Hi Folks,

I was browsing the posts this morning and bumped into a story about the Nine Inch Nails concert video being released on both HD DVD and Bluray.

It was filmed using progressive (non-interlaced) 1080p cameras, which are becoming the latest thing now. As you know, these record in 1080p30, instead of 1080i60.

Now the HD DVD is being released as 1080p30.

BUT... the Bluray disc version is being released as 1080i60 because Bluray cannot support progressive video at 1080p30.

Whoooaahh...

Stacey confirmed this here http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8916888&&#post8916888

from the BD ROM A/V specs:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/4159/11182006154000gz6.th.png (http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=11182006154000gz6.png)

I'm truly disappointed

Could someone explain this in layman's terms why this is such a disappointing thing for Blu-ray? Thanks!

Yeah... I see 24p and 60i, what else do you need?

Yeah... I see 24p and 60i, what else do you need?
If it was shot at 1080p 30Hz you would NEED 1080p 30Hz or 1080p 60Hz to show native. ;)

Well, I'm not sure if you realize that 1080i60 and 1080p30, done properly, is exactly the same thing as long as the source is recorded progressively? You take one full frame of 1080p video, split it into 2 interlaced fields and record on disc. During playback, both interlaced fields should be reassembled into one full frame, exactly the way it was when recorded and maybe double the frame rate to 60 Hz. Of course the key word here is "if done properly", because you could also reassemble field number 2 of frame 1 with field number 1 of frame 2 and have horrible motion artifacts. Also I don't understand why they have to have 1080i60, why not simply double the frame rate and record 1080p60? Do those people know what are they doing??? Not many TV's can handle 30 frame rate anyway and most of the time 1080p30 needs to be changed to 1080p60 by the player before the signal goes to TV. It's not like BR discs don't have enough space to handle extra data?

1080p30 is still fairly uncommon so I don't know of any current deinterlacing chips that can deinterlace or inverse telecine 1080i60 back to 1080p30. It is not really hard to do. For instance my UnComb filter on my web page does it simply. But you first have to know that you are even supposed to do it and any automatic detection of that vs all the other forms of deinterlacing and inverse telecine can get tricky. So I sort of doubt most TV's can do it correctly yet. But hopefully I'm wrong.

- Tom

Could someone explain this in layman's terms why this is such a disappointing thing for Blu-ray? Thanks!
It's always better to save the video to the disc in the original native format.

For instance, if HD DVD was saving movies to disc as 1080i60, instead of 1080p24, this point would be (rightly) highlighted as an oversight.
Film is native 1080p24.

Video, at 1080p30, should be saved in it's original format also.

Even though the video could be theoretically reassembled by a VP or your TV set, it represents an unusual format that most TVs probably might not understand how to re-assemble - as they would not likely EXPECT to have come across 1080i60 video that DOESN'T have interfield motion.

1080p30 is still fairly uncommon so I don't know of any current deinterlacing chips that can deinterlace or inverse telecine 1080i60 back to 1080p30. It is not really hard to do. For instance my UnComb filter on my web page does it simply. But you first have to know that you are even supposed to do it and any automatic detection of that vs all the other forms of deinterlacing and inverse telecine can get tricky. So I sort of doubt most TV's can do it correctly yet. But hopefully I'm wrong.


But, since it will be sent to the TV as 1080i/60 or 1080p/60, wouldn't this mean you need 1080p/60 to be safe?


Gary

What a blow to Blu-Ray! A concert in HD will have to be 1080i60! STOP THE BLU-RAY DISC MACHINES!! This is it!

Why dont you petition HD-DVD to have playback at oh, i dont know,1080p24? Oh thats right, ITS NOT IN THE SPEC FOR THE HARDWARE. And none of HD-DVD players in existance or being made do 1080p24. Theres plenty for Blu-Ray. Of course, that would be the best solution in terms of FILM, which is what these devices were mainly intended for. But hey, you get 1080i30! ROCKIN!!! Seriously, this thread is so hilarious on so many levels.

And none of HD-DVD players in existance or being made do 1080p24.


People has been successfully doing 24p/72p from HD DVD for a long time either by using software player or video processor. HD DVD player with 24p output feature will come shortly. It is certainly in their agenda otherwise why bother discussing it under a special DVD Forum meeting early this Nov? I expect 24p to be a standard feature next year for players from both camp. AFAIK, the only two 24p capable blu-ray players has not on the market yet.

BTW, both HD DVD and blu-ray are encoded at 24p for film. This no 30p in spec thing might force blu-ray to encode it as 60i which might mean they have to convert the 30p master into 60i before sending it into the encoder. If this is true, will it make any difference for the end user? I personally don't think so. But some blu-ray supporters and Joe Kane disagree. Thelion? :)

Hope some insiders could clarify the situation.

The impact of this is the inability to burn 30p home videos to BD AND have it play on a BD player. Note the AND. Thus, if you own a new HD camera such as the Canon XH-A1, you have to figure out some other means of distribution. The bleeding edge of technology has its price. Everything is always a year away or 365 days late.

It may have been envisioned that 30p would be subsumed by 60p, in the BD camp. A slight waste of bandwidth, but who cares if you have the space?

It may have been envisioned that 30p would be subsumed by 60p, in the BD camp. A slight waste of bandwidth, but who cares if you have the space?

60p native will never be the thing for bluray/hd dvd. They need to get 10bit/48p first.

Now the HD DVD is being released as 1080p30.

BUT... the Bluray disc version is being released as 1080i60 because Bluray cannot support progressive video at 1080p30.True, but I would point out that though Blu-ray does not support native 1080p30 video that it does support native 1080p24 video. HD DVD on the other hand does not support native 1080p24 video, which I consider to be more of a problem. Now of course you can use flags with 1080i60 to indicate that it is 24 fps or 30 fps video.


For instance, if HD DVD was saving movies to disc as 1080i60, instead of 1080p24, this point would be (rightly) highlighted as an oversight.
Film is native 1080p24.rdjam, how can you support HD DVD so strongly and not know that it can not natively encode video at 1080p24? Read the HD DVD specs and see for yourself in section 5.2.1 of the "Requirements Specification for HD DVD Video Application".


Even though the video could be theoretically reassembled by a VP or your TV set, it represents an unusual format that most TVs probably might not understand how to re-assemble - as they would not likely EXPECT to have come across 1080i60 video that DOESN'T have interfield motion.Actually re-assembling 30 fps video at 1080i60 is rather easy and most video processors can recognize it.


The impact of this is the inability to burn 30p home videos to BD AND have it play on a BD player. This is only for BD-ROM movies and it would be a bit of a jump to assume that it would be the same for BD-RE movies.

True, but I would point out that though Blu-ray does not support native 1080p30 video that it does support native 1080p24 video. HD DVD on the other hand does not support native 1080p24 video, which I consider to be more of a problem. Now of course you can use flags with 1080i60 to indicate that it is 24 fps or 30 fps video.


Is this Richard? :) I couldn't believe you are still spreading this no 1080p24 for HD DVD FUD. Give me a break. Other blu-ray supporters at least only attack on the 24p output issue which I think is fair and worth a push.

Also the 24p to 60i/60p conversion is happening on the player side for HD DVD and with proper implementation HD DVD could also output the "pristine 24p"
This 30p-60i might happen on the encoding side for blu-ray which means 30p master might be forced to 60i before encoding. If this is true, tell me which do you consider to be more of a problem?

Yay - 30p HD DVDs.

So, which player will have 1080p 30 fps output?

What is the difference between video stored as 30 frames progressive and the same information stored at 60 fields interlaced?

Sounds a lot like 30fps PSF (Progressive Segmented Frame) to me.

can hd dvd display a true 1080p24 signal without any conversion?

can hd dvd display a true 1080p24 signal without any conversion?

As I understand it currently none of the set top players, BD or HD DVD can do this.

Currently none of the HD DVD players do 1080p at any frame rate.

The Pioneer is expected to do 24 fps and perhaps the Sony when they are released.

Perhaps someone can fill in whether the XA2 HD DVD player will handle this though from what I have heard it is a post-decode deinterlacer like the current 1080p BD solutions and is priced similarly.

can hd dvd display a true 1080p24 signal without any conversion?


Someone using software player has doing 24p/72hz from HD DVD on his CRT FP for a long time. Decoder suppliers confirmed it was doable for HD DVD also.


What is the difference between video stored as 30 frames progressive and the same information stored at 60 fields interlaced?


I guess there should be no difference if IVTC properly. Based on the same logic, the 24p->60i/p->24p/48p/72p should make no difference than 24p->48p/72p. Some blu-ray supporters don't agree with this and Joe Kane seems to have a problem with the extra step also.

To make the matter worse, for blu-ray the 30p master-60i might happen before the encoding. So if there is anything loss during the 30p-60i conversion such as filtering, it couldn't be undo. However for HD DVD, the 24p-60i is happening inside the player. If the conversion is not perfect, you always have a chance for a new player or video processor to get it right.

BTW, how many video footage are shoot in 30p mode?
AFAIK, blu-ray doesn't have 25p in spec also and has to encode 25p native as 50i on disc. Is this also true?

If you weave it, you get 1080P60. But weave is the wrong default setting for 1080i because of all the sports and musicVideo programming at true 1080i which should be 'bobbed'. Which means unless you set the mode on your player (which can be done in PC, but doubtful on TVs), it can work --- if you have the option, just select 'film' or 'movie' and it will weave. (It might try to do some 3:2 thing too, which would be bad).

I'm not aware of the use of 1080P30 as the 'latest thing'. Where can I get this 'latest thing'. My HDR-HC3 and HDR-UX1 both can only do 1080i60, not 1080P30.

If it is the latest thing, there's no question, I have to get it. So where can I find this amazing gadget?

What a blow to Blu-Ray! A concert in HD will have to be 1080i60! STOP THE BLU-RAY DISC MACHINES!! This is it!

Why dont you petition HD-DVD to have playback at oh, i dont know,1080p24? Oh thats right, ITS NOT IN THE SPEC FOR THE HARDWARE. And none of HD-DVD players in existance or being made do 1080p24. Theres plenty for Blu-Ray. Of course, that would be the best solution in terms of FILM, which is what these devices were mainly intended for. But hey, you get 1080i30! ROCKIN!!! Seriously, this thread is so hilarious on so many levels.This post was a little hilarious. :)

This is a real issue. I'm not saying it is a big deal, but I think Blu-ray would be better if they supported 1080p30 storage in the long run, than not supporting it. At the least it would help compression with those sources since compressing full frames should be easier than compressing interlaced fields. I know they already have more headroom, but 1080p30 storage would be nice. What the HD DVD players end up doing with things stored as 1080p30 in the long run makes a difference also. Hopefully they will be able to output 1080p60 from that where basically the only thing they are doing is frame doubling. They could interlace to 1080i60 before output, which is what I suspect the HD-A1 and others like it do.

--Darin

This post was a little hilarious. :)

This is a real issue. I'm not saying it is a big deal, but I think Blu-ray would be better if they supported 1080p30 storage in the long run, than not supporting it. At the least it would help compression with those sources since compressing full frames should be easier than compressing interlaced fields. I know they already have more headroom, but 1080p30 storage would be nice. What the HD DVD players end up doing with things stored as 1080p30 in the long run makes a difference also. Hopefully they will be able to output 1080p60 from that where basically the only thing they are doing is frame doubling. They could interlace to 1080i60 before output, which is what I suspect the HD-A1 and others like it do.

--Darin
Looking at the internals of MPEG2 and AVC and VC-1, I think the format can be supported as frame picture and frame motion all the way to the point of decode. Which means there should be an easy way to add a 1080P mode to the BD spec in V2.x and have firmware upgrades to the players that have hdmi chips that can support that mode. But what next?

The clincher is : I don't know of a TV that takes 1080P30. There are ones that can take 1080P60 or 1080P48/72 --- if your HDMI output chip can really generate 1080P60, turning on the weave flag and sending 1080i YUV to that HDMI chip should make it work.

Still, it should be enabled if it is indeed the newest cool thing under the sun (which I doubt).

Someone using software player has doing 24p/72hz from HD DVD on his CRT FP for a long time. Decoder suppliers confirmed it was doable for HD DVD also.

I'm not talking about software. you can do almost anything with a software based solution. are there any present or upcoming standalone hd dvd players than can display 1080p24 signal, and if not why?

I'm not talking about software. you can do almost anything with a software based solution.

Didn't I say decoder suppliers confirmed 24p is doable for HD DVD? Also if the software could do it, what makes you think the hardware couldn't? Oh, VP50 could even give you 24p from 1080p60 input.

are there any present or upcoming standalone hd dvd players than can display 1080p24 signal, and if not why?

I only know for a fact that none of current blu-ray players could do 24p. Upcoming HD DVD players with 24p output? Of course there is such player in the pipeline, otherwise DVD Forum wouldn't hold a meeting this Nov on this very topic. Also, you could put Genum/HQV chip inside and get perfect 24p for HD DVD movie. People do that today with two piece of equipment. You just need someone to put them into one case.

Last I thought this thread is about no 30p for blu-ray, no?

Actually re-assembling 30 fps video at 1080i60 is rather easy and most video processors can recognize it.

Richard -

I was not aware of that.

If most can do this, to which format do they convert? And in which format is the video then passed to your TV or display?

- Tom

What do 1080p panels do with true 1080i/60 right now? If there is no interfield motion, then what happens?

Gary

What do 1080p panels do with true 1080i/60 right now? If there is no interfield motion, then what happens?
Gary

Simple weave should recover the original 1080p30. At least I hope so. But TheLion would be the first to disagree. :) I am also a little bit worried about the 30p master-60i process before encoding. If you use interlaced compression algorithm for a progressive source, would it be any different from the native progressive encoding? Blu-ray might have the same concern for native 25p source. AFAIK, it only has 50i in spec.

I fail to see where this is some kind of giant problem. It's not like the entire world of movie entertainment was captured at 30fps progressive in the first place, it was captured at 24fps on film and the newer digital cameras also are used at 24fps.

Even if you store a native captured 30p at 60i there is no temporal distortion to recover the 30p for display. This is unlike the awful mess we have with 24fps converted to 30fps and trying to recover the original 24fps without error to eliminate the judder.

b2b

Originally Posted by Richard Paul
Actually re-assembling 30 fps video at 1080i60 is rather easy and most video processors can recognize it.

Good 2-2 is more difficult than 2-3 and is why the Genesis chip in the Samsung cannot do it. If you watch 1080p out of the Samsung, you will get 1080p that has been deinterlaced via motion adaptive instead of correctly weaved. They don't attempt 2-2 because they don't have a good algorithm that is reliable.

The National in the Panasonic can perform 2-2, but its not reliable either. At least it drops to video instead of weaving when it should not. :)

Your best bet is an external box from ABT, Gennum or Silicon Optix. (As I said in the original thread.)

1080p30 is rare, so it is far from the end of the world. This and the limit on the number of B frames in BD is surpising.

Good 2-2 is more difficult than 2-3 and is why the Genesis chip in the Samsung cannot do it. If you watch 1080p out of the Samsung, you will get 1080p that has been deinterlaced via motion adaptive instead of correctly weaved. They don't attempt 2-2 because they don't have a good algorithm that is reliable.


Isn't the source 24fps or 60i (30fps) content an obvious flag to use downstream for the de-interlacing? You would assume they would never waste space by encoding 24fps content as 60i.

Gary

You would assume they would never waste space by encoding 24fps content as 60i.

24fps source if flagged as 60i on HD DVD, so you are encoding only 24 progressive pictures per second. 30fps source is flagged as 30p on HD DVD, so you are encoding 30 progressive pictures per second. 60i is flagged as 60i on HD DVD, so you are encoding 60 half pictures (interlaced) per second. (I don't want to call it 30fps)

These flags don't make it to the Genesis chip. I am not sure if they make it to the National, but I am sure I can construct a synthetic sequence to figure it out.

Is this Richard? :) I couldn't believe you are still spreading this no 1080p24 for HD DVD FUD. Give me a break. Other blu-ray supporters at least only attack on the 24p output issue which I think is fair and worth a push.No offense but where the heck is the outrage at rdjam for making another attack Blu-ray thread? Honestly it sickens me that it has gotten to the point where attacks against the format you don't like are so common on this forum. Also I was very fair in my post and I did point out that you can use flags to get 1080p24 video from 1080i60. As such calling it FUD is pure exaggeration and I did point out that you can get 1080p24 from 1080i60. Also I only brought it up since it seems somewhat hypocritical to attack Blu-ray for lacking native 1080p30 support while ignoring the lack of native 1080p24 support in HD DVD.


This 30p-60i might happen on the encoding side for blu-ray which means 30p master might be forced to 60i before encoding. If this is true, tell me which do you consider to be more of a problem?Well if we assume the worst possible for Blu-ray and the best possible for HD DVD I might agree with you about the lack of 1080p30 being a bigger problem. I don't think that is likely though.


