The reasons that present 50GB discs are not used to full capacity by neutral studios is that the lower capacity common denominator is 30GB. I think that PQ and maybe even AQ could be improved by using BD's higher peak bitrate and advanced codecs.

Thus, I propose an online petition to request neutral studios to use separate encodes for BD which exploit the full bitrate of the format.


Note: To pre-empt any confusion, this poll is meant to gauge AVS support for a full-on online petition.

I accept that Sony, as an exclusive studio, is doing a bad job of encoding. So, please don't hijack this thread for that topic. This is about Neutral Studios giving BD50 their best shot instead of using the HD30 encode.

thanks & cheers,
WHD

Whah! What good is using all the bandwidth and space up on Mpeg2?

Why can't we have a poll asking them to use VC1 - AND use the space?

Why can't we have a poll asking them to use VC1 - AND use the space?

Because VC1 is designed around low bitrate application. MPEG-2 is just as good, and far more mature when given the proper room to breathe, as Kingdom of Heaven and BHD have proven

I thought those titles used VC-1. Also the petition should include 50gb as the norm no more 25gb crap.

How many of these polls do we need, and why don't you post these in the BD forum?

Because VC1 is designed around low bitrate application. MPEG-2 is just as good, and far more mature when given the proper room to breathe, as Kingdom of Heaven and BHD have proven
You mean, like, a 54 Chevy is just as good as a BMW M5 - when the Chevy is given the proper room to "breathe" around corners? :p !

Come on folks, this Mpeg-defense-league thing is just getting silly. VC1 is a better codec in every way. Sure, it's better at low bitrates too, but that's because it is just B.E.T.T.E.R....

Come on folks, this Mpeg-defense-league thing is just getting silly. VC1 is a better codec in every way. Sure, it's better at low bitrates too, but that's because it is just B.E.T.T.E.R....

From a pure production end, the best it can do is about 8 hours per pass, and that's after you capture the uncompressed source, and it usually takes 4-6 passes to achieve acceptible results.

With MPEG-2, you can capture direct, real time, and get it done in 3 with the same result, and once Sony's MPEG-4 encoder is ready, you'll get similar results with that. No such device is known to be in the pipeline for VC-1.

That alone keeps it from being B.E.T.T.E.R (what does that acronym stand for anyway?)

With MPEG-2, you can capture direct, real time, and get it done in 3...That doesn't benefit me, the guy watching the movie. It just means it's cheaper for Sony... (ie "quick and dirty")

Just say NOooOoOoooo......

You mean, like, a 54 Chevy is just as good as a BMW M5 - when the Chevy is given the proper room to "breathe" around corners? :p !

Come on folks, this Mpeg-defense-league thing is just getting silly. VC1 is a better codec in every way. Sure, it's better at low bitrates too, but that's because it is just B.E.T.T.E.R....
tell um brother im with you. i think the blu-ray camp is starting to crack. they relize there god almighty format is loseing it grip and the will say anything to feel better about themselves. the fact is sony and others have made some bad mistakes,and are screwing there own followers,whats next sony says drink this special kool aid and everything will be alright, when you get down to it ... its not the end of the world folks,get a grip there far worse things happening in this world then hd and bd

...there far worse things happening in this world then hd and bd
Ain't THAT the truth!

Because VC1 is designed around low bitrate application. MPEG-2 is just as good, and far more mature when given the proper room to breathe, as Kingdom of Heaven and BHD have proven

lol

@rdjam,

I did ask for advanced codecs in my petition

Because VC1 is designed around low bitrate application. MPEG-2 is just as good, and far more mature when given the proper room to breathe, as Kingdom of Heaven and BHD have proven

VC-1 and AVC were designed to be more efficient. True this meant in low bitrate applications they will looking far, far better than MPEG-2, but it also meant in higher bitrate applications as well. Just because MPEG-2 needs 30mbps to look as good as VC-1 @15mbps doesn't mean that VC-1 (or AVC) won't help it look its guaranteed best and allow breathing room for seamless branching, extras, IME (U-Control, Blu Wizardness (when it get decent)). Seriously, there is no sense in your argument. MPEG-2 is not just as good, it is less efficient.

