Anyone care to comment on Gruberts posts a few pages back? (To lazy to look it up.) Where a U-control feature is dropped on the Euro release of a HD DVD? (They even demo'ed the US version of the disc WITH the feature, essentially lying to the poor euro consumers.)

Is it a space issue due to more languages? Is it a sign of things to come? May it be that 30GB only ain't so cool in europe? Is THAT why they're tyring to get 51GB up and running?

I'd like to know why this was dropped off as well ... especially considering the way it was demo'd.

Microsoft used their power and Toshiba's weakness to push their HDi standard onto HD DVD...No, it was presented as a solution to implement the interactivity, and a vote was taken. Other solutions were looked before HDi came along, and were rejected for either technical or licensing reasons.

AVC is an open standard, VC-1 is not. VC-1 is also an open standard (SMPTE 421M). Microsoft is one of the suppliers for an encoder, just like there are multiple suppliers for AVC encoders.

What a sad state of affairs it is that a question like this even gets asked. HD DVD propaganda is so aggressive, that people somehow think one bitbucket is better than another bitbucket, even with the same bits.

I can't wait for HD DVD to die so we don't have to deal with this nonsense anymore. May that day come soon.

But wait ... doesn't the aggressive BDA propaganda say that HD-DVD is already dead? According to them, that day came and went a year ago. :p

The reason I raised the question is because I remembered in the insider's thread there was discussion of some reflagging or something that had to take place between the two formats -- I'm trying to find details of those posts now, but it's hard with all the back-and-forthness over there.

Also, isn't it possible that since there are no real universal players, that the differences in hardware from the player perspective can produce different PQ results? :confused:

We have a VC-1 V.S. AVC, and from what I see VC-1 has more edge in quality.Trouble is that 1, 2, 3, or more years down the road, who knows what the outcome will be? Encoders are continuously improving.

...that the differences in hardware from the player perspective can produce different PQ results? :confused:Yes, and even if the same chips are used in different designs, the output may look slightly different. It all depends on whether scaling is being done (and thus the quality of the scalers), what post processing is being done (and thus what the default values have been set to).

As more and more different designs enter the marketplace, there will be more variations between players.

VC-1 is also an open standard (SMPTE 421M). Microsoft is one of the suppliers for an encoder, just like there are multiple suppliers for AVC encoders.The difference is that while H.264/MPEG-4 AVC was standardized from scratch with many companies involved from the get go, VC-1 was ready made technology by Microsoft and was submitted to SMPTE to make it "SMPTE standard", same like digital VCR standard D-1 by Sony, and D-5 by Panasonic.

In these days, this kind of "almost ready made" spec is submitted to even international standard body like IEEE, and some times results in that the international standard body gives up standardizing because of so many arguments are there and power games are deeply involved in there.

Trouble is that 1, 2, 3, or more years down the road, who knows what the outcome will be? Encoders are continuously improving.

That's the beauty of competition. 3 open codec standards competing to be the best. It's good for everybody.

That's the beauty of competition. 3 open codec standards competing to be the best. It's good for everybody.


I dont think that one codec or another is "the best". There is one best codec for one existing Material, but there is no one best Codec for all. I´m no insider but thats my conclusion about this "Codec war".

Thats another reason for me to buy into BD, cause HD-DVD seems to be forced using VC-1 and BD is free to use the best Codec for the movie and dont have to look on things like Disc space. Don Eklund said in an interview that even sony would use VC-1 IF its the best codec for the movie.

An overall comparision of the 3 codecs dont seems to be usefull.

Greetz

I don't think it is silly to be skeptical of TL51 considering what happened with TL45 back in 2005. I think it is just common sense. Also I believe many HD DVD supporters show a lack of concern about TL51 partly because of the fact that no one knows for sure if Toshiba really intends to add TL51 to the HD DVD specs.
I think Tosh is adding TL51 so Sony can continue to use MPEG2 when BD fails. Therefore, you're right - not of great concern to HD-DVD fans :p BD fans seem more concerned, and they should be. :D J/K

I dont think that one codec or another is "the best". There is one best codec for one existing Material, but there is no one best Codec for all. I´m no insider but thats my conclusion about this "Codec war".

Thats another reason for me to buy into BD, cause HD-DVD seems to be forced using VC-1 and BD is free to use the best Codec for the movie and dont have to look on things like Disc space. Don Eklund said in an interview that even sony would use VC-1 IF its the best codec for the movie.

An overall comparision of the 3 codecs dont seems to be usefull.

Greetz

Let me just say that Don Eklund has very poor credibility on this subject. He defended the early BD releases despite the fact that all of the reviewers were scratching their heads trying to understand why they looked bad.

Despite comments from Sony to the contrary, it is against Sony's self interests to use VC1. The quote from Don was disingenuous, but good marketing. They have no intention of using VC1, but it costs nothing to say "we would use it if it were any good, it's just not good." This way you get to proclaim that you're open minded while slamming a competing technology (Sony has made financial investments in the other codecs).

Both formats have great looking VC1 and AVC titles. Mpeg2 is somewhat hit or miss in both formats (when using new material - I'm not talking about 15+ year old masters which is another story). If you really believe that Mpeg2 is a great solution and you want acces to Mpeg2 encoded material, then you should by all means support BD. Most of the discs available in BD are Mpeg2 encoded.

Let me just say that Don Eklund has very poor credibility on this subject. He defended the early BD releases despite the fact that all of the reviewers were scratching their heads trying to understand why they looked bad.

Despite comments from Sony to the contrary, it is against Sony's self interests to use VC1. The quote from Don was disingenuous, but good marketing. They have no intention of using VC1, but it costs nothing to say "we would use it if it were any good, it's just not good." This way you get to proclaim that you're open minded while slamming a competing technology (Sony has made financial investments in the other codecs).

Both formats have great looking VC1 and AVC titles. Mpeg2 is somewhat hit or miss in both formats (when using new material - I'm not talking about 15+ year old masters which is another story). If you really believe that Mpeg2 is a great solution and you want acces to Mpeg2 encoded material, then you should by all means support BD. Most of the discs available in BD are Mpeg2 encoded.


In the same interview eklund said that the first sony releases wasnt so good. But i dont talk only about Sony and i dont said i want MPEG-2 only Movies.

But i think that the best Codec could only be chosen for one Movie and not overall. So i like the liberty of BD to use all codecs.

BTW, is there a HD-DVD AVC Release? I realy dont know, only for germany...

Greetz

H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is an open video compression standard jointly developed by the International Telecommunication Union and MPEG members. AVC is able to provide 'perfect' transfers. So why should studios PAY to use VC-1 when they've already reached the point of marginal gain?You enclose 'perfect' in quotes. Why?

And does your comment account for the contraints of optical media?
Perfect implies no compression artifacts at all. That the transfer is equal to the master. A compressed film might 'look and sound' perfect but it will never equal the master. 'Perfect' means no artifacts are visible to the (re)viewer. But different viewers see and hear things differently. One man's 5.0 is another's 4.5.

Again, my point has been that Blu-ray has had 'perfect' reviews for PQ with whatever codec they're using. (The viewers most likely don't even know what video codec is being used.)

I was under the impression that AVC was an open source standard with open source tools available while VC-1's encoder was designed and optimized for HD-DVD. And that Microsoft had not optimized VC-1 for Blu-ray. Meaning Blu-ray-only studios need to experiment with the encoder to get the output to be compatible with the Blu-ray format.

"...Our VC-1 encoder creates elementary streams which then get multiplexed (mixed) using Toshiba tools for HD DVD. Since our one and only customer was HD DVD last year, we designed the default format output compatible with this workflow.

"Subsequently, we got interest to create BD streams. Instead of redesigning the tool, we wrote a reformatting one that can modify the HD DVD bitstream/output to be compliant with BD authoring. This has the added benefit that one can encode once, but target both formats." - Amir

Apparently as pointed out here I am wrong that AVC is an open source standard and AVC is still patented and licensed. I confused x264 with H264. Sorry about that. However, the fact remains that the Blu-ray studios prefer AVC over VC-1.

And no one has answered my question yet. If Blu-ray went away, would studios switch to VC-1? If not, then I don't see how this is a FORMAT issue.

If not, then I don't see how this is a FORMAT issue.You're correct that it's not a format issue, since both formats support all three codecs.

That's so obvious on its face that it's amazing we have to point these things out to HD DVD supporters. This discussion is entirely driven by the aggressive marketing campaign carried out by Microsoft employees here and their followers who believe without question anything they say. They keep repeating two "Big Lies":

BD = Sony

and

BD = MPEG2

It's a propaganda campaign, not a logical discussion.

You forgot:

VC-1 is always better than MPEG-2 and AVC.

In the same interview eklund said that the first sony releases wasnt so good. But i dont talk only about Sony and i dont said i want MPEG-2 only Movies.

But i think that the best Codec could only be chosen for one Movie and not overall. So i like the liberty of BD to use all codecs.

BTW, is there a HD-DVD AVC Release? I realy dont know, only for germany...

Greetz

Off the top of my head I know the Weinstein titles, like Matador are done with AVC.

You're correct that it's not a format issue, since both formats support all three codecs.

That's so obvious on its face that it's amazing we have to point these things out to HD DVD supporters. This discussion is entirely driven by the aggressive marketing campaign carried out by Microsoft employees here and their followers who believe without question anything they say. They keep repeating two "Big Lies":

BD = Sony

and

BD = MPEG2

It's a propaganda campaign, not a logical discussion.

Is it propaganda that most BD titles are Mpeg2? Is it propaganda that most BD-50's are Mpeg2?