Someone using software player has doing 24p/72hz from HD DVD on his CRT FP for a long time. Decoder suppliers confirmed it was doable for HD DVD also.The first statement is true, but required additional processing to achieve. As for the second statement of course that is true but than again you can get 1080p24 output from DVD if you are willing to jump through enough hoops.


To make the matter worse, for blu-ray the 30p master-60i might happen before the encoding. So if there is anything loss during the 30p-60i conversion such as filtering, it couldn't be undo.
...
AFAIK, blu-ray doesn't have 25p in spec also and has to encode 25p native as 50i on disc. Is this also true?Are you the same person who accused me of spreading FUD by pointing out a fact? A tad funny since you seem to be going out of your way to attack Blu-ray in your posts.


If most can do this, to which format do they convert? And in which format is the video then passed to your TV or display? I was speaking of converting it from 1080i60 to 1080p60. I admit Tom that I don't know as much about video processors as you do and since Stacey also disagreed with me I might have heard wrong about this. Also do you know whether Blu-ray uses flags when encoding 30 fps video at 1080i60? A few posters are hinting that it won't happen so it would be interesting to get confirmation on that one way or the other.

In terms of the format war, the lack of 1080p30 support is (almost) completely irrelevant. Nobody cares, except a few of us geeks. In fact, most people's eyes would just glaze over if you tried to explain it.

24fps source if flagged as 60i on HD DVD, so you are encoding only 24 progressive pictures per second. 30fps source is flagged as 30p on HD DVD, so you are encoding 30 progressive pictures per second. 60i is flagged as 60i on HD DVD, so you are encoding 60 half pictures (interlaced) per second. (I don't want to call it 30fps)

These flags don't make it to the Genesis chip. I am not sure if they make it to the National, but I am sure I can construct a synthetic sequence to figure it out.

I thought the issue was with BD. Is there an issue here with HD DVD too?

How can 60i be represented on the BD disc? Doesn't DVD allow the encoder to store weaved (480) or left separate (240)? It can choose the best compression strategy.

Gary

In terms of the format war, the lack of 1080p30 support is (almost) completely irrelevant. Nobody cares, except a few of us geeks. In fact, most people's eyes would just glaze over if you tried to explain it.

My eyes glaze over trying to understand why it is so difficult to do what should be the easiest from a technology standpoint...

film 24p -> encode disc 24p -> decode disc and output to display at 24p -> display 24p (@72 Hz).

b2b

My eyes glaze over trying to understand why it is so difficult to do what should be the easiest from a technology standpoint...

film 24p -> encode disc 24p -> decode disc and output to display at 24p -> display 24p (@72 Hz).
Market realities far outweigh theoretical advantages, and the reality is that almost no TVs support this anyway, and few people would actually notice the difference.

I mean, if I were selling a $10000 40" TV, I'd make sure 72 Hz support for potential 24p inputs were supported.

However, if I were selling a $2000 40" TV in 2007, I wouldn't care if it didn't support 24p input.

Market realities far outweigh theoretical advantages, and the reality is that almost no TVs support this anyway, and few people would actually notice the difference.

I mean, if I were selling a $10000 40" TV, I'd make sure 72 Hz support for potential 24p inputs were supported.

However, if I were selling a $2000 40" TV in 2007, I wouldn't care if it didn't support 24p input.

Well all the latest rage for advertising displays is 1080P. Maybe the next rage will be 1080p24.

It does make a difference. I was checking out a Samsung player demo and the first artifact I noticed was judder in all it's HD glory.. That's the problem with HD, all the good it makes better and all the bad it makes worse.

b2b

Why not support full 1080p/60 instead (neither Blu-Ray nor HD-DVD have this yet)? If you happen to have a 1080p/30 source, you could double the frames before encoding. On the other hand, sources like ESPN want to start archiving sports at 1080p/60 and have been pushing for this for a while.

With AVC you can even sport 10 bit, 4:4:4 encoding (don't know about VC-1) and Blu-Ray certainly has the bitrates to do it. Easily if you add BD-50 into the mix.

Dan

Well all the latest rage for advertising displays is 1080P. Maybe the next rage will be 1080p24.
Maybe, but not in 2007, or even 2008.

It does make a difference. I was checking out a Samsung player demo and the first artifact I noticed was judder in all it's HD glory.. That's the problem with HD, all the good it makes better and all the bad it makes worse.
I notice judder, but the judder that I notice most often is due to the 24p source. Tripling it to 72p doesn't fix this for panning scenes etc. However, most people don't seem to care about this either.

I agree that higher end hardware should address this type of stuff, but I can understand if a consumer electronics company may not want to divert too many resources to this for its mainstream stuff at this time.

Maybe, but not in 2007, or even 2008.


I notice judder, but the judder that I notice most often is due to the 24p source. Tripling it to 72p doesn't fix this for panning scenes etc. However, most people don't seem to care about this either.

I agree that higher end hardware should address this type of stuff, but I can understand if a consumer electronics company may not want to divert too many resources to this for its mainstream stuff at this time.

Judder is not caused by the 24p source, it is caused when 24p material has 3:2 pulldown applied to create 30fps.
Telecine judder

The "3:2 pulldown" telecine process creates a slight error in the video signal compared to the original film frames that can be seen in the above image. This is one reason why NTSC films viewed on typical home equipment may not appear as smooth as when viewed in a cinema. The phenomenon is particularly apparent during slow, steady camera movements which appear slightly jerky when telecined. This process is commonly referred to as telecine judder. Reversing the 2-3 pulldown telecine is discussed below.

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

Keeping all parts of the chain @ 24p, including display, will eliminate judder.

b2b

Judder is not caused by the 24p source, it is caused when 24p material has 3:2 pulldown applied to create 30fps.

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

Keeping all parts of the chain @ 24p, including display, will eliminate judder.

b2b
Of course. However, 'judder' doesn't automatically mean 'telecine judder'.

Judder in pans caused the low 24p frame rate cannot be corrected by a 72 Hz display.

Anyways this is all esoterica that the average HD consumer hasn't even heard about, much less cares about.

I only know for a fact that none of current blu-ray players could do 24p. Upcoming HD DVD players with 24p output? Of course there is such player in the pipeline, otherwise DVD Forum wouldn't hold a meeting this Nov on this very topic. Also, you could put Genum/HQV chip inside and get perfect 24p for HD DVD movie. People do that today with two piece of equipment. You just need someone to put them into one case.

Last I thought this thread is about no 30p for blu-ray, no?

the upcoming pioneer player supports 1080p24, and so does the sony. I seriously don't understand how you guys can gripe about lack of 1080p30 when in fact hd dvd doesnt even support 1080p24, which is what the vast majority of material on these disks will be :confused:

so which upcoming hd dvd player supports 1080p24?

from the BD ROM A/V specs:


I don't see 25p either and that's not uncommon at all in the UK and Europe! BBC be damned? The parts of the BD spec I've seen as not very forward thinking are small and subtle, but annoying and very MPEG-2 and SD DVD-centric. Like they updated the BR's, interactivity, and disc size, and that's about it. DVD Forum actually updated a ton in comparison.

30p is very common in video compression. Deinterlacing can work pretty well, I've seen, in fooling the public, so I can't DI all the ECM we encode for HD DVD and reuse on BD. It's not major as we move to VC-1 very soon, but still it's annoying.

Layman's terms? A hat need to be stored as a complete hat, not shredded and put back together by the decoder or the monitor for that matter.

Cjplay.

the upcoming pioneer player supports 1080p24, and so does the sony. I seriously don't understand how you guys can gripe about lack of 1080p30 when in fact hd dvd doesnt even support 1080p24, which is what the vast majority of material on these disks will be :confused:

so which upcoming hd dvd player supports 1080p24?

We're talking storage. HD DVD stores 24p just fine. Decoding? Screw that as it can change constantly.

Cjplay.

the upcoming pioneer player supports 1080p24, and so does the sony. I seriously don't understand how you guys can gripe about lack of 1080p30 when in fact hd dvd doesnt even support 1080p24, which is what the vast majority of material on these disks will be :confused:

so which upcoming hd dvd player supports 1080p24?

HD DVD's 1080i output has ALL of the 1080p native information of the disc and of the original movie. HD DVD player 1080i output is easily reassembled 100% perfectly to the native 1080p 24 or 48 Hz.

FYI we will have 1080p 24/60 selectable HD DVD players.

-Robert

so which upcoming hd dvd player supports 1080p24?


I will give you a hint. Don't be surprised that all hd dvd players including the released one would have 90% of the chance to do 24p output upon a firmware upgrade. They should nail rest 10% after this Dec. :D

In terms of the format war, the lack of 1080p30 support is (almost) completely irrelevant. Nobody cares, except a few of us geeks. In fact, most people's eyes would just glaze over if you tried to explain it.

You just don't know you care. ;) I do. The IME on Warner's HD DVDs are 30p. It'd have to be 30i on BD for even the secondary decoder and that takes bits away from the feature. Care yet?

Extras should be done as DI'd 30p to make room for the feature. Distributors care as this can normally be done in real time good enough to fool the consumer.

IPTV/VOD should be done DI'd 30p to save bandwidth and costs of the cable company so they can fight the price war with Satellite and IPTV. I'm still caring!

Everyone in the distribution arms care about 30p in a lot of places. It's so important, it's in the HD Video spec (see attachment). It's also got 25p, btw.

Cjplay.

You just don't know you care. ;) I do. The IME on Warner's HD DVDs are 30p. It'd have to be 30i on BD for even the secondary decoder and that takes bits away from the feature. Care yet?

Extras should be done as DI'd 30p to make room for the feature. Distributors care as this can normally be done in real time good enough to fool the consumer.

IPTV/VOD should be done DI'd 30p to save bandwidth and costs of the cable company so they can fight the price war with Satellite and IPTV. I'm still caring!

Everyone in the distribution arms care about 30p in a lot of places. It's so important, it's in the HD Video spec (see attachment). It's also got 25p, btw.

Cjplay.
My point wasn't that we should care or not. My point was J6P doesn't and in fact doesn't even know WTF we're talking about. In fact, I too sometimes struggle to understand all of this, and I'm actually interested.

Give J6P 1080p24 discs and 1080i output, and s/he'll be happy, at least for the foreseeable future.

FYI we will have 1080p 24/60 selectable HD DVD players.Who makes them and how much do they cost? Also do they use additional processing to get 1080p24 output? Seriously I haven't heard of any HD DVD players like that unless you are talking about one of the HD DVD computer systems.


I will give you a hint. Don't be surprised that all hd dvd players including the released one would have 90% of the chance to do 24p output upon a firmware upgrade. They should nail rest 10% after this Dec. :DWhere did you hear this from, or are you hoping that is what will happen?


The IME on Warner's HD DVDs are 30p. It'd have to be 30i on BD for even the secondary decoder and that takes bits away from the feature. Care yet?Yes, specifically about the fact that 30 fps secondary video is used on HD DVD, but that goes into a different subject. As for 60i having to be used with Blu-ray that is a bit of a shame but it does depend on whether flags are used to indicate that it is 30 fps video. Also you don't have to filter 1080i60 video and in fact certain HD DVD supporters have told me that several times when ever the issue of 1080i60 to 1080p24 conversion came up.

Where did you hear this from, or are you hoping that is what will happen?



No, it is not wishful thinking. What do you think is the major obstacle here? I will give you another hint. It begins with a letter "s".

No, it is not wishful thinking.Okay, than if you have any evidence for this why not link to it? I would certainly like to see it especially since I had thought the 1080p24 rumor for the HD-A1 had died several months ago.


What do you think is the major obstacle here? I will give you another hint. It begins with a letter "s".Good grief, don't tell me that you are going to blame that on Sony. Seriously that is just wrong and we have enough Sony hating on this forum already.

Good grief, don't tell me that you are going to blame that on Sony. Seriously that is just wrong and we have enough Sony hating on this forum already.

Ok, well everything here is about bashing Sony or blu-ray. The letter end with a "e". Do you really believe even HD DVD store movie as 24p on disc and decoder supplier confirmed it is doable, they couldn't make a 24p output work? Now, that is wishful thinking. :)

No, it is not wishful thinking. What do you think is the major obstacle here? I will give you another hint. It begins with a letter "s".

dude, why don't you just come out and say it already instead of playing stupid guessing games? you either have solid info or you dont. none of this it might be upgraded in the future via firmware crap. and if, as you say 90% of all hd dvd players including released ones will be able to do 1080p24 by a simple firmware upgrade, whats preventing BD players from getting 1080p30 via firmware upgrade also?

I will give you a hint. Don't be surprised that all hd dvd players including the released one would have 90% of the chance to do 24p output upon a firmware upgrade. They should nail rest 10% after this Dec.

what is this supposed to mean? exactly how do you come up with these figures? and why would only 90% of all hd dvd players be able to successfully implement 108p24 before dec?

Ok, well everything here is about bashing Sony or blu-ray. The letter end with a "e".Sorry lymzy, and considering how often Sony is blamed for things on this forum I sometimes jump the gun. I still don't know what you are talking about though and why you believe it will affect the HD-A1.


Do you really believe even HD DVD store movie as 24p on disc and decoder supplier confirmed it is doable, they couldn't make a 24p output work? Now, that is wishful thinking. :)I already said that it could be done (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8930078&&#post8930078) and that it would just take additional processing.

and if, as you say 90% of all hd dvd players including released ones will be able to do 1080p24 by a simple firmware upgrade, whats preventing BD players from getting 1080p30 via firmware upgrade also?He is talking about output from the player and not what the video is natively encoded at. Also if Blu-ray encodes 1080p30 at 1080i60 but includes flags indicating what it is than it really isn't much of an issue.

simple firmware upgrade, whats preventing BD players from getting 1080p30 via firmware upgrade also?


You are missing the point.

Blu-ray has to encode 30p/25p content as 60i/50i on the disc. The 30p/25p to 60i/50i conversion happen before the encoding process. If there is any loss during the conversion, it can't be undo. It has nothing to do with the firmware.

On the other hand, HD DVD encode 24p in native form and store 24p on the disc. You could always get a player with perfect 24p output.

So there are two completely different situations here. No, I am not saying 60i encoding will be necessarily a problem for 30p content. But according to blu-ray supporters, an extra i/p step would degrade the signal. To make the matter worse, the i/p step for blu-ray happening before the encoding...

Last, I personally believe extra i/p step would make no difference if done right.

Blu-ray has to encode 30p/25p content as 60i/50i on the disc. The 30p/25p to 60i/50i conversion happen before the encoding process. If there is any loss during the conversion, it can't be undo.Which is why it would be best not to filter the video when encoding it. No offense lymzy but you keep assuming that it will be filtered and I just don't see why you believe that.


On the other hand, HD DVD encode 24p in native form and store 24p on the disc. You could always get a player with perfect 24p output. Come now lymzy the first statement is technically wrong and the second statement is possible but will be very difficult. When HD DVD was made it was not made with 24 fps output in mind which can be seen in the HD DVD specs


So there are two completely different situations here. No, I am not saying 60i encoding will be necessarily a problem for 30p content. But according to blu-ray supporters, an extra i/p step would degrade the signal.lymzy, there is no need for that and it is rather deceptive to say things that you don't actually believe and than say that is what all Blu-ray supporters believe.


Last, I personally believe extra i/p step would make no difference if done right. So you believe this and yet you keep stating that 1080p30 will be harmed on Blu-ray because it is encoded at 1080i60?

Also if Blu-ray encodes 1080p30 at 1080i60 but includes flags indicating what it is than it really isn't much of an issue.

I hope you are right on this. I ask this in the insider thread but no one answer. If they encode 30p/25p content in the same interlace mode as 60i/50i video source, then it might be a set back.

If they encode 30p/25p content in the same interlace mode as 60i/50i video source, then it might be a set back.If they filter the video that would be true but I don't see why they would do that.

statement is possible but will be very difficult. When HD DVD was made it was not made with 24 fps output in mind which can be seen in the HD DVD specs


I now know it would not be "very difficult". When you do 24p output in movie mode for HD DVD, the major concern here is the 30i subtitle. As long as you don't drop/split the 30i subtitle, you are good to go. :) DVD Forum has a meeting on 24p this Nov. Also current HD-A1/XA1 should be firmware upgradeable to reflect this improvement. No, I am not making this up.

I now know it would not be "very difficult". When you do 24p output in movie mode for HD DVD, the major concern here is the 30i subtitle.What about the interactive layer and the PiP video?


DVD Forum has a meeting on 24p this Nov.Didn't that meeting already occur or did they push it back? Also what exactly are they having the meeting to decide on in terms of 24p?


Also current HD-A1/XA1 should be firmware upgradeable to reflect this improvement. No, I am not making this up.It might be possible, but where did you hear this from?

What about the interactive layer and the PiP video?

My understanding is that PiP will be disabled for this process.