I'm not saying that it looks bad when done properly, heck, it looks great! But why not go with some newer codec that does a better job with what its given?

For everyone to buy any new DVD format it has to be priced a the max $300.00 to make them think thay have buy it

Supply & damand why the hell make the supply when thers no damand

If sony is here then who's running hell. It's the betamax all over, I tell you guys

That doesn't benefit me, the guy watching the movie. It just means it's cheaper for Sony... (ie "quick and dirty")

Just say NOooOoOoooo......


Thus demonstrating you know absolutely nothing about compression and authoring.

tell um brother im with you. i think the blu-ray camp is starting to crack. they relize there god almighty format is loseing it grip and the will say anything to feel better about themselves. the fact is sony and others have made some bad mistakes,and are screwing there own followers,whats next sony says drink this special kool aid and everything will be alright, when you get down to it ... its not the end of the world folks,get a grip there far worse things happening in this world then hd and bdSo, now asking for 40Mbps instead of 30Mbps is the end of the world!? Are you sure you are in the right forum? Definitely not the right thread, I can tell you that.

If I pay 500-1500 USD for a BD player, I want the best possible PQ on the BD50 I buy. To hijack this harmless And beneficial thread, like almost every other, is simply not done.

There is no judgement of HD-DVD in this poll or any biased comparison, only a request for better BD50 encodings. If that angers some people, I ask that you reconsider your love of high def.

So, let's keep the thread on topic and civil, dudes. cheers

Whah! What good is using all the bandwidth and space up on Mpeg2?

Why can't we have a poll asking them to use VC1 - AND use the space?
dude, which neutral studio is using Mpeg2? If there is one, cool. As you must have read, I asked for advanced codecs on BD50. Read the original post.

(OTOH, if there is no mpeg2 title from neutral studios.. not cool)

P.S. I await an answer on the zero-cost entry-point for BD vs. 200 USD entry point for HD

Thus demonstrating you know absolutely nothing about compression and authoring.
News Flash - the reason Sony's early releases looked like crap was because they were only concerned with getting them out quickly and lost sight of quality.

Take a look at this months issue of Home Cinema Choice and one will see Sony talking about why they love Mpeg2 and will STICK with it - quick and easy - meaning CHEAP.

If one is going to deny this, one had better ask Sony to quiet down and stop undermining one's own argument.

And to tell me I don't know about compression and authoring as a response to this point is rather funny, to put it mildly.

Cheers :)

News Flash - the reason Sony's early releases looked like crap was because they were only concerned with getting them out quickly and lost sight of quality.


Early releases yes. They used DVD profiles on a completely different medium

Since then, the compressionists have learned to do it properly for BR. It has nothing to do with being done in real time or in less passes, simply other techniques.

The difference between 6 hours and 3 days of studio time is massive

dude, which neutral studio is using Mpeg2?

P.S. I await an answer on the zero-cost entry-point for BD vs. 200 USD entry point for HD
What's HD - sorry if you think the thread is being hi-jacked - not the intention at all. I think that wickii and I are having a healthy discussion about mpeg vs VC1.

Why would you only direct your appeal at neutral studios?

Sony's latest 50 gig discs aren't using the whole disc, and they are still using mpeg2. Wouldn't you want to ask them to improve their game also?

- sorry, I don't know what you're asking about "zero-cost", could you ask the question again?

Thus demonstrating you know absolutely nothing about compression and authoring.

Now, let us hear about your experience and expertise on compression.

Someone joined so recently, with 400 posts very +ve about Sony ... even though doesn't own BD (or probably because of that !) .... hmmmm, where have we seen this before :p

dude, which neutral studio is using Mpeg2?

Paramount

Now, let us hear about your experience and expertise on compression.

