the HD-DVD clearance sales like I am. I was over reading a review of the movie Sahara from high-def digest and out of curiosity I had a look at the Blu-Ray release of it (prior to Paramount going HD-DVD exclusive) and I found this little quote interesting

"'Sahara' was one of the first Paramount HD DVD titles I chose to review, and as I remarked then, watching the film's transfer is like stepping out into a bright desert oasis -- lush, vibrant and as shiny as a new penny. So I was excited to see how the presentation would compare on Blu-ray, though sadly this is one of the few Paramount titles thus far that doesn't quite match its HD DVD rival. (Note that like all of Paramount's initial Blu-ray titles, 'Sahara' is presented in 1080p/MPEG-2 video.)"

So it seems that for those of us interested in the early Paramount high-def releases that we are better off getting the HD-DVD version.

Yup, at that time BD titles released were just "badly made".

I would blame Paramount or direct to the group of people who "convert" the film to Blu-ray, and not generalize it (although you didn't).

Note that Sahara Blu-ray is only in 25GB BD-ROM disc. If Paramount want to make better picture quality, they can do so and release in Dual layer 50GB disc. Not to mention the audio, there is no lossless PCM or DTS-HD or DTS-HD MA on the movie.

Well of course they can, but thus far Paramount is the only movie studio that hasn't made an announcement yet (of course it's all but imminent). Then again you know good and well if they re-vamp it you are going to end up paying a premium for the sucker and I don't know if it will be enough of an improvement to be worth the extra price-tag.

Don't assume that a 50GB disc is a requirement for top-quality image. BD's biggest problem thus far has been the reliance on MPEG-2, which does require massive file sizes for high quality. With MPEG-4 and SKILLFUL encoding, dual-layer discs are not a requirement unless they want to include many hours of extras.

Yup, and if they decide to do the extras in HD.