-Robert

The IME on Warner's HD DVDs are 30p. It'd have to be 30i on BD for even the secondary decoder and that takes bits away from the feature.I thought BD mandated that it be the same as the feature, or 24p for the ones you are talking about. Is that not the case?

--Darin

HD DVD's 1080i output has ALL of the 1080p native information of the disc and of the original movie. HD DVD player 1080i output is easily reassembled 100% perfectly to the native 1080p 24 or 48 Hz.

FYI we will have 1080p 24/60 selectable HD DVD players.

-Robert

When ? And will that be before or after the HD-DVD spec is changed to define how 24p is handled ?

b2b

My understanding is that PiP will be disabled for this process.A bit of a draconian solution but it would take care of that problem. Also where did you hear that from?

I thought BD mandated that it be the same as the feature, or 24p for the ones you are talking about. Is that not the case?

Darin: my understanding as well, much better then screwing up the main feature to handle PiP

When ? And will that be before or after the HD-DVD spec is changed to define how 24p is handled ?

b2b


The second meeting is this Dec. :)Again, it is not about spec. 24p is just an additional feature of the player. Bluray player could meet the spec without the 24p output. It is about guidelines to ensure everything perform correct under the 24p mode espeically the subtitles.

Darin: my understanding as well, much better then screwing up the main feature to handle PiP

So blu-ray has to mess with the PiP for the main feature? Why can't it let user to decide which one to screw up like HD DVD?

So blu-ray has to mess with the PiP for the main feature?

no, my understanding is that it is up to the studio


Why can't it let user to decide which one to screw up like HD DVD?

where does HD DVD do that

no, my understanding is that it is up to the studio

So you don't agree with Darin on the mandate PiP to 24p for movie?


where does HD DVD do that

HD DVD will allow 24p for movie only and 60i/p for IME. In the later case, you don't have to convert the 30i PiP to 24p.

So you don't agree with Darin on the mandate PiP to 24p for movie?

that is not what he said

"BD mandated that it be the same as the feature"

the PiP and main must match if one is 24p they both must be if one is 60i they both must be... if they are different to start off (i.e. one is film the other not) then a studio must decide what to use, but they both must be the same.

HD DVD will allow 24p for movie only and 60i/p for IME. In the later case, you don't have to convert the 30i PiP to 24p.

are you sure about that? And what comes out?

if they are different to start off (i.e. one is film the other not) then a studio must decide what to use, but they both must be the same.

I don't see studio have a choice here. Nobody will encode 24p film the same frame rate as 30i PiP. Therefore, 30i PiP would be forced to 24p on the disc. It is not a big deal, but you lose some flexibility.

I don't see studio have a choice here. Nobody will encode 24p film the same frame rate as 30i PiP. Therefore, 30i PiP would be forced to 24p on the disc.

agree, the point was simply that in the end it is the studios choice. Maybe (made up example) there is a remake of a film in the future, the remake is in 30p and the main film is 24p, they could go 60i as a compromise so that you can switch the PiPs or something

yes I am sure 99% of the time PiP=secondary only and if not the same to start then main-=24p and PiP=something else.

But in the end with BD the studio has the flexibility

It is not a big deal, but you lose some flexibility.
that is the question does it have less. I could have sworn (I will have to search) that HD DVD had some restriction that leave no flexibility, that is why I asked

I found it

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8446496&&#post8446496

5.2.1 Video Source Standards and Resolutions

Key Performance Requirements:
1) In the case of 60 Hz region, 3:2 pull down flag is mandatory for movie (film content), which means that synchronization between video, audio, sub-picture, and advanced objects follows 60 Hz vertical synchronization signal.


so an HD DVD can have 24p (with flags) and a 30i PIP but the HD DVD player will need to use the flags to make both 60i to synchronize them, the conversion that needs to happen, so they are both the same will happen in the player and is forced to 60hz (i.e. no choice)

I found it

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8446496&&#post8446496



so an HD DVD can have 24p (with flags) and a 30i PIP but the HD DVD player will need to use the flags to make both 60i to synchronize them, the conversion that needs to happen, so they are both the same will happen in the player and is forced to 60hz (i.e. no choice)

I have posted that same information a half dozen times and the HD-DVD supporters (and even the ones that should know better) still ignore how the HD-DVD specification is written. I guess they will understand when 24p support never shows up in a HD-DVD player (unless they change the spec.)

b2b

^^^ I understand that the flags and 60 Hz sync are an encoding requirement. Playback hardware/software can do its own thing or have options per user control. WinDVD on notebooks has already shown 1080p/72 display refresh playback of HD DVD movies.

Bob

Edit: Who are these DVD Forum HD DVD playback spec police that look through windows and control whether users (exercising a Pure Video option) can turn-off or ignore perfect PiP playback. ;)

So blu-ray has to mess with the PiP for the main feature? Why can't it let user to decide which one to screw up like HD DVD?Because when Blu-ray was made they thought about 24 fps output while that was something that apparently no one thought of when they made HD DVD? Mandating the primary and secondary video to match makes perfect sense and allowing them to be different is in my opinion a mistake. Well it is a mistake if you care about 24 fps output that is.


HD DVD will allow 24p for movie only and 60i/p for IME. In the later case, you don't have to convert the 30i PiP to 24p.Actually when I debated this with Amir he was quite vocal that a HD DVD studio could use 24 fps video for PiP if they wanted to. Are you saying that is wrong?

^^^ I understand that the flags and 60 Hz sync are an encoding requirement. Playback hardware/software can do its own thing or have options per user control. WinDVD on notebooks has already shown 1080p/72 display refresh playback of HD DVD movies.

Bob

Edit: Who are these DVD Forum HD DVD playback spec police that look through windows and control whether users (exercising a Pure Video option) can turn-off or ignore perfect PiP playback. ;)

I guess that will be interesting when HD-DVD players start "doing their own thing" and decide they want to start dropping off some of the manditory audio codecs from their HW. What would they call it. HD-DVD lite ?? ;)

b2b

Playback hardware/software can do its own thing or have options per user control. WinDVD on notebooks has already shown 1080p/72 display refresh playback of HD DVD movies.


but everything is in real or pseudo 60i. The player needs to do the synching at that rate. Yes after it has all been done at 60i the player can change it to 72p, but it still needed to be done in 60i. How will winDVD know what to do with 60i or 30p PiP to make it 72p? ....

players can be built to be none compliant, the issue is that in the end they create issues in the long run when stuff does not work properly. HD DVD decided all should be virtual 60i, it can be anything on the disk but it must also have a 60i representation (i.e. in 24p=flags) so that players can do the work at that rate. BD has no such requirement it allows for a bit less (standard formats) but then the player can use it as is because everything at the same time needs to be the same thing.

so they are both the same will happen in the player and is forced to 60hz (i.e. no choice)

The choice for HD DVD user

1) 24p output for movie only.
2)Have movie with 30i IME for 60i/60p/120p...

Everything is encoded in its native form.

For blu-ray

30i PiP has to be encoded as 24p if the main feature is 24p. User has no choice if he want the native 30i PiP.

lymzy: is 120p allowed?

yes on the disk it can have anything. but you are not looking at the disk you are looking at the movie. Both the PiP and man video need to be changed in the player to 60i (if they are not) and then that is used to create the output.

I have posted that same information a half dozen times and the HD-DVD supporters (and even the ones that should know better) still ignore how the HD-DVD specification is written. I guess they will understand when 24p support never shows up in a HD-DVD player (unless they change the spec.)

b2b


You should know better. 24p output is an addition feature for players from both camp as confirmed by Keith. Spec doesn't dictate the output of a player. I am sure we will see 120p output in the future. All the blu-ray players on the market couldn't do 24p. Are you telling me they don't meet the blu-ray spec?

You brought up the spec again and again. I don't even understand why. Recent DVD Forum meetings on 24p is about better the guidelines to ensure the HD DVD consistent performance under the 24p output mode.

Last, did this thread became "24p output for HD DVD" ? I guess blu-ray couldn't encode 30p/25p content in its native form is a none-issue. Amazing, is it?

lymzy: is 120p allowed?



Here you go. Allowed ot not allow by whom? Which spec dictate the output of the player? b2b could you point me a link that in order for HD DVD players to output 24p, it has to change the spec? I am interested. AFAIK, spec only dictate how content should be encoded on disc and the minum requirement for output frame rate. Anything beyond the minum is additional feature.

Which spec dictate the output of the player? there are a few actually (i.e. 1080p not allowed over analog in AACS)

but from the way you wrote it I thought you meant on the disk.

...and decide they want to start dropping off some of the manditory audio codecs from their HW.
Sorry if my post was not clear. I meant the above as a user choice option. The default (without any user override) would be the current behavior. Never meant to imply dropping any minimum mandatory capability requirement.

Bob

You should know better.

Last, did this thread became "24p output for HD DVD" ? I guess blu-ray couldn't encode 30p/25p content in its native form is a none-issue. Amazing, is it?

Lymzy,

Thanks for putting everything clearly and concisely. It seems that the spin machine is refocusing this thread on HD DVD (which can do 24p natively) and not BD which can't do 30p.

That being said, 120p would be nice, but AFAIK 72 should be enough for most users (fools eye into thinking its totally fluid motion at around 70-75 fps).

Forceflow: no 30p or 60i makes no difference. So this whole thread was for spin.

30p=30 frames per second

interlace = two fields per frame one consisting of odd lines and one of even

60i= 60 fields



so in essence 60i is just splitting the 30p into its odd and even lines. There is nothing to go wrong

--------

HD DVD allows for anything on the disk (more or less) but in order to process it the player must go from 24p, 30p, 60i (or anything else) to either 60i or 50i (Europe).

Now if it is 24p (no PiP) there is less of an issue (in theory- since there is no 1080p output on any HD DVD player at this time) because the player goes 24p->60i->24p.

But (and this is important) if there is PiP, then you can't do a proper 60i->24p if the PiP is not 24p as well.

Here you go. Allowed ot not allow by whom? Which spec dictate the output of the player? b2b could you point me a link that in order for HD DVD players to output 24p, it has to change the spec? I am interested. AFAIK, spec only dictate how content should be encoded on disc and the minum requirement for output frame rate. Anything beyond the minum is additional feature.

This is the last time I am posting this. If you don't understand "Encoded Frame Rate", I can help that fact..

b2b

Forceflow: no 30p or 60i makes no difference. So this whole thread was for spin.

It makes a difference on the encode side. You use a different part of the codec. You use the progressive algorithms on 30p and you use the interlaced algorithms on 60i.

HD DVD - 24p films use the progressive frame coding. 30p uses the progressive frame coding. 60i using the interlaced frame/field coding.

BD - 24p films use the progressive frame coding. 30p uses the interlaced frame/field coding. 60i using the interlaced frame/field coding.

The progressive frame coding will produce superior results, at the same bitrate, in VC-1.

In BD, at the bitrates currently used, you cannot have more than 2 B frames in a row. In HD DVD, you can use 7 if you like. In fact, DVE on HD DVD, uses 5 B frames on one clip and it worked out really well.

On the flip, BD supports longer GOPs and a bigger VBV. Restart, what GOP length are the current AVC titles using?

In my opinion both formats made poor choices on various little issues.

The choice for HD DVD user

1) 24p output for movie only.
2)Have movie with 30i IME for 60i/60p/120p...

Everything is encoded in its native form.How exactly is that a good choice? You either can get 1080p24 output without PiP or you can get 1080i/p60 with PiP. Sounds like a design flaw to me. Also why do you keep assuming that PiP video will be 60i and not 24p?


For blu-ray

30i PiP has to be encoded as 24p if the main feature is 24p. User has no choice if he want the native 30i PiP.Come now lymzy that is BS and the fact of the matter is making the primary and secondary video streams match was a great idea. It means that you can get 1080p24 output from Blu-ray with PiP. Also you ignore the obvious scenario of recording the PiP video in 24p.


I am sure we will see 120p output in the future.1080p120 output is technically possible but I don't see why you would design a display to accept it. It is much easier for a display to accept 1080p24 and 1080p60.


Recent DVD Forum meetings on 24p is about better the guidelines to ensure the HD DVD consistent performance under the 24p output mode.lymzy, do you think such meetings would be needed had they designed HD DVD with 24 fps output in mind?


Last, did this thread became "24p output for HD DVD" ?The same time a regular Blu-ray basher made this thread and than stated that HD DVD could natively encode 1080p24 video, which isn't technically correct. Seriously lymzy if you had a bit of fairness about this you would acknowledge this thread was made simply to attack Blu-ray.

It seems that the spin machine is refocusing this thread on HD DVD (which can do 24p natively) and not BD which can't do 30p.No offense Forceflow but don't automatically assume that HD DVD can do native 1080p24 video simply because you are told it can. Read the HD DVD specs and see for yourself before you start insulting people. I will even give you a link to the document (http://www.dvdforum.org/images/Requirements%20Specification%20for%20HD%20DVD%20Video%20Appl ication-July2005.pdf). Blu-ray can natively encode 24 fps video while HD DVD has to use flags when it encodes 24 fps video. Even sspears will admit to that and he once made a post listing the methods of encoding that could be done for 24 fps video with Blu-ray and HD DVD. To be fair HD DVD can use progressive encoding with 24 fps video but it requires flags because synchronization in HD DVD is based on either 50 Hz or 60 Hz output.


The progressive frame coding will produce superior results, at the same bitrate, in VC-1.That is a bit of a negative for Blu-ray though I would ask how much of a difference does it make 10%, 15%, or more?

I would ask how much of a difference does it make 10%, 15%, or more?

I don't have an answer today. What I will do is when I get back in the office (after Thanksgiving) I will run a fixed QP encode on progressive and three interlaced variations and report the four rates. I will run it on the 30p content.

That is a bit of a negative for Blu-ray though I would ask how much of a difference does it make 10%, 15%, or more?
I can't speak for VC-1, since I'm not that familiar with the syntax. In MPEG-2, setting progressive_sequence = 1 can save you 3 bits per coded macroblock (frame_motion_type and dct_type are not necessary since they will always be equal to "frame"). For a 1920x1080 image, there are 8160 macroblocks. 8160 * 3 is 24480 bits.

At 17.0 Mbps video rate, the typical bit budget per frame type (in nice round numbers) is:

I-frame = 1,500,000 bits, 24480 bits = 1.6%
P-frame = 750,000 bits, 24480 bits = 3.3%
B-frame = 400,000 bits, 24480 bits = 6.1%

The above numbers assume every macroblock is coded, so are worse case. The typical B-frame can have around 400 skipped macroblocks, so the percentage for B-frames is more like 5.8 percent.

If you add the saved bits back into the bit budget, the equivilant bitrate is:

((1,500,000 + 24480) * 2) + ((750,000 + 24480) * 8) + ((400,000 + 24480) * 20) = 17.73 Mbps

So the overall worse case penalty is 4.3 percent.

In addition to skipped macroblocks mentioned above, there's also the case of some blocks that just happen to code better with field motion or field DCT (or both), even though the material is progressive in nature. For some frames, this can actually exceed the savings from progressive_sequence = 1.

Ron

No offense Forceflow but don't automatically assume that HD DVD can do native 1080p24 video simply because you are told it can. Read the HD DVD specs and see for yourself before you start insulting people. I will even give you a link to the document (http://www.dvdforum.org/images/Requirements%20Specification%20for%20HD%20DVD%20Video%20Appl ication-July2005.pdf). Blu-ray can natively encode 24 fps video while HD DVD has to use flags when it encodes 24 fps video. Even sspears will admit to that and he once made a post listing the methods of encoding that could be done for 24 fps video with Blu-ray and HD DVD. To be fair HD DVD can use progressive encoding with 24 fps video but it requires flags because synchronization in HD DVD is based on either 50 Hz or 60 Hz output.


That is a bit of a negative for Blu-ray though I would ask how much of a difference does it make 10%, 15%, or more?

I checked in the insiders thread and Jeff Williams (BD/HD author) confirmed HD-DVD can be encoded 1080p/24 and most HD-DVDs to date have been encoded 1080p24.

I don't have an answer today. What I will do is when I get back in the office (after Thanksgiving) I will run a fixed QP encode on progressive and three interlaced variations and report the four rates. I will run it on the 30p content.That certainly would be interesting to see the results of though I am surprised a standard answer for VC-1 is not known. Also will you be using the advanced profile for VC-1?


So the overall worse case penalty is 4.3 percent.That is a negative but not to bad of one and it will be interesting to see if VC-1 is better or worse than MPEG-2 in this regard.


I checked in the insiders thread and Jeff Williams (BD/HD author) confirmed HD-DVD can be encoded 1080p/24 and most HD-DVDs to date have been encoded 1080p24.Ask him if HD DVD can be natively encoded at 1080p24 without flags and than if that can be done with Blu-ray.

Ask him if HD DVD can be natively encoded at 1080p24 without flags and than if that can be done with Blu-ray.

Are you saying that 1080p24 can be encoded by HD DVD, but NOT at 24FPS?