I know people who do it for a living, including for Blu Ray AND HD. I've served as a pair of critical eyes on the compression on a major restoration. Just because I don't own a deck personally doesn't mean i don't have extensive experience with both. The technologies outside of the anti-piracy features are virtually identical, so arguing specs is pretty much semantics.

You say they're "very positive about Sony". No, it's facing the realities of what's going to happen. I have rarely, if ever even discussed the technology, but the baseline has always been the bullying power of money. The BD people have it, Toshiba decided to start a war anyway, and they know that when/if they lose that there won't be any serious repercussions. So all these people who are screaming aobut how HD is pro consumer, are actually anti-consumer because the longer to war goes, the longer it's going ot take to get what you want.The movie industry is not the game industry, and they're not going to stand for 2-3 platforms.

WW,

I know people who do it for a living - at Sony?

The technologies outside of the anti-piracy features are virtually identical - Really?

No, it's facing the realities of what's going to happen. - Really? [James T Kirk Mode]Open your eyes, Man, dammit! [/James T Kirk Mode]

Toshiba decided to start a war - Is that how it happened? Wow, thanks!

So the majority want higher peak bitrates and to take full advantage and the 2nd largest group doesn't as they want to cator to the lowest common denominator of signficantly less disc space and bandwidth.

Absolutely, higher peak bitrate is always good 29 40.28%
Neutral to it cos I think 30 Mbps peak is sufficient 7 9.72%
No, it's not worth my time and effort 9 12.50%
Absolutely not, cos it may take away studio resources from HD-DVD 27 37.50%

I know people who do it for a living - at Sony?


No, but they use the Sony encoder for MPEG-2, and Microsoft's for VC-1, and they've been playing with the latter since the WMV-HD days. The Sony encoder is by and far the industry standard on MPEG-2.

The technologies outside of the anti-piracy features are virtually identical - Really?

Yup

Toshiba decided to start a war - Is that how it happened? Wow, thanks!

Any fool can see that. Toshiba didn't want to play nicely with the other children. Otherwise they would have support from other CEs, and more than one exclusive studio.

i don't see why they should get separate encodes for any reason. VC-1 was just clocked under 10Mbps for delivering full quality HD. You really can't get much better than that.

If Blu-Ray wants to lag back in technology, see you in the dust, plain and simple. VC-1 is the better codec and there is nothing that's gonna stop it.

Why on Earth would a neutral studio bother to spend the time, energy and cost of 2 different encodes for the different formats, when there is no real reason to? There certainly isn't any financial incentive for it.
J

Why on Earth would a neutral studio bother to spend the time, energy and cost of 2 different encodes for the different formats, when there is no real reason to? There certainly isn't any financial incentive for it.
J

The same thing happens in the video game industry with company's like Electronic Arts. Many complained that the xbox version of Madden wasn't any better than the PS2 version due to developing for the lowest common denominator.

You really can't get much better than that.



Of course, you can get better than that. You can get better until you're delivering the master.

because the longer to war goes, the longer it's going ot take to get what you want.


Huh? I already have what I want: movies in HD at an affordable price with the extras ported over from my SD versions. There are some barebones versions but I generally don't buy those.

The reason why I chose HD DVD over Blu-ray was because it delivered what I wanted.

What I want now is mass adoption and for large companies to pool resources behind one format-- to drive cost down even further. So from my perspective Blu-ray is the disruptive technology preventing me from getting what I want. BD is playing catch-up here.

I think you need to get a petition going to make all Blu-ray releases BD50. When most releases are BD25, this petition doesn't make sense. To really maximize the bitrate/format you need BD50. Baby steps.

What I want now is mass adoption and for large companies to pool resources behind one format-- to drive cost down even further. So from my perspective Blu-ray is the disruptive technology preventing me from getting what I want. BD is playing catch-up here.


And Toshiba is the only one standing in the way of that. Large companies HAVE pooled their resources, but because they haven't chosen your technology, you ignore it.

