen a few who have said that feature alone justifies the 100% premium of Blu-ray. This may clarify for those with laser-focus on that letter "p" what the benefits are and aren't or at least offer them a different perspective on things.

I could see the argument that mentioning the newspaper article could be seen as unprofessional if Josh had actually named the paper, but in context, I don't think it's out of line. He could probably stand to lose the very last sentence in that paragraph since that was already implied, but...

I don't see what has you up in arms about the Blu-ray mention at all. That whole section sounds pretty even-handed to me, and I don't spot any inaccuracies. What Josh said about Blu-ray support is true, at least initially, hence the qualifier.

The usefullness of 1080p over 1080i is an opinion. There are some (including me) who see 1080p as a great improvement over 1080i. This article suggests that those thoughts may be unfounded. That is his opinion, but again, this is a review.

Then why not make the point that the HD-DVD player costs half of what a Blu-Ray player costs "initially"? He can't predict that the studios will flip, and he shouldn't be presenting such an biased and factless opinion in a review.

If I read a movie review, I want to know about the movie, not what other movies are playing that week and how shitty they are in comparison, or how the sequel to this movie is going to be amazing, so I should sit through the first one. Tell me how things stand now, today, and focused on the topic at hand. If people want to do a comparision, they can come to the threads and discuss (just like they always do - that is what this forum is for).

But of course, this is Geoff's site. If he wants to make it seem like Toshiba bought the wine, so be it.

Excellent article. Very well written. Good job Josh.

First of all, opinions and reviews go hand in hand, so what's the problem, exactly? Second, it seems pretty clear to me that the section in question is more heavily driven by facts than opinions.

Some readers are concerned about the lack of 1080p in these players and what that means, exactly, so Josh comments on it accordingly, and that's precisely what a reviewer ought to do. A good review should answer, to the best of the writer's abilities, the most frequently held questions from its readers. I'm not sure what it is you think he should have done instead.

Are there any factual errors or egregious leaps in logic in that section of the review? If so, counter with a list of his mistakes about 1080p.

He's not predicting that the studios will flip, though! "At least initially" implies "things may or may not change", which sounds like a pretty accurate description to me. It's not presented as fact that support will shift. It's not even presented as an <i>opinion</i> that support will shift. There is no "will" at all.

Okay, do this: reword that sentence in such a way that it indicates the current status of things without making it rigidly sound like Blu-ray inarguably, definitively, always and forever will maintain its exclusive CE and studio support and that HD-DVD will be stuck with one manufacturer and three studios. I'm curious what language you'd find more appropriate. Using a word like "currently" or a phrase like "at launch" in its place carries the exact same implication, after all.

A more accurate comparison would be: if you were reading a magazine for a review of a particular car, wouldn't you want to know how it stacks up against other cars in the same class?

I mean, with movies, you have tens of thousands of options. With optical high-definition home video formats, there are two, at least on the horizon. An informed consumer should be aware of what his options are (or will be in the next couple of months).

Josh lists pros and cons for both formats, and there's unambiguously a decent amount of criticism about the HD-A1. How you're reading this as "seem[ing] like Toshiba bought the wine" is mind-boggling. Take off the blu-tinted glasses for a moment and give the review a more level-headed look.

Aren't VC1 and H.264 compression subsets of MPEG4? That's how I understood it. In the review I say "MPEG4 digital compression codecs" (plural). If I'm wrong about that, I will edit the article.

I'm trying to clear up blatant misinformation that's being spread about this product, and that article is a major source of it.

How is it an "opinion" or unprofessional to explain the actual difference between 1080i and 1080p?

I've edited the article to say "The first Blu-Ray players". Does that make you happy? :)

H.264 is, but VC-1 is a spiffed-up version of WMV-9. I don't believe that WMV-9 is based on MPEG-4.

I'm sorry, but I've got to post this for posterity since it was so funny. :lol:

They all have origins in DCT compression, but you are right that VC-1 should not be considered a branch from MPEG-4. VC-1 is indeed basically the WMV-3 (which is the codec used for the WMV-HD discs like T2) codec (the codec is at v. 3 despite Media Player being v. 9) with a few additions.