This is the last time I am posting this. If you don't understand "Encoded Frame Rate", I can help that fact..

b2b


Good grief. After all you don't understand the meaning of 23.976p with 3:2 pulldown. 3:2 pulldown is just a sentence in the metahead of the 23.976p stream. Dr1394 posted it before. Maybe he should post it again. But that is fine. Because everybody knows both HD DVD and blu-ray encode 24p as progressive frame and stored 24p on the disc. The flag doesn't change the progressive nature of the underlying stream.

Now back to the topic. You said repeatedly that in order for an HD DVD player to output 24p, it needs to change spec. As I said before, anything beyond the minum output frame rate is an addition feature. Why are you continuing to spin the encoding with the player output even you are wrong on both account?


Last, back to the real topic. For 30p/25p content, the nature of the blu-ray stream is interlaced. Oh, I guess it is no issue for blu-ray to encode progressive content in interlace form. But it is an issue for HD DVD to just have a flag on the progressive stream. Huh?

Good grief. After all you don't understand the meaning of 23.976p with 3:2 pulldown. 3:2 pulldown is just a sentence in the metahead of the 23.976p stream. Dr1394 posted it before. Maybe he should post it again. But that is fine. Because everybody knows both HD DVD and blu-ray encode 24p as progressive frame and stored 24p on the disc. The flag doesn't change the progressive nature of the underlying stream.

Now back to the topic. You said repeatedly that in order for an HD DVD player to output 24p, it needs to change spec. As I said before, anything beyond the minum output frame rate is an addition feature. Why are you continuing to spin the encoding with the player output even you are wrong on both account?


Last, back to the real topic. For 30p/25p content, the nature of the blu-ray stream is interlaced. Oh, I guess it is no issue for blu-ray to encode progressive content in interlace form. But it is an issue for HD DVD to just have a flag on the progressive stream. Huh?

You mean this one ??
1080p23.976 or 1080p@24 video bitstreams are not allowed on HD-DVD. See this document:

http://www.dvdforum.org/images/Requ...on-July2005.pdf

I assure you, the actual HD-DVD specification is the same in regards to frame rates.

Ron
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8019557&&#post8019557

b2b

Ask him if HD DVD can be natively encoded at 1080p24 without flags and than if that can be done with Blu-ray.

Both HD DVD and blu-ray encode 24 progressive frame per second for 24p movie. For blu-ray, this 24p progressive stream could have a sequence header of 3:2 or so-called flag in the metadata area. It is an option. For HD DVD, the 3:2 sequence header is a must. But what is a sequence header or flag after all? It is just a line in the metadata. It doesn't change the fact that the underlying stream for both is progressively encoded at the rate of 23.976p/s. That is what matters! Your agenda is to confuse people who are not familiar with this. When they heard HD DVD must have a flag, they think it is not progressive or inferior to blu-ray. I hope this is the last time you do this.

Now, when it comes to 25p/30p native content. Blu-ray has to encode the frame as interlaced. You simply think it is none issue. Do you really have a problem to call a spade a spade when it comes to blu-ray?

You mean this one ??

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8019557&&#post8019557

b2b

English is not my native language, but I don't know it is that bad. :) Do you even read your link? Dr1394 was talking about HD DVD must put the 3:2 sequence header in the metadata area for the underlying 24p-progressive stream. Nobody disagrees with that. But even you misunderstood him, it still has nothing to do with your accusation of no 24p output for HD DVD without a spec change. The spec you posted again and again is about encode. It has nothing to do with players output.

Let me tell you this, HD DVD player will output 24p for the flagged 24p stream. It doesn't need to change anything. They could keep the 3:2 flag in the metadata intact. All they need to do is make sure no drop/split of the 30i subtitles.

I am surprised a standard answer for VC-1 is not known.

Why? Encoding HD progressive content as interlaced is not a common scenario. Or rather comparing progressive to interlaced encoding is not common. The only reason I encode progressive content as interlaced is to create odd cadence test content to evaluate video processors. There is one static pattern I have to works better encoded as interlaced field. It is a single pixel checkerboard. When you encode as two fields, you have an easier pattern to compress. :)

Also will you be using the advanced profile for VC-1?

Yes. I will use the same encoder the post houses use to create HD DVD and BD VC-1 content.

Both HD DVD and blu-ray encode 24 progressive frame per second for 24p movie. For blu-ray, this 24p progressive stream could have a sequence header of 3:2 or so-called flag in the metadata area. It is an option. For HD DVD, the 3:2 sequence header is a must. But what is a sequence header or flag after all? It is just a line in the metadata. It doesn't change the fact that the underlying stream for both is progressively encoded at the rate of 23.976p/s. That is what matters! Your agenda is to confuse people who are not familiar with this. When they heard HD DVD must have a flag, they think it is not progressive or inferior to blu-ray. I hope this is the last time you do this.

Now, when it comes to 25p/30p native content. Blu-ray has to encode the frame as interlaced. You simply think it is none issue. Do you really have a problem to call a spade a spade when it comes to blu-ray?

Well it's been suggested that 24p media can be encoded on HD DVD, but as 30fps with 3:2 pre-applied, hence the need for a sequence header. 24p on Blu-ray is encoded at 24p.

hence the need for a sequence header.

There is always a sequence header.

Well it's been suggested that 24p media can be encoded on HD DVD, but as 30fps with 3:2 pre-applied, hence the need for a sequence header. 24p on Blu-ray is encoded at 24p.

For 24p content, it is 24p into the encoder and 24p out for both blu-ray and HD DVD. I could care less about what is written in the sequence header. That is also why Warner could use the same transfer for both camp. BTW, blu-ray could also in your words encode 24p as 30fps with 3:2 pre-applied. :)


Now for 30p/25p content, it is 30p/25p into the encoder and 30p/25p out for HD DVD. However, it is 60i/50i into the encoder and 60i/50i out for blu-ray. Who has a potential problem? Which solution is elegant?

Still so much argument back and forth when all you have to do is ask sspears as it seems he has all the answers!

Cheers...
Duy-Khang Hoang

English is not my native language, but I don't know it is that bad. :) Do you even read your link? Dr1394 was talking about HD DVD must put the 3:2 sequence header in the metadata area for the underlying 24p-progressive stream. Nobody disagrees with that. But even you misunderstood him, it still has nothing to do with your accusation of no 24p output for HD DVD without a spec change. The spec you posted again and again is about encode. It has nothing to do with players output.

Let me tell you this, HD DVD player will output 24p for the flagged 24p stream. It doesn't need to change anything. They could keep the 3:2 flag in the metadata intact. All they need to do is make sure no drop/split of the 30i subtitles.

How about this then...
The 1080i@29.97 video bitstream structure of HD-DVD prevents decoders from generating 1080p@23.976 output. Although the telecine flags may describe a perfect 23.976 coded pictures per second on current HD-DVD movies, there is no specification (MPEG-2, VC-1, H.264 or the HD-DVD specification itself) that says this must be so. In fact, the telecine flags can describe a bitstream with any amount (between 23.976 and 29.97) of coded pictures per second.

Because the telecine flags are variable, the decoder cannot ignore them and hope to properly decode all legal 1080i@29.97 bitstreams. The decoder must pay strict attention to repeat_first_field and top_field_first flags. Therefore, for HD-DVD the decoder will always output at 1080i@29.97 by repeating fields as instructed from the 23.976 coded pictures per second on the disc.

1080p@23.976 output from HD-DVD is a non-starter. However, 1080p@59.94 is definitely possible from the next generation of HD-DVD players with the inclusion of a deinterlacing chip (like the Samsung Blu-ray player).

Ron

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8019525&&#post8019525

b2b

How about this then...


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8019525&&#post8019525

b2b

Hey, if you brought this up first, you could save us a lot of time. :) Simply put, this is wrong. :D Nothing prevent the decoder in HD DVD player from doing the 24p thing as confirmed both by Tom and another trustable insider. Also who says the only way to do 24p is by ignoring the flag/sequence header? :)

There is always a sequence header.

Perhaps I mean THE 3:2 sequence header :P

Hey, if you brought this up first, you could save us a lot of time. :) Simply put, this is wrong. :D Nothing prevent the decoder in HD DVD player from doing the 24p thing as confirmed both by Tom and another trustable insider. Also who says the only way to do 24p is by ignoring the flag/sequence header? :)

You mean this Tom ?
Unfortunately, the wording of your question to Tom McMahon was too ambiguous. All you asked is if the Broadcom decoder can output the 1080p24 HD-DVD video bitstream. I construe his "yes" answer to mean "yes, at 1080i@29.97".

Read my posts on this topic carefully. Be aware that I'm a professional in the MPEG industry for the last 14 years.

Ron
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8025626&&#post8025626

How long have you been a professional in the MPEG industry ?? ;)

b2b

You mean this Tom ?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8025626&&#post8025626

How long have you been a professional in the MPEG industry ?? ;)

b2b

I don't know Tom sometimes mean dr1394. :D I will stop here. This FUD will soon go away with 24p output enabled for HD DVD players.

I don't know Tom sometimes mean dr1394. :D I will stop here. This FUD will soon go away with 24p output enabled for HD DVD players.

dr1394 is Ron. What I quoted was his reply on a question that had been posed to Tom McMahon.

b2b

dr1394 is Ron. What I quoted was his reply on a question that had been posed to Tom McMahon.

b2b

I know and he is a very respectable insider. I guess he came from C-cube. When VCD was on fire in China, all the decoder chip came from c-cube. He might also take part in the EVD decoder design, another China's homebrew HD optical standard.

No offense Forceflow but don't automatically assume that HD DVD can do native 1080p24 video simply because you are told it can. Read the HD DVD specs and see for yourself before you start insulting people. I will even give you a link to the document (http://www.dvdforum.org/images/Requirements%20Specification%20for%20HD%20DVD%20Video%20Appl ication-July2005.pdf). Blu-ray can natively encode 24 fps video while HD DVD has to use flags when it encodes 24 fps video. Even sspears will admit to that and he once made a post listing the methods of encoding that could be done for 24 fps video with Blu-ray and HD DVD. To be fair HD DVD can use progressive encoding with 24 fps video but it requires flags because synchronization in HD DVD is based on either 50 Hz or 60 Hz output.

No offense taken. I've already read the HD DVD specs (altho it has been a couple of months at least). I don't need to be told to do so(read: "don't automatically assume" to patronize). You even admit HD DVD can do 24 fps video output, it has been done already with software decoders, the DVD forum is figuring out the best method this month, we may see 24fps output on the XA2. I think its more a non-issue than the 30p, but I will agree that both are very small items to discuss.

No offense taken. I've already read the HD DVD specs (altho it has been a couple of months at least). I don't need to be told to do so(read: "don't automatically assume" to patronize). You even admit HD DVD can do 24 fps video output, it has been done already with software decoders, the DVD forum is figuring out the best method this month, we may see 24fps output on the XA2. I think its more a non-issue than the 30p, but I will agree that both are very small items to discuss.

I can't think of a more "non-issue" than a single 30p "Nine-inch-nails" concert and the Todd-AO 30fps production of "Oklahoma" on film. In the world of issues... 99.9% of all movies being produced at 24fps on film for the last 60 years is a bigger deal than a few productions at 30fps will ever be..

b2b

I can't think of a more "non-issue" than a single 30p "Nine-inch-nails" concert and the Todd-AO 30fps production of "Oklahoma" on film. In the world of issues... 99.9% of all movies being produced at 24fps on film for the last 60 years is a bigger deal than a few productions at 30fps will ever be..

b2b

But isn't that one of the main things discussed on this forum: issues that in reality affect a very small percentage of releases.

I can't think of a more "non-issue" than a single 30p "Nine-inch-nails" concert and the Todd-AO 30fps production of "Oklahoma" on film. In the world of issues... 99.9% of all movies being produced at 24fps on film for the last 60 years is a bigger deal than a few productions at 30fps will ever be..

b2b

What about television shows what is the frame rate for them ?

But isn't that one of the main things discussed on this forum: issues that in reality affect a very small percentage of releases.

Isn't funny that I acknowledged that it was a non-issue, I just feel that 30p is more important than 24p flags being picked up. At least HD DVD media is encoded at 24fps, it can be extracted as such (yet is made as a big deal) but 30p to 60i is quite a bit rarer and thus much more difficult to do than inverse telecine or 24fps flag pickup (hardware will come).

This won't make headlines, but I'd wish that people own up to issues in their format of choice (if they have any).

It makes a difference on the encode side. You use a different part of the codec. You use the progressive algorithms on 30p and you use the interlaced algorithms on 60i.


Sspears agree, the 30p/60i comment was more on picture manipuilation (i.e. 30p->60i is a none issue, while 24p->60i is not - there can be problems if not done properly) BD needs the first HD DVD the second.

as for a bit more BW with 60i. That is true, but the difference is extremely small and BD has 18mbps over HD DVD. Even tjough I have read many of your posts and will assume your post was in good intentions and completeness, I think it is good to point it out before some idiotic HD DVD fan tries to corupt your point


In my opinion both formats made poor choices on various little issues.

agree, it would be nice if they did not. To me it i who made the most poor choices (as they affect me)

Both HD DVD and blu-ray encode 24 progressive frame per second for 24p movie. For blu-ray, this 24p progressive stream could have a sequence header of 3:2 or so-called flag in the metadata area. It is an option. For HD DVD, the 3:2 sequence header is a must.

Lymzy: and why is it a must for HD DVD? why is something that is just useless meta data a must?

Lymzy: and why is it a must for HD DVD? why is something that is just useless meta data a must?
For encoding it is required. When decoding the user could use the flags as intended (esp for mixed 60i PiP content) or ASSUME 24 fps like WinDVD can do on notebook HD DVD playback (and also give up on smooth PiP playback). Why is this so hard to grasp?

Bob

For encoding it is required. When decoding the user could use the flags as intended (esp for mixed 60i PiP content) or ASSUME 24 fps like WinDVD can do on notebook HD DVD playback (and also give up on smooth PiP playback). Why is this so hard to grasp?

Bob

It seems to me that if HD-DVD was really interested in supporting streams at 1080p@24 they would have put it into their specification like BD has. Now they may be changing that soon as lymzy has suggested. Until then, whatever WinDVD is doing is something other than what is defined with HD-DVD specification.

Does WinDVD decode all of the mandatory audio codecs ??

b2b

whatever WinDVD is doing is something other than what is defined with HD-DVD specification.

Does WinDVD decode all of the mandatory audio codecs ?
1. For encoding "HD-DVD specification" -- yes, it is doing playback -- spec does not rule here.

2. :confused: What is the issue???? Who brought that up in a 1080p30 support thread? Trying to change subjects? :confused: From what I read WindDVD currently does a better job than PowerDVD. Again, what brought up audio decode?

Bob

For encoding it is required. When decoding the user could use the flags as intended (esp for mixed 60i PiP content) or ASSUME 24 fps like WinDVD can do on notebook HD DVD playback (and also give up on smooth PiP playback). Why is this so hard to grasp?

it is not. What you are missing is the internal working and why the flags and why as you said "give up on smooth PiP playback"


It is not disk->synch->out 24p->24p->24p but 24p- uses the 3:2 pull down->60i-uses the reverse->24p

it needs to do this no matter what (that is what the above quoted spec stipulates) because audio, video and menus all work at 60i.

what happens is menus are fixed so 24p/60i who cares. 24p main video, looks OK because it has the exact 3:2 cadence to reverse it (if done in the same location), audio is audio s who cares.

So what happens if no PiP 24p->60i-24p in the same device looks like it is reading the 24p and you have a choice.

The minute you add something else in the PiP (i.e. 60i, but possibly even a 24P PiP) to go from 60i in the PiP to 24p(that you picked for output) it must strip some of the extra frames.

The discussion was is it better to force the PiP to be the same as the movie so that a player does not need to do that 60i sync or not.

with HD DVD you have a choice bad PiP or bad main movie. With BD the change is made in the studio with much better machines so that they both match

1. For encoding "HD-DVD specification" -- yes, it is doing playback -- spec does not rule here.

2. :confused: What is the issue???? Who brought that up in a 1080p30 support thread? Trying to change subjects? :confused: From what I read WindDVD currently does a better job than PowerDVD. Again, what brought up audio decode?

Bob

Just wondering if WinDVD ignores the audio portion of the HD-DVD spec. too.

b2b

Are you saying that 1080p24 can be encoded by HD DVD, but NOT at 24FPS?To be exact 1080p24 can be encoded progressively with HD DVD but it has to be encoded with flags since HD DVD is based on 60 Hz synchronization.


Both HD DVD and blu-ray encode 24 progressive frame per second for 24p movie. For blu-ray, this 24p progressive stream could have a sequence header of 3:2 or so-called flag in the metadata area. It is an option. For HD DVD, the 3:2 sequence header is a must. But what is a sequence header or flag after all? It is just a line in the metadata. It doesn't change the fact that the underlying stream for both is progressively encoded at the rate of 23.976p/s.It wouldn't except that HD DVD was based on the idea of 60 Hz synchronization. That means that you can't just throw away the flag data with HD DVD without more than a few problems occurring because of that.