It's wonderful that BD supports the same 3 codecs. It's a shame that they cling to mpeg2.

You're correct that it's not a format issue, since both formats support all three codecs.

That's so obvious on its face that it's amazing we have to point these things out to HD DVD supporters. This discussion is entirely driven by the aggressive marketing campaign carried out by Microsoft employees here and their followers who believe without question anything they say. They keep repeating two "Big Lies":

BD = Sony

and

BD = MPEG2

It's a propaganda campaign, not a logical discussion.

And how does this differ materially from the tiresome BD marketing mantra that more storage capacity=better quality, when that clearly hasn't been demonstrated?

You're correct that it's not a format issue, since both formats support all three codecs.

That's so obvious on its face that it's amazing we have to point these things out to HD DVD supporters. This discussion is entirely driven by the aggressive marketing campaign carried out by Microsoft employees here and their followers who believe without question anything they say. They keep repeating two "Big Lies":

BD = Sony

and

BD = MPEG2

It's a propaganda campaign, not a logical discussion.

Sony is the numero uno in the start of BD? aren't they??
I see a lot more releases thrown out on MPG2 than AVC!

propaganda??
There's an onslaught of It coming from the BD side if anything, Yes I see it from all sides, but come on!
All the "End is coming" and "We Will Conquer the World" Is from the BD camp isn't it??

You're correct that it's not a format issue, since both formats support all three codecs.

That's so obvious on its face that it's amazing we have to point these things out to HD DVD supporters. This discussion is entirely driven by the aggressive marketing campaign carried out by Microsoft employees here and their followers who believe without question anything they say. They keep repeating two "Big Lies":

BD = Sony

and

BD = MPEG2

It's a propaganda campaign, not a logical discussion. ehhh....

Its not propaganda if most of it is based on a verifiable fact. :)

The vast majority of Blu-ray capable consumer electronic devices sold on the market and the lowest priced ones are made by one company...........SONY.

The one company that has invested and risked the most in the Blu-ray format's success is .........SONY.

The vast majority of Blu-ray movie titles available on the market, and virtually all from the Blu-ray exclusive studios including SONY are encoded in MPEG-2.



So there are perfectly logical reasons people associate BD=-Sony=MPEG-2.

Except for people with with their blu-colored glasses on. ;)

And no one has answered my question yet. If Blu-ray went away, would studios switch to VC-1? If not, then I don't see how this is a FORMAT issue.
I know Sony probably won't, maybe Disney..

What is needed is a BD exclusive studio to become neutral and release the same title on both formats using that formats favorite codec..
So we can really see if there is a difference in PQ.
This is a possible way to find proof, isn't it?
Are they afraid the customer will decide which format pleases them more?

Right as now this isn't happening, so It's easy for a BD studio to clam that their higher bandwidth/storage produces a better picture than HD DVD can.

And how does this differ materially from the tiresome BD marketing mantra that more storage capacity=better quality, when that clearly hasn't been demonstrated?Both HD DVD and Blu-ray use this in their marketing materials. They are pointing out that they have higher capacities than DVD and pretty much every ad pointing out the benefits of either format lists bigger storage capacity. This actually helps both HD formats.

I haven't seen Blu-ray's disc capacity marketed in ads against HD DVD. They may have mentioned it in a press release but they are not pointing it out in any of their ads that I've seen.

And no one has answered my question yet. If Blu-ray went away, would studios switch to VC-1? If not, then I don't see how this is a FORMAT issue.I know Sony probably won't, maybe Disney..

What is needed is a BD exclusive studio to become neutral and release the same title on both formats using that formats favorite codec..
So we can really see if there is a difference in PQ.
This is a possible way to find proof, isn't it?I doubt that would happen. If a Blu-ray studio ends up supporting HD DVD as well, it makes no sense for them to work on two separate transfers. The cheaper thing for them would be to encode for HD DVD and then port that to Blu-ray. At that point they wouldn't care if their Blu-ray version had a better picture quality or not. They would just want to sell as many discs in both formats as they could at the cheapest cost.

Maybe if Microsoft optimized their VC-1 encoder for Blu-ray then somehow reformatted the encoder's output to be compliant with HD DVD (not sure they could do that without the compressionist doing separate encodes) then we'd really see if Blu-ray's bandwidth makes a real world difference.

The only films neutral studios might do separate encodes for would be for the really long stuff that would hopefully sell very, very well like the extended editions of the LOTR trilogy.

Are they afraid the customer will decide which format pleases them more?Yes. Which is why the BDA went out and got Paramount and Warner to support Blu-ray and did enough to keep Sony, Fox and Disney in the fold. It was quite a coup for Blu-ray.

Had the CEs settled on one format last year we wouldn't be having this discussion. (Well, I wouldn't anyway.) And we, the consumers, wouldn't have had a say about which format came out on top.

I couldn't care less what codec they use so long as the picture looks great and the audio sounds great.

The key to this war is J6P. Right now they have no clue what blu ray or HD DVD even are. If the studios start to release tonnes of movies on the new formats and advertising the hell out of them the average HD IQ will increase. I have owned Beta, VHS, LD, DVD and now HD DVD and love film, people like you and I know about these great new formats and want them. The average Joe has no clue.

Laserdiscs never caught on because they were huge in physical size and they were expensive. Also, the average person had a 27" CRT TV and VHS was good enough. DVD looked much better and as prices dropped it took over, but it took a long time. Soon the average person will have a 37" or larger HDTV and wonder why VHS and DVD look like crap. Upscaling DVD players and the new HD formats will increase in popularity big time.

The question is will upscaled DVD's be good enough for J6P? Until prices drop I think they will be. It will take years for either or both of these formats to replace, or even be equal in sales to DVD. By then VOD etc. or a new format may be around. I hope that HD formats stick around because I love collecting film. I still own 110 LD's, 1200 DVD's and 1200 VHS tapes(approximately 250 of which are widescreen). I have slowly and painfully replaced some of my VHS favorites but it has taken time.

I have a Panasonic PT-AE1000U and an XBOX 360 HD-DVD player and a dedicated theatre room, even so I won't be rebuying my LD's or DVD's very soon (I will most likely be holding onto most of OAR and OOP VHS as well). Why, because they look pretty good upscaled and my wife will kill me. I think that most people will be extremely reluctant to replace old formats to dive into this format war. The price of the XBOX add-on and the DVD/HD DVD combo discs are what convinced me to jump into the mix (I have purchased The Departed DVD/HD DVD combo, and Babel. King Kong came for free with the player).

I just bought a Pioneer CLD-704 laserdisc player the other day for $250, I am the type to by these new formats, unfortunately J6P is not, not yet anyways.

I hope to $99 HD Combo players but I won't hold my breath. Can anyone say 2010?

ehhh....

Its not propaganda if most of it is based on a verifiable fact. :)

The vast majority of Blu-ray capable consumer electronic devices sold on the market and the lowest priced ones are made by one company...........SONY.

The one company that has invested and risked the most in the Blu-ray format's success is .........SONY.

The vast majority of Blu-ray movie titles available on the market, and virtually all from the Blu-ray exclusive studios including SONY are encoded in MPEG-2.



So there are perfectly logical reasons people associate BD=-Sony=MPEG-2.

Except for people with with their blu-colored glasses on. ;)

Yeah that same old tiresome mantra of wait and see when PS3 is introduced. Now, SONY's WMD is an embarrassment .

The whole of year 2006 was so SONY-centric in news and product launch, one could not help but see SONY as the face of BluRay.

Spread the love that is BluRay :rolleyes:

Perfect implies no compression artifacts at all. That the transfer is equal to the master. A compressed film might 'look and sound' perfect but it will never equal the master. 'Perfect' means no artifacts are visible to the (re)viewer. But different viewers see and hear things differently. One man's 5.0 is another's 4.5.

Again, my point has been that Blu-ray has had 'perfect' reviews for PQ with whatever codec they're using. (The viewers most likely don't even know what video codec is being used.)

As your use of perfect is subjective, and qualified, it would seem that both advanced codecs fall in to this category for some encodes, but not all. Why did you only describe one this way?

Both HD DVD and Blu-ray use this in their marketing materials. They are pointing out that they have higher capacities than DVD and pretty much every ad pointing out the benefits of either format lists bigger storage capacity. This actually helps both HD formats.

I haven't seen Blu-ray's disc capacity marketed in ads against HD DVD. They may have mentioned it in a press release but they are not pointing it out in any of their ads that I've seen.

Current mass media buys are naturally limited in their scope of desired effect. At this point, it's more about consumer awareness, name recognition, sloganeering, and driving home the point that HD optical media is the "next big thing" for that shiny new HDTV in your living room, than it is about litmus tests.

Targeted marketing is another matter. AVS and other, similar venues, are frequented by early adopters who represent a critical sub-set of consumers who effect the market in a manner disproportionate to their real numbers. Do you really believe so many industry professionals intimately involved with this battle have nothing better to do with their working, and/or free time, than hang out on an Internet forum to suffer the semi-literate barbs of techno-geeks who spend more time counting lines of resolution than they do getting laid? Why are they here?

Do you honestly believe this forum has somehow been immunized against viral marketers who anonymously disseminate every iota of FUD from a plausibly deniable, unofficial set of talking points? IMHO, the current nexus of this war is an "underground" PR battle on sundry sites like AVS, and the blogshere throughout the www. ( sorry for the rant )

oops, forgot about the conspiracy theory :cool:

oops, forgot about the conspiracy theory :cool:

( paraphrasing )

..........I see FUDmonkeys........

As your use of perfect is subjective, and qualified, it would seem that both advanced codecs fall in to this category for some encodes, but not all. Why did you only describe one this way?I'm not sure what you mean by "only describe one this way". Do you mean one format, one codec, or one title?