And Toshiba is the only one standing in the way of that. Large companies HAVE pooled their resources, but because they haven't chosen your technology, you ignore it.

Come on. I could similarly say that Sony is the only company standing in the way of HD DVD. We both know what would happen if Sony started releasing HD DVDs.

And I didn't ignore Blu-ray. I chose against it for reasons posted above. Now that I have a vested interest in HD DVD I won't be buying Blu-ray until HD DVD is dead and buried. Buying both can only prolong the war.

I was ready to buy Blu-ray until I realized they were releasing barebones BD25s with bad PQ. Even with good PQ and no extras I wouldn't have bought in. I was one of the fools who thought BD was about more and better. I was expecting BD50 to be the standard release. I honestly never thought they'd release single layer.

That's why I think you need a BD50 petition.

Come on. I could similarly say that Sony is the only company standing in the way of HD DVD. We both know what would happen if Sony started releasing HD DVDs.


Except then you would be wrong, because you'd be leaving out Panasonic, Pioneer, Samsung, Phillips, LG etc etc

And I didn't ignore Blu-ray. I chose against it for reasons posted above. Now that I have a vested interest in HD DVD I won't be buying Blu-ray until HD DVD is dead and buried. Buying both can only prolong the war.

Agreed that buying both is a waste of everyone's time

I was ready to buy Blu-ray until I realized they were releasing barebones BD25s with bad PQ. Even with good PQ and no extras I wouldn't have bought in. I was one of the fools who thought BD was about more and better. I was expecting BD50 to be the standard release. I honestly never thought they'd release single layer.


Why wouldn't they? It took almost a year for the first DVD-9s to ship, but BD-50s shipped in what, 4 months?

Why wouldn't they? It took almost a year for the first DVD-9s to ship, but BD-50s shipped in what, 4 months?

The major difference this time is because their competition has more capacity (30gig vs. 25gig) and uses a more efficient codec which makes the 5gig deficit even worse.

DVD didn't have that kind of competitive pressure. I don't think Sony saw HD DVD as any kind of threat at all. And for some unknown reason they don't see any advantage to VC-1 over MPEG-2, either.

I've said for a long time that BD lives or dies with BD50. They need it to differentiate themselves from the competition. If they had launched with BD50 being the predominate release, I think they'd be in a much better position now. However BD insiders here have said to expect 20% of releases to be BD50 for a couple of years. That means they have a space deficit that is compounded by the use of MPEG-2.

The major difference this time is because their competition has more capacity (30gig vs. 25gig) and uses a more efficient codec which makes the 5gig deficit even worse.

DVD didn't have that kind of competitive pressure. I don't think Sony saw HD DVD as any kind of threat at all. And for some unknown reason they don't see any advantage to VC-1 over MPEG-2, either.

I've said for a long time that BD lives or dies with BD50. They need it to differentiate themselves from the competition. If they had launched with BD50 being the predominate release, I think they'd be in a much better position now. However BD insiders here have said to expect 20% of releases to be BD50 for a couple of years. That means they have a space deficit that is compounded by the use of MPEG-2.


awmurray, HD-DVD and blu-ray both have titles that use VC-1(my PS3 tells me which codec as well, I just watch Superman Returns which is VC-1 over the weekend, gorgeous picture), as well as titles that use MPEG-2. Blu-ray does have higher bandwidth as well as being more durable.

Whah! What good is using all the bandwidth and space up on Mpeg2?
Why can't we have a poll asking them to use VC1 - AND use the space?
Why can't we have a poll asking them to use AVC/MPEG-4 like Fox is doing and use DTS-HD Master Audio?

I don't care whether they use VC-1, MPEG-2 or AVC/MPEG-4; all of them can look amazing. What's important is that Warner and Paramount stop using lossy audio codecs like Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby Digital and start using lossless audio for their Blu-ray releases. Hell I've seem some nice DTS tracks on Paramount's releases before. Use the space man, use the space.