Your agenda is to confuse people who are not familiar with this. When they heard HD DVD must have a flag, they think it is not progressive or inferior to blu-ray. I hope this is the last time you do this.lymzy, if only you were this fired up when negative rumors against Blu-ray were made. Honestly I never said that the video quality would be worse because of the flags I am just saying that 24 fps output will not be easy to do with HD DVD. Of course nothing is impossible, but your prediction that the HD-A1/2 will be upgraded to support 1080p24 output seems rather optimistic to me.


Now, when it comes to 25p/30p native content. Blu-ray has to encode the frame as interlaced. You simply think it is none issue. Do you really have a problem to call a spade a spade when it comes to blu-ray?Didn't I already say that encoding 30 fps video at 60i was a negative for Blu-ray? As for the issue of 25p I am not so sure that is a negative since it looks like European HD releases will use 24p video. Also lymzy I am quite fair about this format war (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8936879&&#post8936879) and I know that mistakes have been made with both formats.

lymzy
On the other hand, HD DVD encode 24p in native form and store 24p on the disc. You could always get a player with perfect 24p output. Come now lymzy the first statement is technically wrong and the second statement is possible but will be very difficult. When HD DVD was made it was not made with 24 fps output in mind which can be seen in the HD DVD specs
Wrong, Richard.

HD DVD can and does encode and store native 24p to disc, as evidenced by almost every release to date.

The second statement he made is not wrong either, but your's is, as 24p support is even easier than 60p support, since the bandwidth requirements fall well within the bandwidth of the existing HDMI chips on the A1 and XA1.

With HD DVD 30p could also be output without having to do any additional "downconversion" from 60i/p, which would be the only way to acheive it on Bluray.

I think, despite the lively discussion, that we've established that the ommission of 25p and 30p from the Bluray specs is a pretty big ommission.

I can't think of a more "non-issue" than a single 30p "Nine-inch-nails" concert and the Todd-AO 30fps production of "Oklahoma" on film. In the world of issues... 99.9% of all movies being produced at 24fps on film for the last 60 years is a bigger deal than a few productions at 30fps will ever be..

b2b TV Studios and Sports channels have always preferred progressive to interlaced for high-action coverage. Other Studios that are starting to use progressive video cameras, for sports and nature shows, are going to prefer to encode in the native 25p or 30p that they shot in.

Why? As one compressionist on this thread already said, it requires more bandwidth to encode the same 30p material at 60i. So given finite space and bandwidth, you will lose more picture information by encoding and storing 30p material as 60i, which is what the Bluray spec forces....

Forceflow: no 30p or 60i makes no difference. So this whole thread was for spin.

30p=30 frames per second

interlace = two fields per frame one consisting of odd lines and one of even

60i= 60 fields



so in essence 60i is just splitting the 30p into its odd and even lines. There is nothing to go wrong

--------

HD DVD allows for anything on the disk (more or less) but in order to process it the player must go from 24p, 30p, 60i (or anything else) to either 60i or 50i (Europe).

Now if it is 24p (no PiP) there is less of an issue (in theory- since there is no 1080p output on any HD DVD player at this time) because the player goes 24p->60i->24p.

But (and this is important) if there is PiP, then you can't do a proper 60i->24p if the PiP is not 24p as well.As explained above, it does indeed make a difference.

The encoder is less efficient on interlaced material - so Bluray's forcing the encoder/compressionist to place native 30p and 25p video on the disc as 60i and 50i DOES cost the user quality and/or space.

The same time a regular Blu-ray basher made this thread and than stated that HD DVD could natively encode 1080p24 video, which isn't technically correct. Seriously lymzy if you had a bit of fairness about this you would acknowledge this thread was made simply to attack Blu-ray.
That is not a fair statement at all.

The failure of the Bluray specification to be able to handle proggressive video (as opposed to film) at their native rates of 25p and 30p is VERY relevant to some types of material which may be released on Home Video.

The discovery of this gap in the BR spec was a complete surprise to me, but I felt it was relevant.

Some people seem to take the position that ANY discussion of a weakness in the Bluray spec is an attack against their religion or God, and they switch into "crusades" mode.

Please give those involved in the discussion a little more credit.

So what happens when I buy the new version of my Sony HDV camera next month (V1) - the one that supports *proper* 1920x1080 resolution, and progressive mode? What happens when I want to store the progressive video I've filmed to a Bluray disc?

Does anyone find it ironic that I'll technically only be able to save it to HD DVD discs?

Well it's been suggested that 24p media can be encoded on HD DVD, but as 30fps with 3:2 pre-applied, hence the need for a sequence header. 24p on Blu-ray is encoded at 24p.
Nonsense.

It is unfortunate that you believe this, since I had previously thought you had at least made a proper examination of the strengths and weakness of both HD DVD and Bluray before you adopted your position.

The above statement shows a lack of understanding of the most basic piece of the HD DVD spec, and a lack of realization that almost every single HD DVD release to date is encoded and stored as 24p.

The only difference that exists is the "flagging", which gives hints to the player as to how to playback the 24p material. This doesn't affect the capability of either format.

I notice that the discussion keeps turning back to 24p on HD DVD - which as we know is not and issue.

So I'll trun it back to 25p and 30p progressive video on Blu-ray, which we now seem to have accepted does NOT exist in the specs and has to be encoded and stored on the disc (less efficiently) as 50i and 60i interlaced.

Does anyone know if the Bluray Disc Association plans to address this glaring shortfalling of the BD standard?

So what happens when I buy the new version of my Sony HDV camera next month (V1) - the one that supports *proper* 1920x1080 resolution, and progressive mode? What happens when I want to store the progressive video I've filmed to a Bluray disc?

Does anyone find it ironic that I'll technically only be able to save it to HD DVD discs?
I think this calls for a petition.

That is not a fair statement at all.

The failure of the Bluray specification to be able to handle proggressive video (as opposed to film) at their native rates of 25p and 30p is VERY relevant to some types of material which may be released on Home Video.

The discovery of this gap in the BR spec was a complete surprise to me, but I felt it was relevant.

Some people seem to take the position that ANY discussion of a weakness in the Bluray spec is an attack against their religion or God, and they switch into "crusades" mode.

Please give those involved in the discussion a little more credit.

So what happens when I buy the new version of my Sony HDV camera next month (V1) - the one that supports *proper* 1920x1080 resolution, and progressive mode? What happens when I want to store the progressive video I've filmed to a Bluray disc?

Does anyone find it ironic that I'll technically only be able to save it to HD DVD discs?

Maybe this will give you a clue as to how 30p works on the V1

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/images/pro_pulldown.gif

The 24p scan signals are recorded on tape as 60i signals through means of 2:3 pull-down. Similarly, a 30p scan signal is recorded as a 60i signal by dividing each frame into two fields. This allows your 24p and 30p scan footage to be played back or fed to an editing suite using the thousands of Sony HDV equipment already in use throughout the world.

b2b

I think this calls for a petition.
Heh! :p

My petition time is a bit booked up right now!

Maybe this will give you a clue as to how 30p works on the V1

b2b
Yes, b - I am very familiar with that chart already and can even tell you the page it came from - so I already have a "clue", thanks :rolleyes:

What it seems you fail to realize, is that that chart actually represents how the progressive formats are saved to the DV tape itself in the HDV camera.

In other words, it has nothing to do with how it would be saved to HD DVD or Bluray...

Now in Bluray, you'd have to do the same sort of thing, to save it as two interlaced frames. However, with HD DVD, your desktop software would combine these two frames into progressive, before either sending to the HD DVD disc, or even recoding.

BTW - The V1 camera is not perfect by any means - to obtain these interlaced fields, it combines two lines, sacrificing 25% of it's vertical resolution - oh well, I'm buying one anyway - hopefully it'll be perfect in the third gen.

Yes, b - I am very familiar with that chart already and can even tell you the page it came from - so I already have a "clue", thanks :rolleyes:

What it seems you fail to realize, is that that chart actually represents how the progressive formats are saved to the DV tape itself in the HDV camera.

In other words, it has nothing to do with how it would be saved to HD DVD or Bluray...

Now in Bluray, you'd have to do the same sort of thing, to save it as two interlaced frames. However, with HD DVD, your desktop software would combine these two frames into progressive, before either sending to the HD DVD disc, or even recoding.

BTW - The V1 camera is not perfect by any means - to obtain these interlaced fields, it combines two lines, sacrificing 25% of it's vertical resolution - oh well, I'm buying one anyway - hopefully it'll be perfect in the third gen.
You obviously don't understand the difference between capturing at 1080p30 & 1080i60 and that the storage @ 1080i60 for the captured 1080p30 has no effect on the 30p image.

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/progressive.html

b2b

You obviously don't understand the difference between capturing at 1080p30 & 1080i60 and that the storage @ 1080i60 for the captured 1080p30 has no effect on the 30p image.

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/progressive.html

b2b
Not only do I understand it, but it's exactly what I referred to above. And as we have heard in this thread, it is less efficient than encoding it straight to the tape as 30p. And, also as heard in this thread, given the same limitations of space and bandwidth, it WILL affect the image quality.

I also know that Sony changed the HDV specifications to be able to do things like 25p... did you? The question I'm asking is if they plan to address this shortcoming in the Bluray specs?

Not only do I understand it, but it's exactly what I referred to above. And as we have heard in this thread, it is less efficient than encoding it straight to the tape as 30p. And, also as heard in this thread, given the same limitations of space and bandwidth, it WILL affect the image quality.

I also know that Sony changed the HDV specifications to be able to do things like 25p... did you? The question I'm asking is if they plan to address this shortcoming in the Bluray specs?

I would say no. The only benefit would be that the encoder would be slightly more efficient encoding a native 30p stream vs a 30p stream stored as 60i, the end PQ result would be identical. BD has plenty of space and bandwidth, so that is a non-issue too.

Ask Stacy or dr1394..

Edit: dr1394 has already said that the worst case penalty for MPEG2 is 4.3%. Stacy will do some testing after the holiday for VC-1.

b2b

This is AWESOME. Now the same people who argued until they were blue in the face that 1080p didn't matter, that 1080i transfers from 1080p sources were absolutely identical because all you have to do is deinterlace them, those people are now arguing that 60i is faaaar worse than 30p, because, after all, you have to deinterlace the material.

And those who were advocating 1080p's are on the other side. Sheesh, there won't even be judder introduced by coverting 60i back to 30p...

This is AWESOME. Now the same people who argued until they were blue in the face that 1080p didn't matter, that 1080i transfers from 1080p sources were absolutely identical because all you have to do is deinterlace them, those people are now arguing that 60i is faaaar worse than 30p, because, after all, you have to deinterlace the material.

And those who were advocating 1080p's are on the other side. Sheesh, there won't even be judder introduced by coverting 60i back to 30p...

So you noticed that too... ;)

b2b

This is AWESOME. Now the same people who argued until they were blue in the face that 1080p didn't matter...Yes, some people here jump on whispers of wind and try to turn them into a typhoon in an effort to make one format better than the other. :rolleyes: Anyway, does DVD support p30?

I also know that Sony changed the HDV specifications to be able to do things like 25p... did you? Do you know why? :)

Do you know why? :)

Oh, oh, could my little PAL explain it? :D

Oh, oh, could my little PAL explain it? :DCould it be NVD12G? :)

Wrong, Richard.

HD DVD can and does encode and store native 24p to disc, as evidenced by almost every release to date.If you said store 24p to disc I would agree with you. Still you can't store native 24p to disc without flags because of how HD DVD was made. Obviously we disagree on whether this will be an issue for HD DVD.


That is not a fair statement at all.Come on rdjam you really can't tell us that you didn't make this thread without the intention of attacking Blu-ray over this issue. Heck, I look through your thread history and I can't see one thread about Blu-ray that isn't negative. And of course this doesn't even get into your recent thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=753842) against the PS3, which links to an article that guesses about the RSX.


Some people seem to take the position that ANY discussion of a weakness in the Bluray spec is an attack against their religion or God, and they switch into "crusades" mode.I already said that not having 30p in the Blu-ray specs was a negative. Also how many times have you admitted to any weakness with HD DVD?


What happens when I want to store the progressive video I've filmed to a Bluray disc?How do you know what BD-RE/R will be able to handle in terms of video resolutions?


Does anyone know if the Bluray Disc Association plans to address this glaring shortfalling of the BD standard?rdjam, are you telling me that you consider a 5% difference in encoding efficiency to be a glaring shortfall? Strange than that you consider a 66% difference in capacity and 60% difference in bandwidth to be irrelevant.

The encoder is less efficient on interlaced material - so Bluray's forcing the encoder/compressionist to place native 30p and 25p video on the disc as 60i and 50i DOES cost the user quality and/or space.


the difference (worst case) is around 1mbps BD has >18mbps differerence then HD DVD. When HD DVD changes the spec to 50mbps then you can start talking about that <1mbps

This is AWESOME. Now the same people who argued until they were blue in the face that 1080p didn't matter, that 1080i transfers from 1080p sources were absolutely identical because all you have to do is deinterlace them, those people are now arguing that 60i is faaaar worse than 30p, because, after all, you have to deinterlace the material.

And those who were advocating 1080p's are on the other side. Sheesh, there won't even be judder introduced by coverting 60i back to 30p...
Nice spin...

HD DVD folks have always said that 1080i60 *PLAYBACK* of the 1080p24 native material on the movie discs doesn't lose any information.

THIS discussion is completely different:

It is about Bluray converting native 1080p to interlaced, encoding it and storing on the disc as interlaced - whereas HD DVD is able to store the 1080p25/30 source material instead on storing it as interlaced like Bluray has to.

COMPLETEly different from the previous discussions.

And b2b, if the space or bandwidth is limited, then YES, there will be an impact on the picture quality.

Do you know why? :)
For the same reason.

If you said store 24p to disc I would agree with you. Still you can't store native 24p to disc without flags because of how HD DVD was made. Obviously we disagree on whether this will be an issue for HD DVD.P.R. - You are dead wrong on this, and have been corrected by a half-dozen industry experts. The movies on HD DVD are stored as native 1080p24. The "flags" you keep talking about are simply hints to the players on how to perform on-the-fly 3:2 conversion during playback, in order to output 1080i60 on playback.

As you know full well, the presence of playback flags doesn't suddenly make it NOT 1080p24, no more than the presence of chocolate sprinkles makes a cake a pancake.

I know that this is not beyond your understanding, so I am wondering whether your continuous denial of 1080p24 on HD DVD is just mischeivous.

Again, I would point out to those watching this discussion that the thread is about the complete inability of the Bluray format to store native 1080p25 or 1080p30 progressive video material on the discs - and that BR has to convert these sources to Interlaced, before being able to encode them and store them on Bluray discs...

I will stick to the subject and also reiterate that it has been shown that this affects the efficiency and PQ of the material. I would also mention that Sony saw fit to rectify this shortcoming in the HDV video format, by modifying the standard - and repeat my query as to whether they will fix the Bluray specifications to allow this on Bluray.

Come on rdjam you really can't tell us that you didn't make this thread without the intention of attacking Blu-ray over this issue. Heck, I look through your thread history and I can't see one thread about Blu-ray that isn't negative. And of course this doesn't even get into your recent thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=753842) against the PS3, which links to an article that guesses about the RSX.If I had a penny for every time you say "Oh come on rdjam"... :p

Oh, so we're not allowed to talk about shortcomings of the Bluray format now? And I suppose no one else ever brings up problems with the HD DVD format?

P.S. The article about the Xbox 360 vs. PS3 was not a "guess" as you'd like to call it - it was an engineers perspective on the two designs, and a very good one at that.


I already said that not having 30p in the Blu-ray specs was a negative. Also how many times have you admitted to any weakness with HD DVD?Excellent, must have missed that, glad to hear it. - oh, and on HD DVD weaknesses, I've always conceded that more studio support was needed to make the HD DVD format perfect :D And you can see that I've done something about it... We NOW have over 1,800 unique, individual supporters to this campaign. It's all grass roots, I don't work for anyone related to any of the CE or studio players, but I'm doing it from a belief that HD DVD is a better consumer format. It seems many folks agree...


How do you know what BD-RE/R will be able to handle in terms of video resolutions?(1) Irrelevant (2) If it didn't match the specs of BD-ROM then it would not playback on Bluray players, so it's not worth your time trying to imply that somehow Progressive Video support will magically appear there.

Cheers

mod

in the Thanksgiving spirit please remember:

challenge the info: not the poster

post (s) deleted

Thank you :)

The movies on HD DVD are stored as native 1080p24.It is done the same way as DVD is.

If it didn't match the specs of BD-ROM then it would not playback on Bluray players....You are underestimating the capabilities of BD recorders. ;)

Since neither format supports 1080p25 or 1080p30 output, the issue is quite moot. Even the small encoding penalty in MPEG-2 can be corrected by setting progressive_frame and frame_pred_frame_dct to 1 in each frame.