Blu-ray has had perfect 5 star video ratings of titles, just like HD DVD has had. Not that all reviewers see things the same way but it does show that the Blu-ray studios have really stepped it up. Even the mpeg-2 encodes on BD50 discs are getting very good reviews.

It doesn't make a difference to me what codec was used on the disc to get that 5 star rating. (I'm sure VC-1 could also provide 'perfect' transfers on Blu-ray.) It only matters to me that Blu-ray's PQ is not horrible or "blurry" as those in the HD DVD camp like to make it out to be.

Do you really believe so many industry professionals intimately involved with this battle have nothing better to do with their working, and/or free time, than hang out on an Internet forum to suffer the semi-literate barbs of techno-geeks who spend more time counting lines of resolution than they do getting laid?Yes I do. Why are they here?To hear how well they're doing or not doing. Because they're techies and enjoy talking about their work. To talk smack with their fellow insiders. (see: Ohio St. vs Michigan threads in any sports forum.) To be hero-worshipped. Why are you here? Are you paid?
Do you honestly believe this forum has somehow been immunized against viral marketers who anonymously disseminate every iota of FUD from a plausibly deniable, unofficial set of talking points? IMHO, the current nexus of this war is an "underground" PR battle on sundry sites like AVS, and the blogshere throughout the www.No. But I don't see how technical specifications like disc size and bit rate can be considered fud. Not too long ago HD DVD was touting their HD DVD30 discs as having a higher capacity than the BD25 discs Blu-ray was using, which was and will always be true. So how does BD50 having a higher capacity than HD DVD30 make it fud? It doesn't.

Yes I do.

Rusty, if they're here in an official capacity, they're being paid. Ya really think Bill is a philanthropist of such magnanimous generosity, that he pays folks just to hang out and "talk smack" with no expectation of a return on his investment?

To hear how well they're doing or not doing. Because they're techies and enjoy talking about their work. To talk smack with their fellow insiders. (see: Ohio St. vs Michigan threads in any sports forum.) To be hero-worshipped.

There's likely one degree or another of truth in the reasons you've postulated, but I also think it would be naive to believe that list is comprehensively accurate. Are you saying that you don't believe any corporate interests are attempting to influence consumer opinion in this venue?............... Really?

Why are you here? Are you paid?

I'm just a techno-geek, line counter....zero monetary compensation.

No. But I don't see how technical specifications like disc size and bit rate can be considered fud. Not too long ago HD DVD was touting their HD DVD30 discs as having a higher capacity than the BD25 discs Blu-ray was using, which was and will always be true. So how does BD50 having a higher capacity than HD DVD30 make it fud? It doesn't.

Quoting specs isn't FUD. Reaching speculative/unsupported conclusions based upon them, very well might be.

Maybe if Microsoft optimized their VC-1 encoder for Blu-ray then somehow reformatted the encoder's output to be compliant with HD DVD (not sure they could do that without the compressionist doing separate encodes) then we'd really see if Blu-ray's bandwidth makes a real world difference.
Here you go again! So you can see a difference in PQ between a good BD and HD DVD disc, because of bandwidth? hmm you stated you only seen HD DVD play in a store display. You said you can't prove the PQ is better but now you say this " we'd really see if Blu-ray's bandwidth makes a real world difference."Well Sony and FOX had more duds with this amazing bandwidth haven't they, than excellent results. HD DVD can produce the SAME in PQ!!! there is no evidence seen to prove BD can do better!, are you listening?
The only films neutral studios might do separate encodes for would be for the really long stuff that would hopefully sell very, very well like the extended editions of the LOTR trilogy.
I hope you know that you will still be seeing multi discs with Blu-Ray..
Check out Disney's "Pirate" movies and Paramounts "Dreamgirls". I mean If they can fit the whole extended edition of LOTR with PCM audio on a BD-50 than why couldn't Disneys "POTC" movie fit on 1 BD-50 disc with all it's extras, instead of 2 discs? gee I wonder?


Yes. Which is why the BDA went out and got Paramount and Warner to support Blu-ray and did enough to keep Sony, Fox and Disney in the fold. It was quite a coup for Blu-ray.

And well suffer from slow releases from Warner because of this... Why?
Simply because we are waiting for BD to finish developing their half baked format... drum roll BD-J!!!
This Is probably also why we aren't seeing anything from New Line.



Had the CEs settled on one format last year we wouldn't be having this discussion. (Well, I wouldn't anyway.) And we, the consumers, wouldn't have had a say about which format came out on top.
True, But some companys are too greedy aren't they. Sony is great!

I couldn't care less what codec they use so long as the picture looks great and the audio sounds great.
Good then buy an HD DVD player too.

Rusty, if they're here in an official capacity, they're being paid. Ya really think Bill is a philanthropist of such magnanimous generosity, that he pays folks just to hang out and "talk smack" with no expectation of a return on his investment?

There's likely one degree or another of truth in the reasons you've postulated, but I also think it would be naive to believe that list is comprehensively accurate. Are you saying that you don't believe any corporate interests are attempting to influence consumer opinion in this venue?............... Really?I'm not saying there aren't ANY paid marketers here. Just that I don't believe there are as many as some seem to think. I wouldn't consider the insiders here to be paid marketers either even if they are here in some official capacity for their companies. And why would either format need any paid viral marketers with all the fanboys here anyway? How would the companies know if they are even getting their money's worth?

FWIW, I definitely wouldn't past Sony to hire viral marketers. If anyone has viral marketers then they certainly do.

Here you go again! So you can see a difference in PQ between a good BD and HD DVD disc, because of bandwidth? hmm you stated you only seen HD DVD play in a store display. You said you can't prove the PQ is better but now you say this " we'd really see if Blu-ray's bandwidth makes a real world difference."Well Sony and FOX had more duds with this amazing bandwidth haven't they, than excellent results. HD DVD can produce the SAME in PQ!!! there is no evidence seen to prove BD can do better!, are you listening? I hope you know that you will still be seeing multi discs with Blu-Ray..IF....or not. I didn't say "we'd see THAT Blu-ray's bandwidth makes a real world difference." We would see if it made a difference or not.
Check out Disney's "Pirate" movies and Paramounts "Dreamgirls". I mean If they can fit the whole extended edition of LOTR with PCM audio on a BD-50 than why couldn't Disneys "POTC" movie fit on 1 BD-50 disc with all it's extras, instead of 2 discs? gee I wonder?Of course they can fit the entire extended edition of LOTR on one 50GB or one 30GB disc. As a matter of fact, they can fit it on a 15GB disc too. Or even a DVD9 if they really wanted too. That's what VC-1 was made for, low bitrates. I'm not sure about the audio track tho.

The question is would a 30GB transfer look as good as a 50GB transfer? Or would New Line choose to split the film onto two discs for either format? I'm sure a lot of people want to know how they're going to handle this film.
...then buy an HD DVD player too.I would if HD DVD had more movies I wanted. That, the possibility that Universal will go neutral by CES, and the rumor that Microsoft will be releasing a new 360 with built-in HD DVD is keeping me from buying an HD DVD player. As it is, I have no problem waiting 'til after next year's CES to make a purchasing decision. Blu-ray is releasing more titles than I can watch right now.

Maybe if Microsoft optimized their VC-1 encoder for Blu-ray then somehow reformatted the encoder's output to be compliant with HD DVD (not sure they could do that without the compressionist doing separate encodes) then we'd really see if Blu-ray's bandwidth makes a real world difference.

IF....or not. I didn't say "we'd see THAT Blu-ray's bandwidth makes a real world difference." We would see if it made a difference or not.
.
You mean that nether mpeg2 or AVC are showing you the best PQ? :rolleyes:

So what you were saying Is that you have to wait for Warners to encode with a higher bandwidth for Blu-Ray to see if there's a difference in PQ?

Sony and the rest of the BD studios aren't giving you the best BD has to offer in PQ?

Sorry to have misunderstood you than. :D

I'm not sure what you mean by "only describe one this way". Do you mean one format, one codec, or one title?

Blu-ray has had perfect 5 star video ratings of titles, just like HD DVD has had. Not that all reviewers see things the same way but it does show that the Blu-ray studios have really stepped it up. Even the mpeg-2 encodes on BD50 discs are getting very good reviews.

It doesn't make a difference to me what codec was used on the disc to get that 5 star rating. (I'm sure VC-1 could also provide 'perfect' transfers on Blu-ray.) It only matters to me that Blu-ray's PQ is not horrible or "blurry" as those in the HD DVD camp like to make it out to be.

Why do you only single out AVC as provideing 'perfect' transfers when, by your definition, VC-1 does as well?

Given that both codecs can do well, and both have RAND licensing terms in the overal patent pool, you seem to be making an argument that's spurious at best.

FWIW, I definitely wouldn't past Sony to hire viral marketers. If anyone has viral marketers then they certainly do.

MS probably does it more than anyone else. In the early '90s, MS and their PR firm in Portland (Waggoner Edstrom) got the MS name in more publications, by a much bigger margin, than any other tech company.

This was before they were the dominant force they are today. They had high market shares but Windows was just going and Office still hadn't completely eradicated the Lotuses and Wordperfects yet.

They launched the X360 and Zune with cryptic viral marketing sites. Other sites like iLounge would get a burst of traffic and posts pro-Zune in a regular pattern. A couple of weeks ago, a guy was busted posting unauthorized Zune posters (didn't have permission) at the South by Southwest music festival. The guy supposedly had connections to Waggoner Edstrom.