It's no wonder Blu-ray discs consistently get better audio ratings than HD DVD because they consistently have lossless codecs.

Why can't we have a poll asking them to use AVC/MPEG-4 like Fox is doing and use DTS-HD Master Audio?

I don't care whether they use VC-1, MPEG-2 or AVC/MPEG-4; all of them can look amazing. What's important is that Warner and Paramount stop using lossy audio codecs like Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby Digital and start using lossless audio for their Blu-ray releases. Hell I've seem some nice DTS tracks on Paramount's releases before. Use the space man, use the space.

It's no wonder Blu-ray discs consistently get better audio ratings than HD DVD because they consistently have lossless codecs.

agreed

However BD insiders here have said to expect 20% of releases to be BD50 for a couple of years. That means they have a space deficit that is compounded by the use of MPEG-2.
Judging by the 50GB releases from Sony, Fox, Lionsgate and Disney I think the number will be MUCH larger than 20% just by this summer.
Disney's entire January release schedule is on 50GB discs.
Of the 14 specs-announced January releases 5 are BD50, which is 36%

Judging by the 50GB releases from Sony, Fox, Lionsgate and Disney I think the number will be MUCH larger than 20% just by this summer.
Disney's entire January release schedule is on 50GB discs.
Of the 14 specs-announced January releases 5 are BD50, which is 36%

Pretty much. Production capacity needed to be up, and the studios needed to know that the format was viable. And now, approx 4 months after BD50s started shipping, you have people going to them

Warner is going to continue to use their VC-1 encodes from HD until one format dies, because it saves them money. I do agree that there's no reason they can't use BD50 and stick LPCM on there as well though

I don't think Sony saw HD DVD as any kind of threat at all. And for some unknown reason they don't see any advantage to VC-1 over MPEG-2, either.

The reason isn't unknown. The Jellyfish got to them first. :eek:

Seriously, its due to the fact that Sony feels most comfortable with MPEG-2 as they own many patents in MPEG-2. Why they don't use AVC is beyond me though. I know why VC-1 isn't being used, but why not AVC?

I know why VC-1 isn't being used, but why not AVC?
From what cjplay has said with his experiences, it is just not as refined -- yet.

From what cjplay has said with his experiences, it is just not as refined -- yet.
Yeah yeah - give it six months! You'll see! :D

The major difference this time is because their competition has more capacity (30gig vs. 25gig) and uses a more efficient codec which makes the 5gig deficit even worse.

DVD didn't have that kind of competitive pressure. I don't think Sony saw HD DVD as any kind of threat at all. And for some unknown reason they don't see any advantage to VC-1 over MPEG-2, either.

I've said for a long time that BD lives or dies with BD50. They need it to differentiate themselves from the competition. If they had launched with BD50 being the predominate release, I think they'd be in a much better position now. However BD insiders here have said to expect 20% of releases to be BD50 for a couple of years. That means they have a space deficit that is compounded by the use of MPEG-2.


It will be more like 80% 50's and 20% 25's. Look at the releases coming early next year.

The reason isn't unknown. The Jellyfish got to them first. :eek:

Seriously, its due to the fact that Sony feels most comfortable with MPEG-2 as they own many patents in MPEG-2. Why they don't use AVC is beyond me though. I know why VC-1 isn't being used, but why not AVC?


The first Sony Pictures AVC title will be out early next year from the Sony AVC encoder. That encoder has been under development for several years and is finally ready for production use. It works better than the MS VC1 encoder, but takes about the same amount of time for encodes, which means long...

VC-1 does not work well on all titles, especially more grainy ones. The artifacts are there if you honestly want to look for them, but the Toshiba player makes them harder to see by not supporting full rez pause and slow modes. Ever wonder why they do that??? The Sony AVC encoder can do a better job than the Sony MPEG encoder on certain types of titles (music videos for instance). It is about the same on others. That said, when the encode times drop for the AVC encoder with faster computers and optimizations, it will be phased in over time for all of the Sony titles.