To use this issue as a negative for BD is to truly grasp at straws.

Ron

This thread does seem to have gone a lot further than I expected. If nothing else, it's probably blown out of proportion now because I don't think any of the existing players yet for either side really support an all progressive path to the display, for any format. But I'm not aware of all the specs for all the players, so who knows.

- Tom

Since neither format supports 1080p25 or 1080p30 output, the issue is quite moot. Even the small encoding penalty in MPEG-2 can be corrected by setting progressive_frame and frame_pred_frame_dct to 1 in each frame.

To use this issue as a negative for BD is to truly grasp at straws.

Ron

Seems like the HD-DVD folks forgot about that. None of the players are planning on outputing a native 30p signal, it would just be 60p (without telecine judder of 24p film source).

b2b

The Toshiba player (I have a HD-XA1) has "Picture Mode" in its "SETUP MENU"/"Picture" settings. The user manual states that it is only applicable "when connected to a PROGRESSIVE TV". The choices are "Film", "Video" or "Auto". The text under "Video" says:
The player filters video signal, and converts it in the
progressive output format appropriately. Suitable for
playback of video content pictures.
Curious as to what exactly it does on the video output format.

Bob

The Toshiba player (I have a HD-XA1) has "Picture Mode" in its "SETUP MENU"/"Picture" settings. The user manual states that it is only applicable "when connected to a PROGRESSIVE TV". The choices are "Film", "Video" or "Auto". The text under "Video" says:

Curious as to what exactly it does on the video output format.

Bob
There are two types of source content in pictures recorded in
DVD video discs: film content (pictures recorded from films
at 24 frames per second) and video content (video signals
recorded at 30 frames per second). Make this selection
according to the type of content being viewed.

b2b

Since neither format supports 1080p25 or 1080p30 output, the issue is quite moot. Even the small encoding penalty in MPEG-2 can be corrected by setting progressive_frame and frame_pred_frame_dct to 1 in each frame.

To use this issue as a negative for BD is to truly grasp at straws.


Let's turn it around and grasp the other way :)

25% more frames. Probably all full frame. From a format with a short GOP and already possibly bumping its head occasionally on its maximum bandwidth?


Seems like the HD-DVD folks forgot about that. None of the players are planning on outputing a native 30p signal, it would just be 60p (without telecine judder of 24p film source).


That would be fine, unless the set tried to return it to 24fps (attempting to solve the problem with 60p from 24 fps). It would be using 1080i/60 outputs that would be the issue, leading to a de-interlace issue in the set.

So, unless 60p output was used AND it was rate convert from 30p processing AND the set didn't futz with the 60p on reception, you'd be fine.


What ways can 60i be stored on BD? Is it 540p fields? 1080p frames with two sequential 540p fields? Or can it be interleaved (i.e. basically 1080p frames if there is no interfield motion)?

Gary

It is done the same way as DVD is.
That's not so, kjack.

24 frame per second movies are converted to interlaced, 60 field per second (30 frame per second) video with 3:2 before they are encoded, then saved, onto the DVDs.

So what is actually encoded and saved to a DVD is an SD 60 field per second interlaced stream.

Whereas what is saved to HD DVD is a true 24 frame per second progressive stream.

Why would you make such an incorrect statement as to say that HD DVD 24 fps movies are stored as the same 60 fps interlaced stream as DVD when you must clearly know this not to be the case?

I don't think everyone should rush to conclusion that no players from either format will support 30p and 25p playback.

Let's not forget that either of these can be transferred out by 1080(i or p)60 and 1080(i or p)50 output signals. This is not the same as converting the source to interlaced and encoding it and storing it that way...

I stumbled on this thread for the first time now and this thread is pure comedy gold! :D :p

That's not so, kjack.
Why would you make such an incorrect statement as to say that HD DVD 24 fps movies are stored as the same 60 fps interlaced stream as DVD when you must clearly know this not to be the case?
Because he's 100% correct. 24p film content is stored identically on HD-DVD as it is on DVD. Know it, feel it, respect it, and love it because it is the way it is.

Ron

Because he's 100% correct. 24p film content is stored identically on HD-DVD as it is on DVD. Know it, feel it, respect it, and love it because it is the way it is.


Identically? How are the fields represented if frame based? Interleaved or sequential?

And BD can't interleave 1080i/60?

Gary

Let's turn it around and grasp the other way :)

25% more frames. Probably all full frame. From a format with a short GOP and already possibly bumping its head occasionally on its maximum bandwidth?



That would be fine, unless the set tried to return it to 24fps (attempting to solve the problem with 60p from 24 fps). It would be using 1080i/60 outputs that would be the issue, leading to a de-interlace issue in the set.

So, unless 60p output was used AND it was rate convert from 30p processing AND the set didn't futz with the 60p on reception, you'd be fine.


What ways can 60i be stored on BD? Is it 540p fields? 1080p frames with two sequential 540p fields? Or can it be interleaved (i.e. basically 1080p frames if there is no interfield motion)?

Gary

I think what you are describing is full inverse telecine deinterlacing and that has been the holy grail of all video processing for some time. The best you can hope for is that your display is smart enough to detect what the original source was, correctly process the signal and "do the right thing". That's easier said than done... Take a look at the HQV page and they go into just how complicated it gets anytime a interlaced signal is involved.

www.hqv.com

I personally feel that BD "did the right thing" by centering the specification around 24p (that's what >99% of movies are sourced in) and the 30fps video stuff will just have to be dealt with as video always does, depending if the source was interlaced or progressive.

b2b

Identically? How are the fields represented if frame based? Interleaved or sequential?

And BD can't interleave 1080i/60?

Gary

The long, exhaustive description of the messy world of DVD and what HD-DVD seeks to perpetuate... bad flagging is the bane of all players.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html

b2b

To use this issue as a negative for BD is to truly grasp at straws.But! There! Are! Three! Exclamation! Points! In! The! Thread! Title!

Because he's 100% correct. 24p film content is stored identically on HD-DVD as it is on DVD. Know it, feel it, respect it, and love it because it is the way it is.

Ron
So let me ask a dumb question here. You're telling me that there is some esoteric 24p storage spec on DVD that saves movies as true 24p on DVD discs - like HD DVD does?

So why, then, do all film releases on DVD seem to be in a 3:2 60i stream?

The long, exhaustive description of the messy world of DVD and what HD-DVD seeks to perpetuate... bad flagging is the bane of all players.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html

b2b

I've read that. I get the field based encoding (240). But, it's the combining fields into 480 frames that confuses me. There are two ways that could be done (sequential or interleaved). Which is allowed?

As said, the encoder could combine fields any way it likes. But, if it stuck to combining fields from the same frame, wouldn't that be the same thing as progressive for 24p on disc (assuming no filtering)?

The 30p discussions sound like it is different on BD compared to 24p on DVD. That the fields are handled differently, and that you won't have the equivalent of 30p on the disc.

AFAIK, every stand-alone player will turn everything into 60i for internal processing. So, this is all about a mythical future where they process the content in the form it is on the disc.

Gary

So let me ask a dumb question here. You're telling me that there is some esoteric 24p storage spec on DVD that saves movies as true 24p on DVD discs - like HD DVD does?

So why, then, do all film releases on DVD seem to be in a 3:2 60i stream?
How The Information is Stored on Disc

It’s important to understand at the outset that DVDs are designed for interlaced displays. There’s a persistent myth that DVDs are inherently progressive, and all a DVD player needs to do to display a progressive signal is to grab the progressive frames off the disc and show them. This is not exactly true. First of all, a significant amount of DVD content was never progressive to begin with. Anything shot with a typical video camera, which includes many concerts, most supplementary documentaries, and many TV shows, is inherently interlaced. (Some consumer digital video cameras can shoot in progressive mode, and a handful of TV programs are shot in progressive, particularly sports events.) By comparison, content that was originally shot on film, or with a progressive TV camera, or created in a computer, is progressive from the get-go. But even for such content, there is no requirement that it be stored on the DVD progressively.

Sound familiar ??? That's because HD-DVD does it just like DVD.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html

Read the whole article.... please !!

b2b

I think what you are describing is full inverse telecine deinterlacing and that has been the holy grail of all video processing for some time.

We're getting into subtleties here. The BD spec seems to be saying that 30p must actually be processed by players as 60i. And yes, then you have the detect and deinterlace problem.

What I'm trying to nail down is the nature of the content on the disc. Flagged 30p is still 30p. Just as flagged 24p on HD DVD is still 24p.

Is there something that fundementally alters the form on 30p source content on BD? Or is it an issue of how it is processed?

Gary

Sound familiar ??? That's because HD-DVD does it just like DVD.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html

Read the whole article.... please !!

b2b
Doh!

If you read it, it says just what I said - most DVD content is not stored as progressive, even if it is a progressive source such as film. This is completely different to the 24p films on HD DVD.

In fact, the article goes into a huge amount of detail as to how the INTERLACED films are deinterlaced back into progressive during playback.

It also states that there is basically alomost zero progressively encoded content on DVD.

"Real life" vs "theory and maybe", remember?

The attempts here to state that HD DVD saves 24p film material to the disc as 60i can now officially be regarded by everyone here as nothing but "misdirection", "misinformation", "FUD" and "spin".

Now - since we know that HD DVD saves film to the disc as 24p. not interlaced - shall we get back to the subject of the piss-poor planning by Bluray when they forgot to include 30p and 25p video in the bluray spec? :p

Another tidbit from that Secrets story:The first major film shot in Todd-AO was Oklahoma!. The Oklahoma! DVD features a transfer from the 30fps Todd-AO print. Like all DVD material, it is decoded as interlaced fields, but unlike video, pairs of fields do belong together if you want to recreate the original film frames. Now we've got another type of deinterlacing: 2-2 pulldown where pairs of fields need to be woven together and each displayed twice (2-2-2-2 as oppose to 3-2-3-2).

30fps movie did not actually catch on though. For the sake of general release, they also shot Oklahoma! in 24fps Cinemascope on 35mm stock. Contrary to popular opinion, they very rarely shot together due to simple logistics and differences in lenses. The two versions of the film, resolutions and frame rate aside, are NOT identical pictures (i.e., not the same performances of actors). Very few Todd-AO films were shot at 30fps. The system was converted to the standard 24fps which is what such Todd-AO pictures as The Sound of Music were filmed and displayed at.

Enough film history.

Before you start to think we are concerned about 2-2 pulldown for the sake of a couple classic films, there is another source of true 30 frames per second material which is more common than you might think: The proverbial sit-com such as NBC's Friends. These shows are shot with film at 30frames/ps and transferred to 60fields/ps video to give them a softer film like look. In consequence, there is a lot of vertical resolution waiting to be reclaimed through 2-2 playback.

And more: It’s important to understand at the outset that DVDs are designed for interlaced displays. There’s a persistent myth that DVDs are inherently progressive, and all a DVD player needs to do to display a progressive signal is to grab the progressive frames off the disc and show them. This is not exactly true.... ...very few discs use progressive sequences, because the players are specifically designed for interlaced output.... ...As we explained above, when film is transferred to (DVD) video, 24 frames per second of film must be converted to 60 fields per second of video.

And more:
You missed this part. This is exactly how HD-DVD does it. Except the part where the masters are interlaced tape even if the source was 24p. HD-DVD did change that part, all of the 24p source material is kept a 24p for the encoder to then encode with a "encoded frame rate" of 29.97 via flagging.

Yes it's on the disc in 24p, but 24p with flagging for a "encoded frame rate" of 29.97.
DVDs are based on MPEG-2 encoding, which allows for either progressive or interlaced sequences. However, very few discs use progressive sequences, because the players are specifically designed for interlaced output. Interestingly, while the sequences (i.e., the films and videos) are seldom stored progressive, there's nothing wrong with using individual progressive frames in an interlaced sequence. This may sound like a semantic distinction, but it’s not. If the sequence is progressive, then all sorts of rules kick into place which ensure that the material stays progressive from start to finish. Whereas if the sequence is interlaced, then there are fewer rules and no requirement to use progressive frames. The encoder can mix and match interlaced fields and progressive frames as long as each second of MPEG-2 data contains 60 fields, no more, no less (or 50 fields per second for PAL discs). The progressive frames, when they are used, are purely for compression efficiency, but the video is still interlaced as far as the MPEG decoder is concerned.

The input to a DVD encoder (the instrumentation that is used to author a DVD) is almost always an interlaced digital master tape, even if the original material was shot on film. The video transfer is typically done at a different facility, and the output of the transfer is interlaced. Since the DVD encoding software doesn't even have access to a progressive master, it must rely on the same kinds of algorithms that a deinterlacer uses to put the proper fields together. Since there is essentially no requirement that it actually always put the proper fields together, other than compression efficiency, many encoders are conservative about using progressive frames. If the encoder cannot be sure that a frame is progressive, it will typically mark it interlaced, because the only real loss is a few bits of disc space.

b2b

I only know for a fact that none of current blu-ray players could do 24p.

if this is true, then why is 24p in the stats for Blu-ray?

You missed this part. This is exactly how HD-DVD does it. Except the part where the masters are interlaced tape even if the source was 24p. HD-DVD did change that part, all of the 24p source material is kept a 24p for the encoder to then encode with a "encoded frame rate" of 29.97 via flagging.

Yes it's on the disc in 24p, but 24p with flagging for a "encoded frame rate" of 29.97.


b2b
Well HALLELUJAH!

You've finally admitted it. - I love the part where you say it is the same except where the DVD material get interlaced first :p :p

And, for the very last time, the "flagging" you keep mentioning is to tell the players how to convert the native 24p, encocded and stored on the HD DVD disc, into 60i output. The material on the disc, as you rightly admit, is 24p.

Now let's remember that the title of this thread deals with the lack of support for 30p and 35p progressive video formats on Bluray...

Does anyone know if Sony are going to fix this mistake, like they recently did with the HDV format?

Now let's remember that the title of this thread deals with the lack of support for 30p and 35p progressive video formats on Bluray...

Does anyone know if Sony are going to fix this mistake, like they recently did with the HDV format?

There is nothing to fix. That is the way they decided to handle 30p. It appears they are going to store it on the disc as 60i. Or maybe there is a way to store on disc as 30p with flagging for an encoded frame rate of 59.94. Maybe dr1394 would know.
We should also mention that there is a decent amount of material encoded with 2-2 pulldown, which has a different flag pattern, and is even more likely to not be marked with the "progressive-frame" flag. In Europe almost every film is encoded with 2-2 pulldown. Their TVs run at 50 fields per second, so the easiest way to encode a 24 fps film is to speed it up slightly to 25 fps and show each frame for 2 fields. Even in the US, there are some discs that use 2-2 pulldown, including a handful of Todd-AO films shot on 30 fps cameras, like Oklahoma! and Around the World in 80 Days. Several TV shows, including Friends, are shot on 30 fps cameras and transferred to video using 2-2 pulldown. Unfortunately, the Friends DVDs are not marked progressive, which just reinforces our point – you can’t trust the flags.

Seems that 30p was handled on DVD with flagging as 60i.

b2b

P.R. - You are dead wrong on this, and have been corrected by a half-dozen industry experts. The movies on HD DVD are stored as native 1080p24. The "flags" you keep talking about are simply hints to the players on how to perform on-the-fly 3:2 conversion during playback, in order to output 1080i60 on playback.Well first off rdjam do you mind not calling me P.R.? After all I think you can discuss this without needing to be rude. As for flags on HD DVD the reason they are required is the reason that I believe 1080p24 output will be difficult. Also have I ever said that HD DVD would be less efficient at encoding 1080p24 video because of the flags?


Again, I would point out to those watching this discussion that the thread is about the complete inability of the Bluray format to store native 1080p25 or 1080p30 progressive video material on the discs - and that BR has to convert these sources to Interlaced, before being able to encode them and store them on Bluray discs...I do agree that there will be less efficiency in storing 1080p30 on Blu-ray. From what Ron said it will be around 5% though I would also be interested in hearing about Stacey's tests.


Oh, so we're not allowed to talk about shortcomings of the Bluray format now? And I suppose no one else ever brings up problems with the HD DVD format?I am not saying that you can't bring this up. What I am saying is that you could have been more objective with the title and original post without the various comments.


The article about the Xbox 360 vs. PS3 was not a "guess" as you'd like to call it - it was an engineers perspective on the two designs, and a very good one at that.He didn't know what the RSX could actually do and from what I read it never mentioned a thing about him being an engineer.


(1) Irrelevant (2) If it didn't match the specs of BD-ROM then it would not playback on Bluray players, so it's not worth your time trying to imply that somehow Progressive Video support will magically appear there.Actually recordable formats tend to support a wider range of video resolutions than the read only format does. If I am not mistaken BD-RE can handle several resolutions just for SD video that can not be handled by BD-ROM.