A few weeks back, there was a survey showing how negative an image the PS3 had. Sony's not getting their money's worth from viral marketing. Or MS is really getting their money's worth.

You mean that nether mpeg2 or AVC are showing you the best PQ? :rolleyes:

So what you were saying Is that you have to wait for Warners to encode with a higher bandwidth for Blu-Ray to see if there's a difference in PQ?

Sony and the rest of the BD studios aren't giving you the best BD has to offer in PQ?

Sorry to have misunderstood you than. :DNice spinning!

Universal uses VC-1. Scorpion King, Hollywoodland, and The Mummy Returns all got 4.5 star ratings. If Universal switched to Blu-ray and bothered to re-encode those films specifically for Blu-ray's higher bandwidth I believe those films would all get 5 stars.

The same thing with Warner, if they used a Blu-ray optimized VC-1 encoder would their 4 or 4.5 star reviews on HD DVD end up getting the same ratings or higher ratings? My guess is they'd get higher ratings. Look at Batman Begins, it got 4.5 stars. If they use the same transfer I expect the Blu-ray would get the same 4.5 stars too. But if they re-encoded BB for Blu-ray would they get 5 stars? It's certainly possible. (It's possible they'd get 5 stars. Not that they would re-encode.)

I don't expect that King Kong would get an off-the-chart 5.5 on Blu-ray. But I seriously doubt that its rating would drop to 4.5. If it doesn't get a 5.0 then something is wrong with the reviewer's system or he's biased.

If all discs aren't getting 5 star ratings then we are not getting the best PQ on those discs. There's less-than-perfect transfers on both sides. HD DVD isn't immune from a bad transfer.

A PCM track for King Kong, would be enough to make me buy a Blu-ray, even though I already have the HDDVD. I could care less if they leave it VC1, though. Mmmm...

Why do you only single out AVC as provideing 'perfect' transfers when, by your definition, VC-1 does as well?

Given that both codecs can do well, and both have RAND licensing terms in the overal patent pool, you seem to be making an argument that's spurious at best.What codec did Open Season use? AVC.

Has there been any Mpeg-2 or VC-1 transfers on Blu-ray that got 5 stars? I'm not aware of any.

Do I care that HD DVD got a 'perfect' rating for King Kong using VC-1? No. Why would I? I don't have an HD DVD player and didn't even like King Kong. If I did buy an HD DVD player I'd only own KK if it was a free pack-in.

FWIW, I do own Open Season and liked the movie. Although, I think Ice Age: The Meltdown is a much better movie. If I had to choose only one to own, I'd choose IA. I, myself, don't need perfection to enjoy HD movies.

Anyway, I'm not arguing for or against the use of any codec. Or advocating AVC. I wouldn't know the difference if it wasn't pointed out to me.

It's up to the studios and compressionists to get the most out of their films while at the same time releasing those films in a timely manner.

That's not at all a detriment to HD DVD but I really don't feel any obligation to toot HD DVD's horn or to be unbiased in any of my posts. It's not like I'm actually reviewing these films.

I'm pointing out that my format of choice is perfectly capable of top-shelf HD transfers. Why did I pick Blu-ray? Because of its studio support. Frankly, Universal hasn't had any must-haves for me in quite awhile. Must-see? Yes. Must-own? No.

I'm a Blu-ray fanboy and proud of it!

Nice spinning!

Universal uses VC-1. Scorpion King, Hollywoodland, and The Mummy Returns all got 4.5 star ratings. If Universal switched to Blu-ray and bothered to re-encode those films specifically for Blu-ray's higher bandwidth I believe those films would all get 5 stars.


RustyC, I'm curious as to the science behind the above quote. Care to share?

RustyC, I'm curious as to the science behind the above quote. Care to share?
I think the following quote will shed some light:
I'm a Blu-ray fanboy and proud of it!

A few weeks back, there was a survey showing how negative an image the PS3 had. Sony's not getting their money's worth from viral marketing. Or MS is really getting their money's worth.When your own company president says your product might fail because its too expensive and doesn't appeal to its target audience, that's a bad sign.

When your company president hates you more than the competition, that's a bad sign.

Microsoft should pay Sony for dragging its own name through the mud.

RustyC, I'm curious as to the science behind the above quote. Care to share?Go back to post #262.
Basically, Microsoft optimized their VC-1 encoder for HD DVD.

Go back to post #262.
Basically, Microsoft optimized their VC-1 encoder for HD DVD.
RustyC, that post does not prove that more bandwidth on Blu-Ray is going to provide better PQ. That is the claim you are making.

Go back to post #262.
Basically, Microsoft optimized their VC-1 encoder for HD DVD.
Which means nothing, since they can use BD-level bitrates using that encoder. His point was, where's the scientific evidence showing that using the higher bitrates that the BD specs allow would show noticeable differences in PQ?

Black Xbox 360 w/ HDMI, 120GB HDD @ US$479.99 Confirmed (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/39309975/m/434008993831/p/1)


According to a source at Microsoft, high-definition movie playback is being withheld from the 360 because the "format's not proven."

RustyC, that post does not prove that more bandwidth on Blu-Ray is going to provide better PQ. That is the claim you are making.Deja Vu, all over again. I believe I just had this conversation.

http://www.sonypictures.com/cthe/superbit/what_is_superbit.html

WHAT IS SUPERBIT? The Evolution of the DVD is here…

Imagine having the ability to see more details in a scene from your favorite movie. Background images become clear and bring new life to that movie you've seen multiple times. Although the Superbit collection can be viewed on any DVD player, the more advanced DVD equipment, the better the experience. In addition to the improved clarity of picture, Superbit offers the highest quality sound available.

With the highest resolution picture plus DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1 sound, Superbit offers the ultimate in home entertainment.

HOW DOES IT WORK? More about SUPERBIT

The Superbit titles utilize a high bit rate digital transfer process which optimizes video quality while offering a choice of both DTS and 5.1 Dolby Digital audio. Superbit DVDs are encoded at about double their normal bit rate while maintaining full compatibility with the DVD-Video format. The result is picture quality that provides outstanding detail and is the closest to the original master available on DVD to date. Superbit DVDs play on current players and needs no additional DVD equipment.

HOW DOES IT WORK? SUPERBIT vs Standard DVD

Currently DVDs are encoded to optimize space for the feature plus added value and audio streams. The SUPERBIT collection converts the physical space devoted to added value to higher bit rate video and both Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS audio. Consumers have never had a choice in their DVD viewing in the past.http://www.sonypictures.com/cthe/superbit/images/chart.gif

Think of Blu-ray as the SUPERBIT version of HD DVD and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Think of Blu-ray as the SUPERBIT version of HD DVD and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Yeah, but Superbit releases were a joke, more often than not. Plus, MPEG-2 was being used, not VC-1, which is what we're talking about.

Which means nothing, since they can use BD-level bitrates using that encoder. His point was, where's the scientific evidence showing that using the higher bitrates that the BD specs allow would show noticeable differences in PQ?Where's the evidence that it doesn't.

Where's the evidence that it doesn't.
Wow.

You see, that's not how it works. You don't prove the negative, you prove the positive. I don't have to prove that flying unicorns don't exist, you have to prove they do exist.

Wow.

You see, that's not how it works. You don't prove the negative, you prove the positive. I don't have to prove that flying unicorns don't exist, you have to prove they do exist.
You admit in your own post that some Superbit versions were better than the original.
Yeah, but Superbit releases were a joke, more often than not. Plus, MPEG-2 was being used, not VC-1, which is what we're talking about.Therefore, I have already proved my point that higher bit rates will provide better images.

Now its your turn to prove it won't.

Higher bit rates for MPEG-2 using a 9MB DVD and standard def content.

Not at Blu-ray rates using HD content on 25GB or 50GB discs or VC-1 using 30GB discs.

Deja Vu, all over again. I believe I just had this conversation.

http://www.sonypictures.com/cthe/superbit/what_is_superbit.html

http://www.sonypictures.com/cthe/superbit/images/chart.gif

Think of Blu-ray as the SUPERBIT version of HD DVD and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Not sure that's the analogy you want to make considering where SuperBit is today. ;)

Not sure that's the analogy you want to make considering where SuperBit is today. ;) ROFLMAO :D :D :D

Where's the evidence that it doesn't.
So you want me to do your dirty work by proving it can't be done? I'm sorry, I'll stick to my original request and ask you to prove your belief, unless this is a religious argument and we can just go on faith.

You admit in your own post that some Superbit versions were better than the original.
Therefore, I have already proved my point that higher bit rates will provide better images.

Now its your turn to prove it won't.
1. You're comparing apples to oranges. You're using select cases from an older, inferior technology to attempt to prove an assertion about much more advanced technologies.
2. Just because Sony put out releases loaded with useless extras that seriously cut into the bits used for the PQ, just to turn around and release a bare-bones version with decent PQ (comparable to normal releases from other studios) does not prove that throwing bits at the project, after a point, will show any difference.
3. You still have not shown a shred of evidence that an HD DVD release of a title (encoded with VC-1) would look inferior to a BD version of the same title encoded (again, with VC-1) at a higher bitrate.

Not sure that's the analogy you want to make considering where SuperBit is today. ;)
Seriously... :D

Higher bit rates for MPEG-2 using a 9MB DVD and standard def content.

Not at Blu-ray rates using HD content on 25GB or 50GB discs or VC-1 using 30GB discs.This really proves nothing....

Universal's VC-1 transfers are getting 4.5 stars. Therefore, there's some room for improvement. IMO, if VC-1 can't get 5 stars on a consistent basis with an even higher bit rate then it is not the right encoding tool for Blu-ray.

Are you actually saying VC-1 should only be used on films less than 30GB?