Sony makes limited patent revenue from all the supported codecs, this has nothing to do with the codec choice. It is simply a matter of getting the best reproduction of a given title in a reasonable amount of time.

The best demonstrations are those where you can directly compare the master to the encoded version of a title. Ever wonder why Sony does that regularly? Have you ever heard of MS or Toshiba doing this? I wonder why?

30GB is not enough capacity. If HD-DVD wants to stay in the race, they need that 45GB disc ASAP.

VC-1 does not work well on all titles, especially more grainy ones. The artifacts are there if you honestly want to look for them,


Yep, I pulled this from a paused shot from King Kong (1:42:32.487):

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h123/awmurray/jellyfish.jpg

but the Toshiba player makes them harder to see by not supporting full rez pause and slow modes. Ever wonder why they do that???


Probably because it was easier to implement? It was fixed with firmware 2.0 (since August). While I've never used it, there is a slow motion button on the HD-A1 remote, IIRC.

Seriously, HD DVD is in great shape if you have to pause the image and break out a magnifying glass to identify problems. Disc reviews have favored HD DVD almost always. The best Blu-ray has managed is to meet the high PQ standards set by HD DVD.


The best demonstrations are those where you can directly compare the master to the encoded version of a title. Ever wonder why Sony does that regularly?


If Sony is so critical, why have they released some of the worst transfers BD has seen?


Have you ever heard of MS or Toshiba doing this? I wonder why?


All the time. Read the insiders thread for posts by Amir. He explains all about how and why studios are using VC-1. And how they painstakingly compared the original to various encodes (MPEG-2, VC-1, and others).

30GB is not enough capacity. If HD-DVD wants to stay in the race, they need that 45GB disc ASAP.

All I know is with 30GB HD DVD has been generally much better in PQ than Blu-ray. And somehow they've managed to port over all the extras (encoded in inefficient MPEG-2 for the most part) onto the HD DVD versions. Blu-ray can't say the same.

However BD insiders here have said to expect 20% of releases to be BD50 for a couple of years.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is not entirely correct.
ONE BD insider that I know of (specifically, Talk) said something to the effect that....... he presumed that people should expect 20% of the releases to be BD50.

I don't recall his exact words but, the point is moot as he was just offering his best opinion on the subject and he does NOT work for a Hollywood studio.

The percentage estimate that the paidgeek lists above, is correct.

All the time. Read the insiders thread for posts by Amir. He explains all about how and why studios are using VC-1. And how they painstakingly compared the original to various encodes (MPEG-2, VC-1, and others).

Amir is not...how you say...objective on the subject, in fact he's probably by default the biggest partisan you'll find here, because that's his job.

If HD-DVD wants to stay in the race, they need that 45GB disc ASAP.
But will the 1st and 2nd generation Toshiba HD DVD players play those 45GB discs (even with a firmware upgrade :rolleyes: ).............

or should I start saving up now for a 3rd generation HD DVD player ?

Amir is not...how you say...objective on the subject, in fact he's probably by default the biggest partisan you'll find here, because that's his job.

Yea, but I've been reading what he's been saying for several months and generally he's right on the money.


or should I start saving up now for a 3rd generation HD DVD player ?

Most of the vocal BD supporters need to start saving for a BD player. :D

Yea, but I've been reading what he's been saying for several months and generally he's right on the money.



Most of the vocal BD supporters need to start saving for a BD player. :D


I'm glad I waited and skipped over the A1. I now have a superb Blu-ray player for the same price MSRP of the A1 and it does MUCH MUCH More and is much faster as well :p

I'm glad I waited and skipped over the A1. I now have a superb Blu-ray player for the same price MSRP of the A1 and it does MUCH MUCH More and is much faster as well :p

I'm glad you're happy with your purchase (seriously).

What more could one ask for?

I'm glad you're happy with your purchase (seriously).

What more could one ask for?