If you read it, it says just what I said - most DVD content is not stored as progressive, even if it is a progressive source such as film. This is completely different to the 24p films on HD DVD.That was for back in 2000 and today I think there are a lot of DVDs that are progressively encoded. The problem of course is that since the flags could be wrong with DVD most DVD players don't even use them. To be fair Amir has said that things will be different with HD DVD.

Several TV shows, including Friends, are shot on 30 fps cameras and transferred to video using 2-2 pulldown. Unfortunately, the Friends DVDs are not marked progressive, which just reinforces our point – you can’t trust the flags.

Friends was shot on 24fps film, telecined for editing, edited in 30i with speedups and slowdowns, then broadcast. Therefore, Friends as mastered on the SD DVD is not progressive. I can remove the cadence in parts, but it'll still stutter when the editor sped up the camera movement or actor entry into the scene for whatever reason. I know why they do it, I just wish they'd known in 1994 that progressive editing is better than telecined editing.

Now, I know that I can open an MPEG-2 file from most Hollywood feature DVD's and simply strip out the 3:2 flagging, but that does not mean that DVD-spec players can do this. AFAIK, they must still show 30p for progressive TV's, allow the TV to remove the telecine and display it as best as possible (i.e. "Cinemotion" mode on Sony TV's.), or allow an external processor to handle the progressive output.

And to reiterate, native storage on the disc is the most important point for me. When a format can't store the natively-shot frames/fields, that makes me a little ticked as I'm forced to convert it. That's not me supporting HD or BD, just stating a point.

Cjplay.

Because he's 100% correct. 24p film content is stored identically on HD-DVD as it is on DVD. Know it, feel it, respect it, and love it because it is the way it is.

Ron

I'm not sure if rdjam knew he was going to get worms from this can.

As for flags on HD DVD the reason they are required is the reason that I believe 1080p24 output will be difficult.
For the fourth time... encoding 1080p24 on HD DVD is easy - the flags are only there to give the player hints on how to convert it to 1080i60 which is used by the majority of HD Displays... all of which you know full well...

Onanie - yes, I would be naive not to expect the worms... I think I got 'em all :D

For the fourth time... encoding 1080p24 on HD DVD is easy - the flags are only there to give the player hints on how to convert it to 1080i60 which is used by the majority of HD Displays... all of which you know full well...

Onanie - yes, I would be naive not to expect the worms... I think I got 'em all :D

One question.. Do you have any idea what the term "encoded frame rate" means ??

b2b

One question.. Do you have any idea what the term "encoded frame rate" means ??

b2b

I do... However a simple check of the stream and/or the mux's flagging can allow the player to forget that the HD DVD 1080p24 is flagged as 1080i60 with an encoded frame rate of 29.97.

1080p30 is a slightly different ball of wax in BD. You just have to reflag it as i60. That's not a big deal and changes nothing about what's stored in the VC1 file. So now, as a near-complete 180 turn, I'm over this issue and you should be, too.

Cjplay.

I do... However a simple check of the stream and/or the mux's flagging can allow the player to forget that the HD DVD 1080p24 is flagged as 1080i60 with an encoded frame rate of 29.97.

1080p30 is a slightly different ball of wax in BD. You just have to reflag it as i60. That's not a big deal and changes nothing about what's stored in the VC1 file. So now, as a near-complete 180 turn, I'm over this issue and you should be, too.

Cjplay.

No doubt a player can "forget" what it is supposed to do as defined by the HD-DVD spec. But that also opens up the "can of worms" as to what the studios can expect a player to do when they author the discs with the expectation of a defined set of rules to be followed. That's the issue.

b2b

No doubt a player can "forget" what it is supposed to do as defined by the HD-DVD spec. But that also opens up the "can of worms" as to what the studios can expect a player to do when they author the discs with the expectation of a defined set of rules to be followed. That's the issue.That's why some studios are involved in the process, and are actually the ones that were pushing for the feature to be added to HD-DVD players.

That's why some studios are involved in the process, and are actually the ones that were pushing for the feature to be added to HD-DVD players.

Thank you.. At least it should be understood that if a feature is desired, it should be defined and the proper place to do it is in the HD-DVD spec.

b2b

One question.. Do you have any idea what the term "encoded frame rate" means ??

b2b
You asked this a few pages back, in a previous attempt to suggest someone here doesn't understand the issue...

24p encoding, with "hints" to the players on how to output at 60i.

Nice try ;)

You asked this a few pages back, in a previous attempt to suggest someone here doesn't understand the issue...

24p encoding, with "hints" to the players on how to output at 60i.

Nice try ;)

Surprise !! The Sony BD player supports native 24p playback.. Now let's see when HD-DVD gets their format spec changed and how long it takes Toshiba to produce a player that can do it (ignore the "hints").. ;)

b2b

Surprise !! The Sony BD player supports native 24p playback.. Now let's see when HD-DVD gets their format spec changed and how long it takes Toshiba to produce a player that can do it (ignore the "hints").. ;)

b2b

Ain't competition grand? I love the smell of a format war in the morning. ;)

- Tom

Surprise !! The Sony BD player supports native 24p playback.. Now let's see when HD-DVD gets their format spec changed and how long it takes Toshiba to produce a player that can do it (ignore the "hints").. ;)

b2b
Hint hint - December... ;)

it's december. where's 24p playback for hd dvd? oh wait... hint hint - january. LOL

A little something that I spotted about 30fps and the A2..
I gave the A2 a round with the HQV disc today.

It does not pass any of the jaggies tests. It also failed the 2:2 30fps test and there was some artifacts on the test in the 3:2 w/ video text but I suppose it would still pass with partial credit. The 3:2 24fps looked fine though. For video based material there are definitely better players. I also noticed combing on some material so I suspect this is a flag based reader rather than cadence. Perhaps others can chime in to that effect.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9155396&&#post9155396

b2b

it's december. where's 24p playback for hd dvd? oh wait... hint hint - january. LOL

Wreckshop: Do you know what is meant by a "soft launch". From another forum someone (Sir Terrance?) made a comment about Sony doing a soft launch for their G1 player this December. Do you have any idea what he means? What is the difference between a soft launch and a launch?

Just an update... Blu-Print supports 1080p30, so Blu-Ray supports it. 480p30 was missing from the list, but per Sony, Blu-Print will support it at some point. My take is they may just reflag it as interlaced in the muxing, or the BD spec posted earlier was not the final version of the video spec.

Cjplay.

Just an update... Blu-Print supports 1080p30, so Blu-Ray supports it. 480p30 was missing from the list, but per Sony, Blu-Print will support it at some point. My take is they may just reflag it as interlaced in the muxing, or the BD spec posted earlier was not the final version of the video spec.

My head is spinning from reading all 7 pages of this thread, so correct me if I'm wrong here. You're saying that BD will not have a problem with 1080p30 as previously reported by some?

My head is spinning from reading all 7 pages of this thread, so correct me if I'm wrong here. You're saying that BD will not have a problem with 1080p30 as previously reported by some?

Correct.

Cjplay.

Well if Blu-ray does support progressively encoded 1080p30 video than I am curious to know why certain posters, such as sspears (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8916888&&#post8916888), said that it did not.

Well if Blu-ray does support progressively encoded 1080p30 video than I am curious to know why certain posters, such as sspears (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8916888&&#post8916888), said that it did not.

SSpears was one of those who said to give 1080p30 a shot in Blu-Print, even though the import list doesn't list it as a format, to me in a PM. I'm just saying what I tried and what did/didn't work and what info came directly from Sony. Believe what you want.

I hope I've shown I support for any HD disc format on some level, but not a preference to either. Both have faults and positives. I just think HD DVD is closer to a final and feature-complete product than BD. My post was provided as information because the informed consumer is the stronger and better consumer. Believe what you want.

Cjplay.

SSpears was one of those who said to give 1080p30 a shot in Blu-Print, even though the import list doesn't list it as a format, to me in a PM. I'm just saying what I tried and what did/didn't work and what info came directly from Sony. Believe what you want.No offense was intended and I am just trying to confirm this information by seeing if sspears will post on this matter.

Well if Blu-ray does support progressively encoded 1080p30 video than I am curious to know why certain posters, such as sspears (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8916888&&#post8916888), said that it did not.It sounds to me like it isn't listed as a supported mode in the official specs for Blu-ray that people can get, but does work. It is possible that it ends up much like 1080p24 encodings with flags for HD DVD, but I'm just speculating.

--Darin

Just an update... Blu-Print supports 1080p30, so Blu-Ray supports it. 480p30 was missing from the list, but per Sony, Blu-Print will support it at some point. My take is they may just reflag it as interlaced in the muxing, or the BD spec posted earlier was not the final version of the video spec.

Cjplay.
That's excellent to know Cj, thanks very much.

No offense was intended and I am just trying to confirm this information by seeing if sspears will post on this matter.

He's on vacation from the last email I got from him.

No direct offense taken, just a reaffirmation that I don't want to show allegiance to either format or codec. Just to present information to help people decide.

Cjplay.

So Blu-Print now supports 480p30, but the players are showing issues with it. Support your chosen format and get them to fix this bug! I know that at least one of the players is rumored to be fine, but others are not. This is true for MPEG-2, AVC, and VC-1.

If you need a "why," then remember that Progressive encodes better than Interlaced. All SD content is interlaced in one way or another on the tapes. The smaller the SD and extra content, the higher the Audio and Feature bitrates and the more interactive content you'll see.

Fix this bug!!!

Cjplay.

it's december. where's 24p playback for hd dvd? oh wait... hint hint - january. LOL
Are you ready for December 26th yet? :)

Are you ready for December 26th yet? :)
Today is the 26th so please tell us already what is going to happen.

Well - the truth is now out, so I thought I'd add this info to the discussion here.

Paidgeek (a sony employee) has confirmed that Bluray cannot store either native 1080p25 or 1080p30 on the disc.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9609134&&#post9609134

I think we can consider this the difinitive word on the matter.

BTW, Seyak. Yes, Toshiba have confirmed that 1080p24 will be available on the XA2 - life is good :)

Paidgeek (a sony employee) has confirmed that Bluray cannot store either native 1080p25 or 1080p30 on the disc.You forgot to mention it doesn't matter.

QUOTE=Rob Zuber -You forgot to mention it doesn't matter. /QUOTE

Really? It doesn't? I'm glad, that makes me feel much better now :D I could have sworn 1080p was a reallyreally big issue before now ;)

QUOTE=Rob Zuber -You forgot to mention it doesn't matter. /QUOTE

Really? It doesn't? I'm glad, that makes me feel much better now :D I could have sworn 1080p was a reallyreally big issue before now ;)

Strawman alert!

Native 1080p24 (as opposed to 1080p24-1080i60-1080p60-1080p24) is a big issue.

Strawman alert!

Native 1080p24 (as opposed to 1080p24-1080i60-1080p60-1080p24) is a big issue. Isn't this what HD-DVD is doing now?


fuad

Well - the truth is now out, so I thought I'd add this info to the discussion here.

Paidgeek (a sony employee) has confirmed that Bluray cannot store either native 1080p25 or 1080p30 on the disc.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9609134&&#post9609134

I think we can consider this the difinitive word on the matter.


You realize that he is saying that 25p and 30p on BD are exactly analogous to 24p on HD DVD? That is, it is a flag issue, not a real issue.

Or, are you going to now accept 24p doesn't exist on HD DVD?

Gary

You realize that he is saying that 25p and 30p on BD are exactly analogous to 24p on HD DVD? That is, it is a flag issue, not a real issue.

Or, are you going to now accept 24p doesn't exist on HD DVD?

Gary
Not so at all - I saw Richard trying to get at that in the insider thread, but it is NOT the case.

HD DVD uses true 1080p24 encoding, but with playback hints stored alongside it to tell 1080i60 players how to handle the 1080p24 stream.

This is very different to the Bluray situation with 1080p25 and 1080p30, where it is almost the opposite situation - the video is actually stored on the Bluray disc as 1080i60 or 1080i50, with playback hints talling players the interlaced stream originally came from a progressive source.

Unfortunately, as has been described here, the Bluray players generally do not know how to handle to 2:2 pulldown and destroy the image on playback.

Nice try tho...

This is very different to the Bluray situation with 1080p25 and 1080p30, where it is almost the opposite situation - the video is actually stored on the Bluray disc as 1080i60 or 1080i50, with playback hints talling players the interlaced stream originally came from a progressive source.


It can be. But, paidgeek is clear that the data can also be stored frame encoded (this is done on DVD too). In which case it is exactly the same as HD DVD with 24p.

There is no requirement that the data actually be interlaced in nature (interfield motion, interlaced filtered). It merely means the decoder is supposed to output a 1080i/50or60 decode. Same as HD DVD.

Remember, BD requires the same thing for the secondary. And clearly the vast majority of video PiP content will come from NTSC/PAL source (60i/50i). So this makes perfect sense that BD has defined an interlace decode for video source.

Like the claims of HD DVD, a player can always be made that ignores the flags. But I can't see how non-interlace content to 1080i/60 would be distinguishable to 1080p/30.

Gary

It can be. But, paidgeek is clear that the data can also be stored frame encoded (this is done on DVD too). In which case it is exactly the same as HD DVD with 24p.

There is no requirement that the data actually be interlaced in nature (interfield motion, interlaced filtered). It merely means the decoder is supposed to output a 1080i/50or60 decode. Same as HD DVD.

Remember, BD requires the same thing for the secondary. And clearly the vast majority of video PiP content will come from NTSC/PAL source (60i/50i). So this makes perfect sense that BD has defined an interlace decode for video source.

Like the claims of HD DVD, a player can always be made that ignores the flags. But I can't see how non-interlace content to 1080i/60 would be distinguishable to 1080p/30.

Gary
Gary - your statements here are incorrect, I'm afraid. The situation is not at all the way you are envisaging it, and there is no similarity at all between the two.

What I am saying has just been confirmed on the Insider's thread http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9618046&&#post9618046

HD DVD stores 1080p24 as native progressive 24 frames per second. All that is stored with it are playback hints for 60i players, but the video encode is true 24p.

However, Bluray cannot store native 1080 30p or 25p. It's just not there. So it has to be stored on Bluray as 1080i60 or 1080i50.

You can see evidence of this by the suggestion paidgeek made to someone who was asking about how to package their content here http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9608405&&#post9608405

However, there is code that can be used to tell the player that the 1080i60 is actually from a 1080p30 source and to process the two fields as a frame, but this is nothing like what you have suggested for HD DVD. HD DVD is a true 1080p24 encode. In fact, the bluray situation with 1080p25 and 1080p30 is actually more like the way that DVDs handled them.

Hope this info helps.

Hey, guys, has anyone started the thread "HD-DVD doesn't support 24p"? That is a fact too, just like this lack of 30p on Blu-ray! :)

Hey, guys, has anyone started the thread "HD-DVD doesn't support 24p"? That is a fact too, just like this lack of 30p on Blu-ray! :)
Shame on you - that is not true. I assume the smiley was recognition that this post was just a "jab"? ;)

However, Bluray cannot store native 1080 30p or 25p. It's just not there. So it has to be stored on Bluray as 1080i60 or 1080i50.


What do you suppose is there when a 25p/30p source is stored interlace encoded in progressive frames? What's in those progressive frames, do you think?

The gotcha of DVD was that the encoder could store fields from DIFFERENT frames together in a progressive frame and compress that.

... AA BB CC ...
... AB BC CD ...

Anything was OK with DVD as long as a valid interlace stream could be emitted.

If the BD encoders restrict the fields of the 25p/30p to the same progressive storage frame, there is no issue, and the storage is equivalent to 25p/30p.

The tricky part, as Ben says, is trying to restore 25p/30p from the interlace decoding.

How do you suppose the HD DVD players output 30p?

Gary

The data compression from a 30p source can be encoded as 30p but will have 60i syntax, just as with 24p and HD-DVD. If the data is from a 60i source it will be encoded 60i with 60i syntax. If the player outputs the data as 60i, the monitor will, in almost all cases, recognize that it is from a progressive frame and reconstruct it as such. The same cases hold true for 25/50.


Seems to be clear enough to me.

Gary

Hmm, some more posts from Paidgeek and Amir have shed some new light on this. Paidgeek is saying that the data can be encoded as true 1080p30 with 60i "flags" or "playback hints".

If this is the case, then that is true 1080p30 for all intents and purposes.

Yet it doesn't explain why "Nine Inch Nails" was encoded as 1080i60 (yes, with 60i flags) for the Bluray release. And yes, it was encoded as interlaced, not progressive.

Was it the tools at the time? If so, then why was paid geek telling Torsten to encode at 50i here if it could actually do 25p? http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9608405&&#post9608405

The mystery continues... to date we are now left with the message that Bluray CAN support progressive encoding of 1080p25 and 1080p30 (albeit with flags) but yet no titles have yet been encoded that way, and the bluray studio member is advising others to continue to encode interlaced?

