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.

Excellent reviews for the hardware and Serenity, Josh...you presented the format well and gave a good synopsis of the pros/cons.

From what I have read, Robo is correct. They will use 2:3 to get to 1080i60.

Re-read my post.

I never said it was output 12FPS, just that the effect of interlacing results in the equivalent of 12FPS. Its still outputing (AFAIK) 24FPS, but as I mentioned, each frame is only half the total image (that the definition of interlacing). So how long does it take to get the whole image? 1/12th of a second.

It may very well convert to a 60i stream; I am not familiar with the Toshiba player processing. Of course, what you have done here is added the equivalent of 6 frames per second, which still doesn't equal the 1080p24 source. All that work and you still aren't where you started with the original source.

Robo is absolutely correct. There's no such thing as 1080i/24. The 1080p/24 data is output as 1080i/60 and can be converted back by the display with no loss of information.

You are mistaken on both counts. There is no "12fps equivalence" in the result of converting 1080p24 to 1080i60. Claiming that there is such an equivalence implies that every other frame of the original image would be thrown away, which is a patently false claim. The player output is not 24fps. It is 30fps (60 fields per second; OK, so it is actually 59.94 fields per second, but that is mostly a non-significant technical detail).

Also, if I am correct that the image data stream contains a flag to indicate to the TV that the source was 24p (I think I remember reading this, but I can't be certain), the TV could easily recreate the original 24p image, with no loss of information at all. The only downside would be that it took extra processing power in the player and TV to produce the same result. Big deal.

Even in your worst case scenario, you would still have a 1080p30 image as a final result, which would be virtually indistinguishable from the original source.

1080p sets probably won't display it as 1080p/24 either. The flicker would be horrible. You are talking about the difference between viewing it 1080i/60 and 1080p/60 and considering the source material is 1080p/24 the difference will be minor. If you think people are having a hard time telling the difference between HD DVD and DVD wait till they try and spot the difference between those two. Better have a close viewing distance.

Excellent. So that must mean that it takes the 24p source, does a 2-3 pulldown to get 30p, and then interlacing to get 60i. The TV gets the 60i signal, combines the frames to get 30p, and then does reverse 2-3 pulldown to get back to 24p.

Or you start with the 24p source and output the 24p. :D

Which one do you think is less likely to have errors? :D

http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_...2_pulldown.htm

Doh! I was so caught up in the details of 24p vs 60i that I completely forgot to consider this aspect. Excellent point, darkside. I am fairly certain that all 1080p displays are fixed at 1080p60, regardless of the input stream. So in this case, the 1080i60 image from the player is converted to 1080p60 by the TV, not back to 1080p24. And the difference between converting from 1080p24-to-1080p60 and 1080i60-to-1080p60 will be insignificant at best.

Now you're getting it! :D

Well, unless you have either a) defective hardware, or b) a faulty connection/cable, neither is more likely to have errors. One just takes more processing than the other. But if you do have errors, you probably have other things to worry about anyway, so a repair call will likely be in order. ;)

BTW, read the last paragraph in the article you linked. It points out that with proper 2:3 reversal (in converting to either 24p or 60p) all of the problems inherent with 2:3 pulldown are eliminated. No interlace artifacts remain. Also, bear in mind that the article was written a long time ago, when progressive scan DVD players were still a rarity. Today, these problems have been conquered quite handily.

Then riddle me this Batman, why the push for 1080p? Why does a 1080i image on my Sony LCD gitter but a 720p image not? Why is a 480p image so much smoother than 480i? It is all in my head?

Why the push for 1080p? Well, as a display technology, 1080p is far superior to 1080i, but to take full advantage of it, you would need a 1080p60 input source. I suspect the main reason people want 1080p HDMI connectivity is so that there are fewer conversions of the image before it reaches the display. But in an all-digital domain, that is really not a big issue (certainly not as problematic as going from digital to analog and back). The other reason people probably want it is because they have been conditioned to believe it must be better, despite the lack of any true 1080p60 programming.

As far as your Sony LCD flickering, I really have no idea. I have a Mitsubishi 1080p DLP, and two Philips 720p LCDs, and I don't experience any flicker or jitter on any of them, regardless of the source (even including standard interlaced NTSC broadcast signals).

[Edited to add]
As an aside, I do know that the quality of the scaler in a TV plays a large part in how it handles various sources. I've owned a total of 4 WS HDTVs, and each of them has had a remarkably good scaler. I recall when I got my first decent progressive scan DVD player about 4 years ago, I connected it to a Toshiba 65" CRT RPTV, and found that the scaler in the TV was so good that I could not detect ANY difference between switching the DVD player from interlace to progressive mode.

Well the quality of the display will also be a factor. Not all HDTVs are of the same quality. In general 1080p will look better than 1080i, but the differences are going to be subtle and some may not notice them at all. I probably would, but I'm not spending the outrageous amount of money a true 1080p TV would cost. I would much rather spend those thousands on content and enjoy them on the good 1080i display I already have. The benefits of a better display are not nearly worth the extra cost at this point. Maybe in a couple of years.

BTW, there will probably never be any 1080p/60 content due to the insane amount of bandwith it would have to use. HDTV will remain at 1080i for a long time to come.

The bickering and lack of solid info (or the presense of misinformation?) in this thread really to me exemplifies the poor rollout & marketing of the new formats. This has been addressed in other threads as well... just another reason to sit back and wait for all parties to get their act straight before buying in.

Good review JoshZ, I enjoy reading your posted material.

More good points, darkside. Unless you are a technology OCD like me ;), it probably isn't worth spending the premium price most 1080p displays command today. In 2 years, it will be a completely different story. But not today.

And I do think we will eventually see 1080p60 programming, but not any time during the next decade or two. :D

Easily the best review of the product so far. Answered alot of my questions. Even though I am a Blu-Ray backer I am excited about the quality and if Blu-Ray didn't exsist I would buy HD-DVD in a heartbeat.