Lower priced software at Best Buy's. etc. Star Wars IV,V, VI and Blade Runner (done right) for starters ;) I don't mind paying $1 more at Hollywood video for blu-ray rentals though, I think they are very fair with their rates (reminds me, I need to drop off Superman Returns tonight).

I'm not saying that it looks bad when done properly, heck, it looks great! But why not go with some newer codec that does a better job with what its given?
I would definitely agree with this part. In the very near future it should be nothing but AVC/MPEG-4 and VC-1. They are more efficient and therefore will allow for more extras, more interactivity and more lossless audio tracks.

I voted to use all the space they can.

Superman returns is a perfect example.

they used the exact same encode for Blu-ray, which is fine, but they could have added a lpcm trac DTS-HD,
They have 20 gig etrat to play with.

Also they could have put all the Special fetures in HD, hmmm that 20 gigs extra sound good to me, for anymore they can throw at the movie.

personally the less compression used the better.

The reason isn't unknown. The Jellyfish got to them first. :eek:

Seriously, its due to the fact that Sony feels most comfortable with MPEG-2 as they own many patents in MPEG-2. Why they don't use AVC is beyond me though. I know why VC-1 isn't being used, but why not AVC?
probably because they are perfecting AVC... right now MPEG-2 is easiest for them as it is familiar, has good pq and they have plenty of space...

War wont be won in couple of months and in that sense, BD camp has a lot more ammunition for long fight...

Also they could have put all the Special fetures in HD,

The documentary was mastered at 480

I'm a little puzzled as to why Warner Brothers removed the Dolby TrueHD track from the Blu-ray edition even though it was a BD-50! It is a little irritating, and I hope they're not just doing it because they prefer one format over the other. I'm not saying I have anything against HD-DVD, but all I have is the PS3 for now, and I don't think that Warner Brothers is putting both formats on a level playing field. At LEAST they used the HD-DVD VC-1 encode instead of making a lower-quality MPEG-2 track. It's a BD-50 for god sakes, at the very least make the two releases equal. There's no reason not to unless they are deliberately trying to sabotage Blu-ray or are just trying to save money.

I'm a little puzzled as to why Warner Brothers removed the Dolby TrueHD track from the Blu-ray edition even though it was a BD-50! It is a little irritating, and I hope they're not just doing it because they prefer one format over the other. I'm not saying I have anything against HD-DVD, but all I have is the PS3 for now, and I don't think that Warner Brothers is putting both formats on a level playing field. At LEAST they used the HD-DVD VC-1 encode instead of making a lower-quality MPEG-2 track. It's a BD-50 for god sakes, at the very least make the two releases equal. There's no reason not to unless they are deliberately trying to sabotage Blu-ray or are just trying to save money.

Iam a little puzzled at why Warner put out this poor excuse for an hd movie on either format.
It looks softer than at least 100 different sd dvd's.....and never once looks like HD.

They should be sued over calling this ...HD IMO.

Its encouraging to see option 1 get the biggest support.

If this keeps up, the petition should be on soon.

Of course, you can get better than that. You can get better until you're delivering the master.

Even then, the master could also get better :)

I'm a little puzzled as to why Warner Brothers removed the Dolby TrueHD track from the Blu-ray edition even though it was a BD-50!
I'm guessing they weren't sure that BD 50 would be ready for production, so they may have been going on the basis of 25 Gig discs when that was being prepared.

Just a guess...

I don't have the time to read this entire thread. So excuse me if I miss a few things. But in my casual perusal I seem to see a certain naivete. I ask of you: "what is D5 compression"?

Even then, the master could also get better :)
Yup, there's that too.

Btw, anyone have any inside info on the next generation (after BD and HD) of consumer video formats?

What laser is being used etc.?

For everyone to buy any new DVD format it has to be priced a the max $300.00 to make them think thay have buy it

Supply & damand why the hell make the supply when thers no damand

If sony is here then who's running hell. It's the betamax all over, I tell you guys

Those who ignore history are damned to repeat it.