I would prefer more real bias in the piece just to watch panties become bunched. :)


Good review. Load time makes me a little weary of the format. Wonder if it will be the same for BR.

The load time isn't anything indicative of the format. It is only indicative of this player. To get the product out the door quickly and at a lower price point, Toshiba opted to use a slower, less expensive Intel CPU, and no doubt didn't run the code behind their firmware through as much optimization as they might have otherwise. Some of the slowness may be addressed when the firmware upgrade is made available, but the processor in the unit is what it is. However, I have no doubt that when newer models are released, they will be substantially faster.

As I think back on it, I recall that some of the first generation DVD players took quite a bit longer to load a disc than most players you can buy today.

BR will probably be faster, but the one Japanese model I got to see close up was very slow to boot as well. However, Sony has had Blu-ray players on the market in Japan for awhile and even though they are not exactly the same as the final version of the hardware for the Blu-ray launch this year it has given them time to work out problems like this. I'm betting BR hardware will be much more polished.

The Blu-Ray recorders that have been available in Japan are actually a completely different format than the new Blu-Ray. They both use a blue laser to read HD content, and Sony elected to re-use the brand name, but otherwise they basically started over from scratch.

I find that it bothers me less if I remember to turn on the player before turning on my projector or any other HT equipment. By the time those things are ready, the player has booted up.

Thanks for the clarification. I've edited the review.

As was mentioned, VC-1 is a Microsoft codec based on WMV9. I'm not sure of its origins, but its current state is very different from MPEG-4.

Much better!

Since this is the only thing that needs to be addressed now:

You will be hard to find a TV manufacturer who doesn't offer a 1080p TV with 1080p input in their 2006 product line. 1080p TVs with 1080p input are no longer the rare bird they were last year. The new Samung DLP TVs are out right now and accept a 1080p signal. If you can't find a TV that accepts 1080p, its because you're looking in a shoe store.

I also disagree with the statement made by Projector Central. Film is stored on the disc as 1080p/24. That means a full 1080p image is sent 24 times a second. If you interlace that, it means that you are sending half the image 24 times a second, or a complete 1080p image 12 times a second. You have just cut your frame rate in half. Of course, the TV compensates for that by using its own internal processor to deinterlace the signal, but once you cut it up, you can never get back to the original version.

An image which is presented to the TV in whole is better than half an image which has to be processed back together into a single image. To say there's no advantage to 1080p can only be made when disregarding the source material.

This claim seems ridiculous to me. I have never heard of any such thing as a 12fps mode for ANY resolution of HD. Such a frame rate would be so slow that realistic motion could not be represented and no one would find that acceptable at all, especially videophiles (the people who have seen the new Toshiba player and found the image to be quite remarkable).

Unless the engineers at Toshiba are certifiable morons, they are using a 2:3 pulldown in the player to convert the 1080p24 image to 1080i60, which a 1080p-capable TV could then handle in one of two ways. Either it could de-interlace the image into 1080p30, or it could de-interlace it back to its native 1080p24 (assuming there is sufficient information in the data stream to tell the TV what the original frame rate was). But in either case, the ultimate frame rate would be no better or worse than the original 1080p24 source.

Robo's comments mesh with what I've read on AVS.

The signal displays half the horizontal for 1/24th of a second, and then the second half the next 1/24th of a second. That means it takes 2/24th of a second (1/12th of a second) to display the complete image, which is equivalent to 12FPS.

The signal is being deinterlaced, which is part of the problem. You have the Toshiba taking the signal and interlacing it, then (assuming you have a 1080p TV) the TV is then de-interlacing it. This leads to inconsistances in the picture as the process is never perfect on either end.

For anyone who owns an LCD TV, you know the difference between interlaced and progressive signals and how much better a progressive signal performs on your display.

Did you even read what I wrote? There is no 12fps mode in HD, and it would be monumentally stupid to use one, even if it existed. It is very easy to convert a 24p stream to a 60i stream, and there is no reason to assume that this is not what happens in the Toshiba player. If you have a definitive source that backs up your claim, please post it.