So you want me to do your dirty work by proving it can't be done? I'm sorry, I'll stick to my original request and ask you to prove your belief, unless this is a religious argument and we can just go on faith.That's because you can't prove it won't. The fact is Blu-ray's 54 Mbps trumps HD DVD's 36.55 Mbps. Deny, deny, deny. Doesn't make it any less true.

This really proves nothing....

Universal's VC-1 transfers are getting 4.5 stars. Therefore, there's some room for improvement. IMO, if VC-1 can't get 5 stars on a consistent basis with an even higher bit rate then it is not the right encoding tool for Blu-ray.

Are you actually saying VC-1 should only be used on films less than 30GB?
None of the codecs are getting five stars on a consistent basis, regardless of whether BD-50s are used or not. In fact, BD-50s aren't getting five stars consistently - why is that?

This really proves nothing....

Universal's VC-1 transfers are getting 4.5 stars. Therefore, there's some room for improvement. IMO, if VC-1 can't get 5 stars on a consistent basis with an even higher bit rate then it is not the right encoding tool for Blu-ray.

Are you actually saying VC-1 should only be used on films less than 30GB?

What codec has gotten 5 stars on a consistent basis with Blu-Ray at higher bit rates? Based on your logic, it seems that since Blu-Ray has more Bandwidth and Blu-Ray has more space, then all of the releases should be 4.5+ stars ... with a rash of consistent 5.0 stars in PQ. But ... that's not the case ... and you can't blame LCD either, because some of the worst ratings have come from Blu-Ray Exclusive Studios.

What would you say is the right encoding tool for Blu-Ray?

I think that the different codecs have their strengths and weaknesses and that's why we have this competition between them. But assuming that a 4.5 Star HD-DVD release would automatically be a 5.0 Star Blu-Ray release if re-encoded is ... well ... just an assumption ... a guess ...

I mean ... sure ... it's possible ... but it's also otherwise just your opinion. *shrug*

That's because you can't prove it won't. The fact is Blu-ray's 54 Mbps trumps HD DVD's 36.55 Mbps. Deny, deny, deny. Doesn't make it any less true.

Nor can you prove it will ... so we're back to the same stalemate of opinions.

Unless, of course, this is just an exercise in increasing post counts? :confused:

That's because you can't prove it won't. The fact is Blu-ray's 54 Mbps trumps HD DVD's 36.55 Mbps. Deny, deny, deny. Doesn't make it any less true.
1. Again, you've disregarded one of the most basic principals in debate - the person who puts forth the postulate has the burden of proof. In this case, you stated that you believed that HD DVD titles that received 4.5 stars would get 5 stars if encoded using BD's higher bitrate ceiling. You've also provided zero evidence to support your position. It's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. Just like with my earlier example, you need to prove to me that flying unicorns exist.

2. No one has denied that BD has a higher bandwidth ceiling than HD DVD. What we've questioned is the assertion that the higher bandwidth automatically results in noticeably better picture quality.

3. I think that the different codecs have their strengths and weaknesses and that's why we have this competition between them. But assuming that a 4.5 Star HD-DVD release would automatically be a 5.0 Star Blu-Ray release if re-encoded is ... well ... just an assumption ... a guess ...

I mean ... sure ... it's possible ... but it's also otherwise just your opinion. *shrug*

1. You're comparing apples to oranges. You're using select cases from an older, inferior technology to attempt to prove an assertion about much more advanced technologies.Ha ha ha! HD DVD was BUILT on that INFERIOR technology.
2. Just because Sony put out releases loaded with useless extras that seriously cut into the bits used for the PQ, just to turn around and release a bare-bones version with decent PQ (comparable to normal releases from other studios) does not prove that throwing bits at the project, after a point, will show any difference.Ahh...again you admit higher bitrates meant better PQ. I think I'm getting through to you.
3. You still have not shown a shred of evidence that an HD DVD release of a title (encoded with VC-1) would look inferior to a BD version of the same title encoded (again, with VC-1) at a higher bitrate.That's not what I said. How can a 'perfect' King Kong on HD DVD look any worse than another 'perfect' King Kong on Blu-ray? They should look the same even if Blu-ray's bit rate was higher.

But for whatever reason the other films I listed were not perfect. Are you guys so unwilling to have HD DVD exposed by Blu-ray's higher bitrate that you feel so strongly that Blu-ray compressionists should just stick with HD DVD's encoder and be satisfied with that? Because Blu-ray couldn't possibly be better. Could it? "Say it ain't so..." *sobs*

Ha ha ha! HD DVD was BUILT on that INFERIOR technology.
Ahh...again you admit higher bitrates meant better PQ. I think I'm getting through to you.
That's not what I said. How can a 'perfect' King Kong on HD DVD look any worse than another 'perfect' King Kong on Blu-ray? They should look the same even if Blu-ray's bit rate was higher.

But for whatever reason the other films I listed were not perfect. Are you guys so unwilling to have HD DVD exposed by Blu-ray's higher bitrate that you feel so strongly that Blu-ray compressionists should just stick with HD DVD's encoder and be satisfied with that? Because Blu-ray couldn't possibly be better. Could it? "Say it ain't so..." *sobs*

Fine, you win ... Blu-Ray's higher bandwidth ceiling provides an obvious improvement in PQ for releases. This is clearly evidenced by the releases from Blu-Ray Exclusive Studios using codecs including MPEG2, VC1, and AVC. :rolleyes:

imo, this is why TL45 and TL51 keep raising their heads. Are they needed for Reference Quality Discs? I would guess not considering some already exist. However, it would definitely cut down on these kinda of back-and-forth speculative discussions. *shrug*

Ha ha ha! HD DVD was BUILT on that INFERIOR technology.
<sigh>
Is that really all you have left?
Ahh...again you admit higher bitrates meant better PQ. I think I'm getting through to you.
No, I admit that, up to a point, higher bitrates translate to better PQ. I also understand the concept of diminishing returns and I recognize the limitations of both formats.
That's not what I said. How can a 'perfect' King Kong on HD DVD look any worse than another 'perfect' King Kong on Blu-ray? They should look the same even if Blu-ray's bit rate was higher.
What are you talking about? You claimed that the higher bitrate would automatically make a 4.5 star title a 5 star title. You've offered no evidence to back up your positon - you're just increasing your post count.

BTW - none of the releases are "perfect," 5 star rating or not, whether it be BD or HD DVD.

But for whatever reason the other films I listed were not perfect. Are you guys so unwilling to have HD DVD exposed by Blu-ray's higher bitrate that you feel so strongly that Blu-ray compressionists should just stick with HD DVD's encoder and be satisfied with that? Because Blu-ray couldn't possibly be better. Could it? "Say it ain't so..." *sobs*
I own both formats, so maybe I just take exception to wild, unsubstantiated claims. Again, why not stop all of this mindless prattle and just provide the evidence we've been requesting for hours? Is it because you don't have any?

...why not stop all of this mindless prattle and just provide the evidence we've been requesting for hours? Is it because you don't have any? I've always loved that phrase. :)

1. Again, you've disregarded one of the most basic principals in debate - the person who puts forth the postulate has the burden of proof. In this case, you stated that you believed that HD DVD titles that received 4.5 stars would get 5 stars if encoded using BD's higher bitrate ceiling. You've also provided zero evidence to support your position. It's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. Just like with my earlier example, you need to prove to me that flying unicorns exist.

2. No one has denied that BD has a higher bandwidth ceiling than HD DVD. What we've questioned is the assertion that the higher bandwidth automatically results in noticeably better picture quality.

3.You want a signed statement saying, "I do hereby state that I, RustyC, BELIEVE BD's higher bit rate can provide better picture quality"? LOL

Wow.

You see, that's not how it works. You don't prove the negative, you prove the positive. I don't have to prove that flying unicorns don't exist, you have to prove they do exist.
Steeb, if you come to Cali I'll prove that flying unicorns exist :D

You want a signed statement saying, "I do hereby state that I, RustyC, BELIEVE BD's higher bit rate can provide better picture quality"? LOL
No, we get it - it's your belief. We were just wondering if there was scientific evidence that would lead you to believe that or if it was just your hopes and dreams. Clearly, it's the latter - nothing wrong with that.

Steeb, if you come to Cali I'll prove that flying unicorns exist :D
heh - somehow I think mushrooms (or a similar mind-altering substance) would be involved... :D

What are you talking about? You claimed that the higher bitrate would automatically make a 4.5 star title a 5 star title. You've offered no evidence to back up your positon - you're just increasing your post count.No. I said I believe it to be so. Meaning it's just my opinion. If you bothered to read the previous posts before attacking my last, I wouldn't be having the same conversations over and over again.

BTW - none of the releases are "perfect," 5 star rating or not, whether it be BD or HD DVD.I take it you haven't actually read thru any of my previous posts.
I own both formats, so maybe I just take exception to wild, unsubstantiated claims. Again, why not stop all of this mindless prattle and just provide the evidence we've been requesting for hours? Is it because you don't have any?The only claim I've made is that Blu-ray's bit rate is higher than HD DVD's. Whether or not that means Blu-ray can or would provide a better picture than HD DVD is pure speculation on my part. I stated my beliefs. But I really don't see why you guys are so in love with low bitrates.

No, we get it - it's your belief. We were just wondering if there was scientific evidence that would lead you to believe that or if it was just your hopes and dreams. Clearly, it's the latter - nothing wrong with that.You've already agreed with me that higher bit rates CAN improve picture quality.