Talking out of both sides of the mouth, don't use a proven format because a better quality format exists, then damn Sony because it had a better quality format but it was bad because it was ... Sony???

I'm happy to have both sides take pot shots because competition is good and it pushes innovation. Monopolies retard pushing for better quality, even if incremental.

If sony is here then who's running hell. It's the betamax all over, I tell you guys

Let's see. Sony has their technology in the hands of all the major CEs and media companies except Toshiba and Universal

Toshiba has...RCA

JVC put VHS into the hands of all the major CEs and media companies

Sony had..themselves

Who's the Betamax again? WHy that would be Toshiba!

Fascinating thing is that the percentages never vary, irrespective of how many votes this poll garners. Every gain by choice 1 or 4 is cancelled out pretty quickly by the other. I have been following it closely.

This trend is heartening cos it implies the sampling is reliable.

While you're in an online petition-signing mood, sign this one as well:

http://www.**************.com/zztoprox/petition.html

Online petitions have no effect on the real world. Any person with access to a computer can easily create a petition full of thousands of fake and/or stolen names. All that online petitions do is clog our email and waste our time.

Therefore, we the undersigned, if we exist, respectfully request that petitionsonline.com cease operations immediately.

Sincerely,

The undersigned

thanks :)

P.S. If you are an idealist, you may look foolish sometimes. If you are a cynic, you will always look cynical.

I want to send out a request for people to step up and vote on this issue. What we are indirectly voting for is whether:

"The higher specs of BD, in terms of bitrate, matter or not."

And that is a huge issue, especially for the information of newcomers and lurkers. If they see votes swinging to the '30mbps is enough' choice, what kind of signal is AVS sending them? An inaccurate one..

Bitrate matters. Ask for it.

"The higher specs of BD, in terms of bitrate, matter or not."
...
Bitrate matters. Ask for it.

Let me get this straight.

You create a poll that was obviously attempting to produce a desired result.

Then when you don't get the result you want, you come on and beat people over the head by telling them the only correct choice.

Isn't that about right?

Let me get this straight.

You create a poll that was obviously attempting to produce a desired result.

Then when you don't get the result you want, you come on and beat people over the head by telling them the only correct choice.

Isn't that about right?
It is not a biased or a 'push'-poll. The choices that are against my personal viewpoint are actually in majority (3 out of 4).

The 44% of bitrate-fans is actually a very healthy %age cos this forum has 70+% HD-DVD supporters. So, if I was a HD-DVD supporter (such as you), I would be worried that at Least one-fifth (and potentially upto half) of them realize that HD-DVD's max bitrate can have an adverse impact on PQ.

I am not beating anyone over the head. I am exhorting the bitrate-cause.. its still a free country and forum. Vote as you wish. Post as you wish. But when you post drivel (imo) as above, I will respond such as this.

I am sorry (not apologetic, just sorry) you feel beat over the head. Can't imagine why, but it's your perogative to feel bullied by exhortations for a viewpoint contrary to yours.

So, to sum up, yes, your take of my stand is right, in terms of content, but not in terms of tone or approach.

P.S. I have got the result I wanted. Since this is not a public poll, there are definitely a significant no. of HD-DVD supporters who are acknowledging the reality of the bitrate issue.

uh.. ahem

thank you. I am here all week.

It's clear why Sony would like to sticks to mpeg.

Various reasons are mentioned already but add to that.

In general:
VC-1 License fees -> microsoft
AVC License fees -> Toshiba
MPEG License fees -> ?

MPEG License fees -> ?

MPEG-LA, the MPEG standards group.

wickywoo
who has the best hd player period----toshiba ax2
who has consistently better quality ---hddvd
qualty in my book outshines quantity anyday
who has given less pie in the sky --toshiba
will be an interesting year if sony can survive
very happy camper here especially knowing the j6p $199 and $299 players will be coming in the 2nd quarter
wooo whooo wicky