No, in the original article it's not misinformation. It's opinion and speculation, identified as such. For you to cite this as cold-hard fact without anything else to back it up, that's when it becomes misinformation.

You don't even have a consensus of opinions. You just have one guy who thinks it might be "something in the VC-1 encoding process". For you to spin this into supposed proof that VC-1 removes film grain, at best that's an intentional misrepresentation of the original article.

I agree with Rock. We would naturally discuss what someone wrote in an article, and the fact that the author is also a poster should make no difference.

If you cite bullshit, you're gonna be called out on it.

I think this thread needs to be archived.

I cite two different reviewers, one who reviews Blu-ray and one who reviews HD DVD, both mentioning how the prints are suspiciously lacking grain, and that their may be a process to remove the grain, and you call that bullshit? Huh. You must have access to the white papers then, right?

Just to get over this, let's just call it my theory. As it is my theory, I can state it as fact (if I didn't, wouldn't be much of a theory). If you can disprove my theory, go for it, post the white papers. If you have a conflicting theory, that's fine as well, but I sure as hell don't have to acknowledge it in my writing.

The facts are out there somewhere, but no one here has access to those facts, so we're all just guessing. My guess is what I believe to be fact, and thus I can state it as so.

Your guess is what you believe to be fact? If that isn't a contradiction...

And for the record:

the‧o‧ry  /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
2. contemplation or speculation.
3. guess or conjecture.


fraud
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin fraud- fraus
1 a : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage; specifically : a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby b : the affirmative defense of having acted in response to a fraud

Good job! But try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

So you're a scientist now? You've graduated from Blu-Ray & HD DVD University, with a Doctorate, and you have enough background knowledge on which to base your highly scientific guess...er, theory?

No one said that you can't discuss "what someone wrote in an article". The problem is that way too may of the posts in this thread have been about a member, not actually about the article.

That explanation doesn't really help you. Paraphrasing the apple example, it is a fact that some people have noticed an absence of grain on certain HD titles, and one theory that explains the absence of grain is your theory that it's caused by VC-1 compression.

Even the "fact" in this case is in dispute, since some see the grain, some don't. However, even if we take the grain loss as factual, just because your theory lines up with the facts doesn't mean it's factual itself.

Let's apply that to the apple example. If a person has his back turned when the apple falls, does that mean the apple didn't fall? And thus there is no basis for the theory of gravity? Obviously, you are going to have different results based on what type of equipment is being used and the person viewing it. Grain is not something that can be measured beyond the relative term (having more grain than another).

Again, some see the same thing as me, some don't. What does that mean? Well, two different theories. But they don't cancel each other out. They co-exist. Being that I have the theory that grain is being removed, I can state that as fact (I have never claimed to be an expert or representative of SMPTE, thus I have no claimed expertise).

List of logical falliacies in Joshd's argument:

Hasty generalization: How many VC-1-encoded titles have you seen? I have sixty or so in my collection and see film grain to some extent on nearly every single one of them.

Post hoc: "I don't see film grain, therefore VC-1 must be removing it."

Stacking the Deck: Joshd ignores all VC-1 titles with film grain and focuses primarily on one -- and just one! -- that (according to a minority of reviewers, both of whom review for the same website) doesn't.

No, you can state that as a theory. I don't see how that's so tough to understand.

Al Gore didn't make a film saying, "Global Warming is killing the planet!... maybe". It was his theory, so he stated it as fact. If a person doesn't believe his own theory, its really quite useless.

And Adam, I never said VC-1 always removes grain. I said it conceals it better. You can still see grain, but see less of it than originally there.

It reeks of baseless, agenda-pushing bullshit to me, but there's nothing in the forum rules against baseless, agenda-pushing bullshit. If this is what you believe, go for it, but without any real evidence to support your theory, you will encounter a great many people who will vehemently disagree with you.

That's my 'theory' as well. So I can apparently state it as fact. This is baseless, agenda-pushing bullshit.

Has it not occurred to you that VC-1 may present the film grain actually there while MPEG2 may exaggerate it as video noise?

I have a theory that JoshD knows he's wrong and is being deliberately deceitful. I'm just going to go ahead and state that as fact.

Honestly, what do you base saying that on? Are you taking what I say too personal and making conclusions based on what you think my character is? Are you simply concluding that I am wrong without looking into it deeper because of who said it? If so, that is truly sad.

Like I have showed repeatedly, I am far from the only person who has seen this. I am not the first, nor the last person to put it in writing.

Of course, for those of you who believe that Super-35 can produce a non-grainy print are just crazy anyways

You count yourself as someone putting it in writing? Didn't you basically just summarize what other people said, or have you witnessed this personally? Do you have screencaps to demonstrate what you are talking about? Where's the "proof" to your theory. Quoting "sources" isn't proof of your own theory.

You've made it clear that you have a rampant dislike for Microsoft, and VC-1 is a codec closely associated with Microsoft. You've made it equally clear that Sony in your eyes can do little-to-no wrong. MPEG-2 is a codec closely associated with Sony.

Give me something substantial to support your claims and I'll consider them. My conclusions are drawn from watching a great many of these movies, from seven years of reviewing various home video formats, having watched hundreds of movies in high-definition, and having watched thousands of movies in various formats. I've been immersed in home theater since before I'd ever heard the term coined. A great many people I respect have cast doubt on claims similar to yours. Yes, I feel that I'm more informed than you are, and no, there is no apparent merit to your theory whatsoever.

Yes, there's Chad Varnadore, a Blu-ray reviewer from Home Theater Spot, HTS' David Vaughn making a guess, and Isaac Hunt, an AVS user who doesn't appear to even own a player.

Again: you're the one making a bold claim, and it's up to you to at least attempt to substantiate it.

So based on the fact that I like PS2 better than Xbox, I hate all things Microsoft? And because Blu-ray is a better solution (for me) than HD DVD, than I think they can do no wrong? Wow, read what I write, not what you think I am implying.

Good for you.

Don't forget about Gary Murrell, who up until recently, was the biggest diehard supporter of HD DVD. He owns both player, btw.

I do not have the means to do a proper comparison over the Internet, though I'm not sure if that would satisfy your desire to discredit me either.

In regards to Gary, he thinks everything looks amazing. So I tend not to follow his recommendations.

When Gary can write a coherent sentence (no offense to him), then I'll take his word with more than a pound of salt. Ditto with Mr. Cinema's statement, too.

The writer's motivations are definitely open for discussion. There are plenty of us Josh first on the list, that criticize anything Amir has to say about BD and HD DVD due to Microsoft's ties to HD DVD.

But are we allowed to disagree with him? THAT is the problem. If WE can't say something then the staff needs to flush those with such a blatant biased agenda.