No. I said I believe it to be so. Meaning it's just my opinion. If you bothered to read the previous posts before attacking my last, I wouldn't be having the same conversations over and over again.
You were asked if there was science behind your assertions. Instead of just saying "no - just my opinion" you tried (unsuccessfully) to prove you were right. Only now are you reverting back to the "it was only my opinion" argument. If I'm wrong, why did you bother looking up info on Superbit? It was obviously an attempt to back up your assertion with evidence.
I take it you haven't actually read thru any of my previous posts.
Nope, I've read your posts in this thread.
The only claim I've made is that Blu-ray's bit rate is higher than HD DVD's.
No, you said "Universal uses VC-1. Scorpion King, Hollywoodland, and The Mummy Returns all got 4.5 star ratings. If Universal switched to Blu-ray and bothered to re-encode those films specifically for Blu-ray's higher bandwidth I believe those films would all get 5 stars."
Whether or not that means Blu-ray can or would provide a better picture than HD DVD is pure speculation on my part. I stated my beliefs.
And when asked if there was science behind your beliefs, your answer was not "no." You tried and tried to back up your position, and when you failed, you reverted to claiming it was just your belief.

But I really don't see why you guys are so in love with low bitrates.
That makes no sense. No one has said anything of the sort.

You've already agreed with me that higher bit rates CAN improve picture quality.
In certain cases, up to a certain point. Strange that you don't seem to be able to grasp this concept.

It certainly hasn't been shown to be the case when dealing with HD DVD/BD releases so far. Will it be shown in the future? I don't know and neither do you, but I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest your beliefs are correct.

You were asked if there was science behind your assertions. Instead of just saying "no - just my opinion" you tried (unsuccessfully) to prove you were right. Only now are you reverting back to the "it was only my opinion" argument. If I'm wrong, why did you bother looking up info on Superbit? It was obviously an attempt to back up your assertion with evidence.Then why did you and others here agree with me? It is not my opinion that higher bitrates allow less compression of a digital image than lower bit rates using the same encoder. That is a fact. It's funny you mock SUPERBIT's higher bit rate yet you still agree it made for better picture quality. Is SUPERBIT make-believe? People who bought SUPERBIT discs just thought they were getting a better picture because studios said they were?
If Universal switched to Blu-ray and bothered to re-encode those films specifically for Blu-ray's higher bandwidth I believe those films would all get 5 stars."How is this untrue?

And when asked if there was science behind your beliefs, your answer was not "no." You tried and tried to back up your position, and when you failed, you reverted to claiming it was just your belief.Not tried. Succedded. I said higher bitrates can lead to better PQ. I presented SUPERBIT as an example of this. You agreed.

It certainly hasn't been shown to be the case when dealing with HD DVD/BD releases so far. Will it be shown in the future? I don't know and neither do you, but I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest your beliefs are correct.You're kidding...The Mpeg-2 BD25 discs look like crap. The Mpeg-2 BD50 discs show a marked improvement.

Then why did you and others here agree with me?
In what way did we agree with you? Reading comprehension's not a strong point of yours, is it?
It is not my opinion that higher bitrates allow less compression of a digital image than lower bit rates using the same encoder. That is a fact.
What is your opinion is that the higher bitrates will translate to noticeably better PQ. It hasn't been proven, regardless of what you say. More bits does not automatically mean better PQ.
It's funny you mock SUPERBIT's higher bit rate yet you still agree it made for better picture quality.
Again, try reading what I posted. Then try to comprehend it.
Is SUPERBIT make-believe?
No. It exists. It's also practically dead and the butt of many a joke. Most people see Superbit for what it was - a marketing gimmick and nothing more.
People who bought SUPERBIT discs just thought they were getting a better picture because studios said they were?
Part of it was placebo, part of it was Sony (intentionally?) starving their inital releases to the point that they were inferior to normal DVDs released by other studios, just to encourage double-dipping and/or the purchase of the significantly more expensive Superbit version.
How is this untrue?
Oh, so now it's not your belief, it's true? That was quick.

I didn't say it wasn't true. I said it hasn't been proven. It's your guess and nothing more. It's not based on any science (by your own admission that it's just your belief and speculation) - it's based on your hopes and beliefs.

Not tried. Succedded.
Yeah... no. Not even close.
I said higher bitrates can lead to better PQ. I presented SUPERBIT as an example of this. You agreed.
No, no, no. I did not agree - stop putting words in my mouth. Also, you're changing what you said, which is pretty pathetic considering we can easily show you what you really said. In fact, here it is again:
Universal uses VC-1. Scorpion King, Hollywoodland, and The Mummy Returns all got 4.5 star ratings. If Universal switched to Blu-ray and bothered to re-encode those films specifically for Blu-ray's higher bandwidth I believe those films would all get 5 stars.

If you had merely said "higher bitrates can lead to better PQ," no one would have said anything. This is not what you said and you know it.

I'm done. This is pointless. Believe what you want. Ignorance is bliss - at least that's what they say. I'll just go on enjoying my HD DVDs and BDs...

You're kidding...The Mpeg-2 BD25 discs look like crap.
Some of them do. Some of them look great.

I'm surprised a self-proclaimed Blu-ray fanboy would call the BD-25s that use MPEG-2 crap, especially since it's not true.

You're kidding...The Mpeg-2 BD25 discs look like crap. The Mpeg-2 BD50 discs show a marked improvement.

Mpeg2 on BD-25 and BD-50 tends to be hit or miss. Sometimes great results are delivered with Mpeg2.

MI:3 - 5/5 PQ - BD-25 Mpeg2.

Then you have the early launch titles and titles like

TN - 2/5 PQ - BD-50 Mpeg2
The Sentinel - 2.5/5 PQ - BD-50 Mpeg2

I'm very skeptical that there are advantages to Mpeg2 over Mpeg4 or VC1, but that's just me. The HD-DVD version of MI:3 also scored 5/5 for PQ and it was VC1.

Wow ... just ... Wow ...

I thought maybe there was some meat in this thread for a change since it increased by 3 pages overnight. But I was wrong. Theoretically there COULD have been something substantial though..........

I thought maybe there was some meat in this thread for a change since it increased by 3 pages overnight. But I was wrong. Theoretically there COULD have been something substantial though..........

Nope, no meat - just a pointless back and forth. Sorry about that.

Has there been any Mpeg-2 or VC-1 transfers on Blu-ray that got 5 stars? I'm not aware of any.Well for MPEG-2 there is The Covenant and MI3 which got 5 star ratings from highdefdigest and for VC-1 there is Nine Inch Nails Live. Also just my opinion but I believe that all three video codecs are capable of reference quality encodings.


Universal's VC-1 transfers are getting 4.5 stars. Therefore, there's some room for improvement.Well let me jump in here for a second and defend Universal. Just because an encoding doesn't get a 5 star rating doesn't mean that it wasn't a transparent encoding. Many a movie has gotten a below 5 star rating on highdefdigest even though the reviewer didn't see any compression artifacts. This is true for movies that have been released on both HD formats.


IMO, if VC-1 can't get 5 stars on a consistent basis with an even higher bit rate then it is not the right encoding tool for Blu-ray.If you are talking about Disney's VC-1 encodings of Flightplan and Casanova there were no compression artifacts on either encoding and yet they were still only given a 4 and 4.5 star rating. In other words they might very well have been transparent encodings.


You're kidding...The Mpeg-2 BD25 discs look like crap.That is just plain wrong. There have been a good number of BD-25 discs using MPEG-2 that have gotten 4.5 and 5 star ratings on highdefdigest such as The Covenant, MI3, Ice Age 2, The Wild, Tears of the Sun, The Transporter, The Devil Wears Prada, and Phone Booth with many more that got 4 star ratings.

Black Xbox 360 w/ HDMI, 120GB HDD @ US$479.99 Confirmed (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/39309975/m/434008993831/p/1)If true this is great news and I have been waiting a while for this to happen. In fact this fits in very nicely with what I wanted from a new version of the Xbox 360 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9868946&&#post9868946). There is also some news from Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/20/xbox-360-elite-new-black-limited-edition-xbox-with-hdmi-and-120gb-drive/) about this and supposedly it is a limited edition of the Xbox 360 called the Xbox 360 Elite. To be exact it will be a black Xbox 360 with an HDMI output, 120 GB hard drive, will be cooler running, use a standard DVD drive, and have a $480 MSRP. In terms of the format war as Grubert pointed out there was an interesting quote in the Game Informer article:

According to a source at Microsoft, high-definition movie playback is being withheld from the 360 because the "format's not proven."Of course personally speaking I think it is good news that the new version of the Xbox 360 does not include a HD DVD drive and logically speaking it makes a lot of sense as well. Also to be fair a single Microsoft employee having doubts about the HD DVD format doesn't necessarily mean anything.

I thought maybe there was some meat in this thread for a change since it increased by 3 pages overnight. But I was wrong. Theoretically there COULD have been something substantial though..........

ROFLMAO :D

For those keeping score at home.

HD-DVD - 5 titles with 5/5 PQ scores - All VC1

Blu-Ray - 5 titles with 5/5 PQ scores - 2 Mpeg2, 2 AVC, 1 VC1

For those keeping score at home.

HD-DVD - 5 titles with 5/5 PQ scores - All VC1

Blu-Ray - 5 titles with 5/5 PQ scores - 2 Mpeg2, 2 AVC, 1 VC1


Looking at this from a different perspective, titles scoring 3/5 PQ or lower

HD-DVD - 14 titles

Blu-Ray - 26 titles

Looking at this from a different perspective, titles scoring 3/5 PQ or lower

HD-DVD - 14 titles

Blu-Ray - 26 titlesJust to put that in perspective could you tell us how many titles score 3.5/5 in PQ or higher?