I always wonder if saying interlace encoding really means anything about how the data is stored. There probably isn't any difference in the output if the decoder outputs an interlaced stream.

The reason for progressive store is that it allows the opportunity of progressive processing. But, is that any great advantage with 25p/30p?

30p has to be output as something, and that will be 60i or 60p. I doubt will see displays handling 30p inputs. So, BD goes interlaced early and HD DVD will frequently go interlaced late. Really, in the end, the display has to de-interlace. No real difference there.

And if the player outputs 60p, it must have de-interlaced it on BD and double framed from HD DVD. Avantage HD DVD there, if the BD player de-interlace isn't up to snuff. But, the player has the advantage of knowing something about the 60i stream that is missing down the pipe at the display. It knows the frame rate of the source.

Gary

Shame on you - that is not true. I assume the smiley was recognition that this post was just a "jab"? ;)It was a light hearted jab, but if "Blu-ray doesn't support 30p" is a 'fact', then "HD-DVD doesn't support 24p" is also a 'fact'. I see that you finally found the answer. :)


[Nowadays I am not getting enough time to hang around here on AVS. Sorry for the delay]

1080p30 is still fairly uncommon so I don't know of any current deinterlacing chips that can deinterlace or inverse telecine 1080i60 back to 1080p30. It is not really hard to do. For instance my UnComb filter on my web page does it simply.

Maybe uncommon in the US. I have lots of Japanese MTV DVDs in 30fps format aka NTSC 2/2 from 60i to 30p. On a "flag" player a simple "weave" gives perfect playback. Standalone deinterlacers such as DVDO's sil504 and Faroudja's FLI2200 also supports NTSC 2/2 for 60i to 30p processing.

Haven't read through the thread, anyway, I also agree a "proper" encoding of 30p in 60i should give perfect 30p playback so it's not a real issue.

regards,

Li On

It was a light hearted jab, but if "Blu-ray doesn't support 30p" is a 'fact', then "HD-DVD doesn't support 24p" is also a 'fact'. I see that you finally found the answer. :)


[Nowadays I am not getting enough time to hang around here on AVS. Sorry for the delay]
No probs, kdragon. Yes, we have an answer from paidgeek, who says that bluray "can" do progressive encoding at 30p and 25p with the playback hints.

But he doesn't explain why that sort of content is *not* actually being encoded that way, but instead is encoded interlaced at 60i with 60i hints. Nor does he explain why only two days ago he was still advising "Torsten" to encode his 25p content as 50i.

So what we seem to have here is "in theory" Bluray "could" encode these progressively, but yet there are no examples of it. This is in stark contrast to the HD DVD situation where almost all material is encoded progressively.

It suggests that it is not supported by the Bluray players and/or is not possible to do with current Bluray tools. I suppose I'll gladly retract this statement if we start to see real examples of what Paidgeek is saying is possible.

How many movies are shot 1080p30?

Should this thread be renamed from:

"Bluray does not support 1080p30!! Did not know this! "

to:

"Bluray does support 1080p30!! Did not know this!"

:)

Maybe uncommon in the US. I have lots of Japanese MTV DVDs in 30fps format aka NTSC 2/2 from 60i to 30p. On a "flag" player a simple "weave" gives perfect playback. Standalone deinterlacers such as DVDO's sil504 and Faroudja's FLI2200 also supports NTSC 2/2 for 60i to 30p processing.

Haven't read through the thread, anyway, I also agree a "proper" encoding of 30p in 60i should give perfect 30p playback so it's not a real issue.

regards,

Li On
Hi Li On,

Yes, I'm sure that a lot of the studio material in Japan has been in 30p, since they have been ahead of thre curve on HD, so it makes sense that 2:2 would be more common there.

However, I'm really curious to see if it is properly supported on the BR players and whether this is part of the reason that people are telling the studios not to use it.

I'm going to get an encoder friend to put together a test BR disc with 30p and 25p content to see if we can figure out where the problem lies...

Should this thread be renamed from:

"Bluray does not support 1080p30!! Did not know this! "

to:

"Bluray does support 1080p30!! Did not know this!"

:)
Not for now - there's no proof yet that it can do it, and a lot of evidence that it can't.

Hopefully we'll have a test disc ready soon to check it out in more detail.

Not for now - there's no proof yet that it can do it, and a lot of evidence that it can't.


How do you think 25p/30p -> interlaced -> fixed pixel display is going to appear?

It's the same question for for BD and HD DVD, since a lot of people will be using a 1080i transport.

Certainly nobody can expect 25p/30p inputs any time soon.

Gary

How do you think 25p/30p -> interlaced -> fixed pixel display is going to appear?

It's the same question for for BD and HD DVD, since a lot of people will be using a 1080i transport.

Certainly nobody can expect 25p/30p inputs any time soon.

Gary
The point that Kris has made earlier is that if the player goofs up the 2:2 pulldown, then you lose half the resolution and it will look pretty bad no matter which display to output to...

That's why we're going to run a test.

(BTW - the input to the set is not a problem, all setups will take a 60i or 60p input, regardless of the source, and those with VPs or EU HD sets will also take 50i or 50p inputs. The real issue is what may happen inside the player before it sends that signal to the TV).

All these difficulties in conversion lead me to propose a number of things that "should" be done.

1. Since the CRT is the only true interlaced display (and it's disappearing)` interlaced scanning should be abolished.

2. Film should be shot a 30 FPS. How much longer will real film be used anyway?

3. The PAL countries should consider 30 - 60 FPS to eliminate another conversion headache.

With all of film's qualities, I'm surprised that the film community has held onto slow and juddery 24 FPS for so long - cost, I suppose. Although the mechanical constraints of frame advancement on film may be a factor.

Just tossing a few seeds out.

Dave

All these difficulties in conversion lead me to propose a number of things that "should" be done.

1. Since the CRT is the only true interlaced display (and it's disappearing)` interlaced scanning should be abolished.

2. Film should be shot a 30 FPS. How much longer will real film be used anyway?

3. The PAL countries should consider 30 - 60 FPS to eliminate another conversion headache.

With all of film's qualities, I'm surprised that the film community has held onto slow and juddery 24 FPS for so long - cost, I suppose. Although the mechanical constraints of frame advancement on film may be a factor.

Just tossing a few seeds out.

DaveWhile I doubt film for movies will change anytime soon, it is becoming much more common to shoot in 25p and 30p.

This is particularly true of sports and concert events, as the action is better suited to a progressive capture.

BTW - I would guess that today, the mechanical constraints would not be the issue - more likely its simply that the whole film industry in 24p and a conversion would likely be unthinkable.

However, there is some fantastic processing coming out now that can take 24 fps and create almost any variation (50p, 60p, 72p) without any judder, simply by creating additional new "in between" frames. Meridian demoed their MCTi solution at CES and I can tell you it looked incredibly good. Hopefully one day this sort of technology will be widely available in all sorts of gadgets.

I see it's been over a year since the last activity in this topic. Is there any new information regarding Blu-ray's support of 30p?

rdjam, were you ever able to run the 30p Blu-ray test?

I have an HD camera capable of recording 30p (I know, technically 29.97p), but I'm hesitant to use this frame rate if Blu-ray doesn't at least support it as SD DVD does using flags.

Why was this old format war thread resurrected?

Blu-ray has always supported 30p (29.97p). Nine Inch Nails Beside You in Time is such a disc. All that is required is for pulldown flags to be added. The same is true for 25p.

BTW this is exactly the same way that 24p (23.976p) video had to be stored on HDDVD. But people were just too caught up in the format war to think.

HD DVD allows 24p/30p encode, with flags set to output at 60i. In contrast, BD does not allow for 30p encode, with 60i output. The input must come to it using 60i because 30p is not a valid input frame rate to the encoder (it is not part of the spec). And most likely the encoder would be running in interlace mode, rather than progressive. I suppose someone could hack the encoder to not use its interlace tools but since the output cannot be 30p out of the encoder, I am not sure it would be worth the effort.

Sure, the frames are progressive in both cases so we don't have the typical interlace issues to deal with. But two processes are not the same from technical and spec point of view. In one case, you would be converting the 30p frame based source to field based 60i and then encoding, and the other (HD DVD) would have been a straight encode with flags for the player to spit out 60i. Different animals, format war or not :).

Why was this old format war thread resurrected?

The poster mentioned why. He wants to know if he can use his camcorder in 30p mode.

And I don't believe it would output it as 1080p60 either. So its going to be interlaced output no matter what. And then you can de-interlace it on the display end.

Why not? To recreate 30p would you not just repeat each frame in a 60p encode?

I guess unless any of have direct information from the BD spec no one really knows. In simpliest terms I would think that any frame that is a integer multiple of supported framerate could be recreated on BD.

60p>30p, just encode each frame 2x or set a flag indicating repeat frame...

Blu-ray has always supported 30p (29.97p). Nine Inch Nails Beside You in Time is such a disc.

This title was encoded as interlaced. (Interlaced frame/field inside of interlaced elementary stream) We did add a mode to the VC1 encoder (PEP) that would place 30 frame progressive into an interlaced elementary stream, so you could essentially get 30p encoding. Note that the players will output as interlaced because of the interlaced elementary stream.

It seems a year's passage has not improved things much; the state of Blu-ray's support of 29.97p is as murky as ever. At best Blu-ray's support of 29.97p is confusingly ambiguous and at worst non-existent.

Here's irony for you: Panasonic and Sony, two of the developers of Blu-ray, have both released professional HD cameras capable of shooting 29.97p high definition footage. Most of Panasonic's DVCPRO HD line and a number of Sony's XDCAM and pro HDV cameras can capture footage at 29.97p. But what good is this capability when the HD optical disc format these same companies created may not be capable of delivering it?

Hmm, after re-reading your post I think you are referring to actually encoding the video as 1080p60 on the disc? Of course this is impossible since neither blu-ray nor hddvd support 1080p60.


Many BD players indicate that support 1080p60. I guess the question is if 1080p content can be directly encoded at 60fps.

Regarding the 1080p30 concern, doesn't the "Burning BLU Ray for the 1st time" topic in this very forum provide a glimpse that it is, indeed, possible? The provided video sample is essentially "1080p30" that came from a 1080i60 broadcast.

It seems a year's passage has not improved things much; the state of Blu-ray's support of 29.97p is as murky as ever. At best Blu-ray's support of 29.97p is confusingly ambiguous and at worst non-existent.

Here's irony for you: Panasonic and Sony, two of the developers of Blu-ray, have both released professional HD cameras capable of shooting 29.97p high definition footage. Most of Panasonic's DVCPRO HD line and a number of Sony's XDCAM and pro HDV cameras can capture footage at 29.97p. But what good is this capability when the HD optical disc format these same companies created may not be capable of delivering it?

These cameras derive 29.97p form 59.94i, so it is not native 29.97p.

There is no question. 1080p60 cannot be on a blu-ray disc. The players are only indicating their output support.

Do you have the Blu-ray spec?

These cameras derive 29.97p form 59.94i, so it is not native 29.97p.
Several of the Panasonic cameras are specifically listed as having progressive sensors. Several of the Sony cameras are listed as being able to capture native progressive scan footage, and one camera is specifically listed as having progressive CCDs.

As a specific example, in the Sony HVR-V1U - the camera I own - "[a]ll video is processed at 1920x1080 at 60p in full 4:2:2", according to Sony.

Do you have the Blu-ray spec?
You can download/view the Blu-ray spec here: http://www.blu-raydisc.com/en/Industry/Specifications/PublicSpecs.html

1280x720 59.94p and 50p are listed, but not 1080p60. I've heard Sony showed 1080p60 Blu-ray at NAB, so perhaps Sony plans to add 1080p60 to the spec sometime in the future.

It seems a year's passage has not improved things much; the state of Blu-ray's support of 29.97p is as murky as ever. At best Blu-ray's support of 29.97p is confusingly ambiguous and at worst non-existent.

Here's irony for you: Panasonic and Sony, two of the developers of Blu-ray, have both released professional HD cameras capable of shooting 29.97p high definition footage. Most of Panasonic's DVCPRO HD line and a number of Sony's XDCAM and pro HDV cameras can capture footage at 29.97p. But what good is this capability when the HD optical disc format these same companies created may not be capable of delivering it?

Its been well over a year an most of the proof says 'no' and only some speculation says 'yes'. If Blu-ray really supported 1080p30, we would found some actual proof by now.

btw, I had a digital camcorder that recorded in 480p instead of 480i and it looked so much better when played back on a PC or even now on an HDTV. My next one will definately be progressive 1080.

Hi Folks,

I was browsing the posts this morning and bumped into a story about the Nine Inch Nails concert video being released on both HD DVD and Bluray.

It was filmed using progressive (non-interlaced) 1080p cameras, which are becoming the latest thing now. As you know, these record in 1080p30, instead of 1080i60.

Now the HD DVD is being released as 1080p30.

BUT... the Bluray disc version is being released as 1080i60 because Bluray cannot support progressive video at 1080p30.

Whoooaahh...

Stacey confirmed this here http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8916888&&#post8916888


So what you are saying is, life is no longer worth living and subsequintly are retiring as monk?

I think the real question to ask here is whether there's any functional visible difference between flagged 1080i60 versus progressive 1080p30? You certainly can't tell the difference on the originally mentioned Nine Inch Nails - Beside You In Time disc. If we agree that the differences are more semantic than practical, and that the encoding solutions out there can support source 1080p30 input and produce properly flagged 1080i60, what difference does it make?

I think the real question to ask here is whether there's any functional visible difference between flagged 1080i60 versus progressive 1080p30? You certainly can't tell the difference on the originally mentioned Nine Inch Nails - Beside You In Time disc. If we agree that the differences are more semantic than practical, and that the encoding solutions out there can support source 1080p30 input and produce properly flagged 1080i60, what difference does it make?
Wouldn't the players (like Samsung BD-P1400) output it as 1080p60 instead of 1080i60?

A functional difference would be, if there was a 1080i60 PiP segment and the players actually allowed 1080p30 encodings for the main feature, then the 1080i60 PiP would be forced to be converted to 1080p30 instead to match the main feature (because of limitations in the Blu-ray PiP spec where the PiP has to match the video it appears within). So in some ways, being forced to encode as 1080i60 for 1080p30 footage is good - though if the main footage was 1080p30 and the PiP was recorded at 1080i60 would it know/be able to output the right bits in progressive and the right bits in interlace?

Also, I wonder if it would affect on-screen graphics (like menus etc) - would they look correct (progressive) or be forced to use interlace too? And would there be any interlace artefacts on these? Also, if there was a "display" button on the players that would show you the source frame rate of the footage, this might not get shown correctly.

Also, making all 1080p30 recordings be forced into 1080i60 encodings, doesn't that mean all players and/or HDTVs have to properly de-interlace this into 1080p30 (or ensure it plays back exactly like it could)? And can they? Can they accurately detect when the footage was recorded at 1080p30 and when it is really 1080i60 footage? Was the Nine-inch-Nails disc really encoded with the correct (progressive) flags for sure?

Also, if 1080p30 encoded as 1080i60 with the correct flags can truly be output by the players and HDTVs so it looks exactly as it would if it had been encoded at 1080p30, why aren't there more Blu-rays encoded like this (is this the only title)? I mean, unlike 1080i60 it's progressive (like 1080p24) and the frame rate should be high enough from p24 to give better motion portrayal (than p24) without be so high it might lose too much of the "film look".

You can download/view the Blu-ray spec here: http://www.blu-raydisc.com/en/Industry/Specifications/PublicSpecs.html

1280x720 59.94p and 50p are listed, but not 1080p60. I've heard Sony showed 1080p60 Blu-ray at NAB, so perhaps Sony plans to add 1080p60 to the spec sometime in the future.

Oh great, another profile?! :rolleyes: Why do I get the feeling they won't stop until they reach a point where the PS3 can't handle anymore?

I've heard Sony showed 1080p60 Blu-ray at NAB, so perhaps Sony plans to add 1080p60 to the spec sometime in the future.
Maybe that will be when they also add 1080p30, 1080p48, 1080p50, 3D and motion interpolation to players as well? (and 4k and 10 bit 4:4:4 & higher bitrates :)). I'd rather have these (including 1080p60) than profile 2.0. :cool:

As a specific example, in the Sony HVR-V1U - the camera I own - "[a]ll video is processed at 1920x1080 at 60p in full 4:2:2", according to Sony.

...before being recorded to tape. Once HDV recorded, it's 4:2:0, 1440x1080. So unless you're capturing from HDMI into a PC (i.e. Decklink), you're not getting that. Not to mention, even with pixel shifting tech, the imagers in that camera are 960x1080, not 1920x1080 native.

Maybe that will be when they also add 1080p30, 1080p48, 1080p50, 3D and motion interpolation to players as well? (and 4k and 10 bit 4:4:4 & higher bitrates :)). I'd rather have these (including 1080p60) than profile 2.0. :cool:

Screw 3D, I want a player that can do this: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23765995-5005941,00.html :D