Wow. HD DVD supporters are still trying to stick to the old "BD PQ < HD DVD PQ" propaganda line? Yikes. Come on. Move on to something fresh already. That horse has been dead for months.

Just to put that in perspective could you tell us how many titles score 3.5/5 in PQ or higher?

HD-DVD
148 total reviews available - 14 titles = 134 titles
9.5% score 3/5 or lower

BD
183 total reviews available - 26 titles = 157 titles
14.2% score 3/5 or lower


Titles scoring 4.5/5 PQ or higher

HD-DVD - 41 out of 148 reviews = 27.7%

BD - 46 out of 183 reviews = 25.1%

Wow. HD DVD supporters are still trying to stick to the old "BD PQ < HD DVD PQ" propaganda line? Yikes. Come on. Move on to something fresh already. That horse has been dead for months.
Oops lets fix this for you..

"BD PQ" propaganda

This mess was created by a BD fan.

So MS isn't going to go out of its way to support HD-DVD in the new X360 SKU. Looks like the bigger HDD and HDMI are about pushing the XBL Video downloads. The add-on presumably won't use the HDMI port?

Oh and XBL Video downloads compete against IPTV to an extent (does it have TV downloads as well as movie downloads)? Ah to "partner" with MS...

So MS isn't going to go out of its way to support HD-DVD in the new X360 SKU. Looks like the bigger HDD and HDMI are about pushing the XBL Video downloads. The add-on presumably won't use the HDMI port?


Why on earth would you think the HDMI port wouldn't be used if you have the HD DVD add-on?

:confused:

Just received my Sound and Vision mag

On the cover? LG dual player

Inside the first page - 2 page ad for HD DVD

I also was reading a McLeans magazine and they had a 1 page HD DVD ad

Seems like the marketing is ramping up a bit

It's about time...

So MS isn't going to go out of its way to support HD-DVD in the new X360 SKU. Looks like the bigger HDD and HDMI are about pushing the XBL Video downloads. The add-on presumably won't use the HDMI port?

Oh and XBL Video downloads compete against IPTV to an extent (does it have TV downloads as well as movie downloads)? Ah to "partner" with MS...

The add-on does no rendering. That's done in the Xbox itself. Why would that rendered output not be avaialable via HDMI?

So MS isn't going to go out of its way to support HD-DVD in the new X360 SKU. Looks like the bigger HDD and HDMI are about pushing the XBL Video downloads. The add-on presumably won't use the HDMI port?
Why would you presume that? How would that possibly make sense?

You're a "glass is half empty" kinda guy, aren't you?

ROFLMAO :D

For those keeping score at home.

HD-DVD - 5 titles with 5/5 PQ scores - All VC1

Blu-Ray - 5 titles with 5/5 PQ scores - 2 Mpeg2, 2 AVC, 1 VC1
:D

That pretty well sums it up for me.

Wouldn't the HDMI port be for going from the XBox to the TV, not for going from the Add-On to the XBox?

Wouldn't the HDMI port be for going from the XBox to the TV, not for going from the Add-On to the XBox?
Yes..
And the add on is connected to the 360, So I don't see how the HD DVD wouldn't work through HDMI.

:D

That pretty well sums it up for me.

All in all, BD has gotten better and is close to HD-DVD for PQ on titles reviewed to date. On the other hand it does have disproportionately more stinkers to watch out for (the latest being Finding Neverland BD-50).

In the end, the bigger question comes down to whether you're going to buy into both formats, and if not, which has more discs you're interested in buying. You know which format was more attractive to me. ;)

In a couple of years I'll likely be interested in a universal player, but for now I'm very happy with my XA2.

For those keeping score at home.

HD-DVD - 5 titles with 5/5 PQ scores - All VC1

Blu-Ray - 5 titles with 5/5 PQ scores - 2 Mpeg2, 2 AVC, 1 VC1
I hope we can all agree that excellent quality CAN be produced with any encoder at High Definition DVD bitrates with some masters. Hopefully we can stop propagating the myth that certain encoders must be used.

Just received my Sound and Vision mag

On the cover? LG dual player

Inside the first page - 2 page ad for HD DVD

I also was reading a McLeans magazine and they had a 1 page HD DVD ad

Seems like the marketing is ramping up a bit

It's about time...

Check out the Pioneer Blu-ray player review. Very interesting.

I hope we can all agree that excellent quality CAN be produced with any encoder at High Definition DVD bitrates with some masters.And that a stinker released on one format would still be a stinker on the other format. :)

And that a stinker released on one format would still be a stinker on the other format. :) :D

I hope we can all agree that excellent quality CAN be produced with any encoder at High Definition DVD bitrates with some masters. Hopefully we can stop propagating the myth that certain encoders must be used.

Yes, great results have been achieved with all 3 encoders. On the other hand, one encoder dominates the stinker category. We all know which one that is.

Just received my Sound and Vision mag

On the cover? LG dual player

Inside the first page - 2 page ad for HD DVD

I also was reading a McLeans magazine and they had a 1 page HD DVD ad

Seems like the marketing is ramping up a bit

It's about time...

Forgot to mention this...

I heard TWO radio commercials for HD DVD within 30 minutes while getting ready for work yesterday (or the day before?).

Yes, great results have been achieved with all 3 encoders. On the other hand, one encoder dominates the stinker category. We all know which one that is.
I don't disagree. But in the future I hope we don't automatically assume the quality will be poor if our favorite encoder is not chosen.

USA Today has a full page HD DVD spread today.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=822921

2 Full pages in April's Popular Mechanics.

For those keeping score at home.

HD-DVD - 5 titles with 5/5 PQ scores - All VC1

Blu-Ray - 5 titles with 5/5 PQ scores - 2 Mpeg2, 2 AVC, 1 VC1

I am not trying to continue the codec debate, but it seems that HD-DVD needs VC1 in order to provide high PQ looking at the scores. Are there any HD-DVDs with a 3.5 - 4.5 PQ score using Mpeg2 or AVC?

I am not trying to continue the codec debate, but it seems that HD-DVD needs VC1 in order to provide high PQ looking at the scores. Are there any HD-DVDs with a 3.5 - 4.5 PQ score using Mpeg2 or AVC?
Lucky Number Slevin and Clerks II were rated 3.5 and 4 respectively. Reign of Fire on HD DVD (import) looks fantastic, but I know of no reviews since it's a Japanese release. All three were encoded with AVC.

Edit - The Matador and Pulse received 4 star PQ ratings as well.

Lucky Number Slevin and Clerks II were rated 3.5 and 4 respectively. Reign of Fire on HD DVD (import) looks fantastic, but I know of no reviews since it's a Japanese release. All three were encoded with AVC.

Edit - The Matador received a 4 star PQ rating as well.

Thanks

One more note on this topic. There are now 6 perfect 5/5 PQ discs in each format (4% of HD-DVDs and 3.3% of BDs). Happy Feet, which is an HD-DVD 30 combo disc and also available on BD-25. Both are VC1 encoded (chalk another perfect disc up to VC1).

On the other hand it's a perfect 5/5 for audio quality on HD-DVD, while scoring 4/5 for audio quality on Blu-Ray. As a consolation for the BD fans Amazon is selling the BD version for $3.96 less than the HD-DVD combo.

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/happyfeet.html
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/happyfeet.html

I would presume that if Ken Krane (sp?) is correct and the initial batch of BluRay discs used HD scans rather than 4K or 2K scans scaled before transfer to HD, thus resulting in loss of resolution - in other words carelessly done unlike HD-DVD's initial batch, we wouldn't count them in any rational codec comparison.

At this point I'm not sure it matters. They both look good. One is cheaper (for player), one has more studios, they both have a lot of exclusive movies....pick one or both.

I think in the end it will be decided on the exclusives. If one side gets enough big ones, momentum shifts. Pirates is good, but so is the Matrix trilogy - don't think either are enough to win though.

And that a stinker released on one format would still be a stinker on the other format. :)

Kieth, you are getting it wrong. High bandwidth and storage ensure that BD will have better PQ. ;)

I would presume that if Ken Krane (sp?) is correct and the initial batch of BluRay discs used HD scans rather than 4K or 2K scans scaled before transfer to HD, thus resulting in loss of resolution - in other words carelessly done unlike HD-DVD's initial batch, we wouldn't count them in any rational codec comparison.

At this point I'm not sure it matters. They both look good. One is cheaper (for player), one has more studios, they both have a lot of exclusive movies....pick one or both.

I think in the end it will be decided on the exclusives. If one side gets enough big ones, momentum shifts. Pirates is good, but so is the Matrix trilogy - don't think either are enough to win though.

I agree. BD has gotten better, so it's really become more about the content that you want. I started tracking this data because I kept hearing about how superior BD is. Despite all of the paper advantages to BD, the tangible benefits for the customer are lacking.

I think it is superior.

But it is a lot like a star athlete; it isn't enough to have the raw material, you still need to work your ass off to be good.

BD worked very hard on the technical side and has managed to produce things that we heard weren't possible not that long ago. However they fell down on implementation and because they used MPEG-2, that was blamed rather than the poor effort.

HD-DVD on the other hand knew they were going out with a technical disadvantage, so they needed to do perfect on impementation, otherwise everyone would point at the size as an issue.


Now that BD has stepped up and shown that yes, they can put out decent product, I don't understand why people pound on them so much. BD50 is here, AVC and VC-1 are being used, and even MPEG titles on BD25 have been shown to shine. It seems like a lot of the complaining if because they aren't giving the players away at Toshiba's prices, or it has just become habitual.

That and a bit of factionalism/tribalism.

Well for MPEG-2 there is The Covenant and MI3 which got 5 star ratings from highdefdigest and for VC-1 there is Nine Inch Nails Live. Also just my opinion but I believe that all three video codecs are capable of reference quality encodings.Thanks for the list. I don’t own any of these. I’ll see if I can rent The Covenant and MI3 from Netflix.

Well let me jump in here for a second and defend Universal. Just because an encoding doesn't get a 5 star rating doesn't mean that it wasn't a transparent encoding. Many a movie has gotten a below 5 star rating on highdefdigest even though the reviewer didn't see any compression artifacts. This is true for movies that have been released on both HD formats.

If you are talking about Disney's VC-1 encodings of Flightplan and Casanova there were no compression artifacts on either encoding and yet they were still only given a 4 and 4.5 star rating. In other words they might very well have been transparent encodings.
When reviewers score HD DVD or Blu-ray encodings they really don’t have a good frame of reference for comparison. What I mean is they can’t compare what they’re seeing to the cellulose or scanned master. They’re comparing these transfers to what they remember seeing in the theatre and to other discs they’ve already reviewed as well as looking for any discernible compression artifacts.

Should studios choose to encode the formats separately, then there would be an actual frame of reference for the reviewers. They could switch the signals back and forth between the formats and pick out any differences if there are any, a la A View from Space.

But there’s more to compression then just eliminating visible artifacts. How about matching the colors and contrast of the original cellulose?

The most popular Blu-ray player, Sony’s PS3, supports HDMI 1.3. So does the Toshiba HD-XA2. Are current releases taking advantage of HDMI 1.3’s greater color depth or are they being limited to the YCbCr color space? The xvYCC color range goes beyond ‘Deep Color’ even exceeding what human eyes can see. Its use can eliminate on-screen color banding and display colors true to the source. If studios are indeed using the xvYCC color space, are reviewers looking at the full color range? Getting rid of compression artifacts isn't the only thing that can benefit from extra bandwidth and storage space.

Granted, the process will be limited by the digital scan of the original film as well as the condition of the film itself and the reviewer’s equipment. But the transfer, and whatever codec is used, should provide transparency to the digital scan. If the upcompressed digital scan could only muster 3.0 stars then the transfer should also get 3.0 stars. I know it’s not what I said but it’s what I meant when I said a codec should be able to get perfect reviews.

Universal has shown they are very capable of putting out excellent transfers. I thought those Universal films I mentioned were done fairly recently and shot well enough to get 5 stars. Or should we only expect 5 star ratings from CGI or films shot within in the last year?

You're kidding...The Mpeg-2 BD25 discs look like crap.That is just plain wrong. There have been a good number of BD-25 discs using MPEG-2 that have gotten 4.5 and 5 star ratings on highdefdigest such as The Covenant, MI3, Ice Age 2, The Wild, Tears of the Sun, The Transporter, The Devil Wears Prada, and Phone Booth with many more that got 4 star ratings.
Whoa, you mean I’ve been mislead by the HD DVD camp’s insistence that all the early Sony releases are as bad as TFE, xXx, and Talladega Nights? I have those titles and while I think they’re way better than anything on broadcast or cable HD (and for the HD DVD fanboys - upscaled DVD), they sure paled in comparision to Ice Age and Stranger Than Fiction. And compared to Open Season, I’d have to agree with the HD DVD camp, they’re crappy transfers. I also have 50 First Dates which IMO is very decent.


Wow. HD DVD supporters are still trying to stick to the old "BD PQ < HD DVD PQ" propaganda line? Yikes. Come on. Move on to something fresh already. That horse has been dead for months.Oops lets fix this for you..

"BD PQ" propaganda

This mess was created by a BD fan.

Actually this is what you said in post #157 (which is what I responded to),

“I find it very amusing that BD supporters constantly brag about how the Blu-Ray is much more advanced in PQ than HD DVD…you would think that all these studios would make sure all their releases were or are treated with high quality results, so they can show off how BD can preform better than HD DVD. They can't!!”

And then you said,

“…I spend $20 or more on a disc, and I view them and say hmmmm I notice a slight difference in PQ compared to my $5 SD DVD version…”

So, what you claimed is that Blu-ray’s PQ could NEVER surpass HD DVD’s PQ. And you equate Blu-ray releases as only being slightly different from a cheap DVD version.

Not cool.

I think it is superior.

But it is a lot like a star athlete; it isn't enough to have the raw material, you still need to work your ass off to be good.

BD worked very hard on the technical side and has managed to produce things that we heard weren't possible not that long ago. However they fell down on implementation and because they used MPEG-2, that was blamed rather than the poor effort.

HD-DVD on the other hand knew they were going out with a technical disadvantage, so they needed to do perfect on impementation, otherwise everyone would point at the size as an issue.


Now that BD has stepped up and shown that yes, they can put out decent product, I don't understand why people pound on them so much. BD50 is here, AVC and VC-1 are being used, and even MPEG titles on BD25 have been shown to shine. It seems like a lot of the complaining if because they aren't giving the players away at Toshiba's prices, or it has just become habitual.

Not a bad analogy, it is like Justin Gatlin vs Asafa Powell, Gatlin knows he is not as fast, but he worked harder to win, but now that Powell is working just as hard, he wins all the races (that and Gatlin may have taken drugs). The analogy stands though.

Whoa, you mean I’ve been mislead by the HD DVD camp’s insistence that all the early Sony releases are as bad as TFE, xXx, and Talladega Nights? I have those titles and while I think they’re way better than anything on broadcast or cable HD (and for the HD DVD fanboys - upscaled DVD), they sure paled in comparision to Ice Age and Stranger Than Fiction. And compared to Open Season, I’d have to agree with the HD DVD camp, they’re crappy transfers. I also have 50 First Dates which IMO is very decent.

There's a big difference between saying BD-25s using MPEG-2 look like crap and saying that some of the earlier releases (that used BD-25and MPEG-2) were made from poor masters and resulted in less than stellar PQ (especially when compared to the competition.)

Don't forget, you said this:
You're kidding...The Mpeg-2 BD25 discs look like crap. The Mpeg-2 BD50 discs show a marked improvement.

You should really just quit while you're behind, but somehow I don't think you'll be that reasonable.

Let's also not forget that you jump-started a whole discussion in this thread with your claim:
Universal uses VC-1. Scorpion King, Hollywoodland, and The Mummy Returns all got 4.5 star ratings. If Universal switched to Blu-ray and bothered to re-encode those films specifically for Blu-ray's higher bandwidth I believe those films would all get 5 stars.
When asked if you had science to back this up, you attempted to back up your dubious claim by citing Superbit as evidence. After that, you gave up and just said it was your opinion. Remember?

^^^I have my own little fan. How touching....

There's a big difference between saying BD-25s using MPEG-2 look like crap and saying that some of the earlier releases (that used BD-25and MPEG-2) were made from poor masters and resulted in less than stellar PQ (especially when compared to the competition.)

Don't forget, you said this:


You should really just quit while you're behind, but somehow I don't think you'll be that reasonable.

Let's also not forget that you jump-started a whole discussion in this thread with your claim:

When asked if you had science to back this up, you attempted to back up your dubious claim by citing Superbit as evidence. After that, you gave up and just said it was your opinion. Remember?

Steeb, are we back here again ? :D Sure you don't wanna take me up on that flying unicorn offer? :D

Steeb, are we back here again ? :D Sure you don't wanna take me up on that flying unicorn offer? :D
I'm so there, dude. :D

I'm so there, dude. :D
Actually, I was busy watching a dead horse being beaten in a couple of other threads. I didn't know this fun was still going on. Have a good one ! I'm outta here for the day :p

I think it is superior.

But it is a lot like a star athlete; it isn't enough to have the raw material, you still need to work your ass off to be good.

BD worked very hard on the technical side and has managed to produce things that we heard weren't possible not that long ago. However they fell down on implementation and because they used MPEG-2, that was blamed rather than the poor effort.

HD-DVD on the other hand knew they were going out with a technical disadvantage, so they needed to do perfect on impementation, otherwise everyone would point at the size as an issue.


Now that BD has stepped up and shown that yes, they can put out decent product, I don't understand why people pound on them so much. BD50 is here, AVC and VC-1 are being used, and even MPEG titles on BD25 have been shown to shine. It seems like a lot of the complaining if because they aren't giving the players away at Toshiba's prices, or it has just become habitual.

To use your analogy, think of BD as the gifted athlete that has learned that another athlete has been working harder and may get the starting position on the team. BD is doing better, but it is still not living up to it's own high self image.

I'd like to see BD take the competition seriously. I'd like to see BD deliver higher percentages of outstanding looking titles. Being superior on paper is not enough to actually be superior.

As an HD-DVD supporter, why should I care? First, because I support the format that I see working it's ass off to be better than the competition. Second, because I've said for some time that I expect this market to go to universal players. When I buy a universal player I'd like to see BD delivering on its promises. Is almost as good, good enough? Maybe I should simply lower my expectations.

Based on the history of DVD transfers, I think you need to lower your expectations.


As far as universal players, according to the expansive polling I've done among drive designers (one guy I used to carpool with who went to all the BD and DVD/HD-DVD tech meetings when his kids didn't have a school thing going on) they/(he) didn't think universal players would ever be a realistic product option.

Between the extra hardware and complexity required, along with the few added fees that the two sides don't share, the one so-so universal would always cost more than the two separate players of each format. I don't know how much LG's is going for right now, but I'm betting he's still right.

Sometimes we just don't know the full story behind the politics. I'm saying this because people say certain things in posts that we really don't know the full story about. For instance, HD DVD might be leading right now in software sales if they released the already done Harry Potter Goblet of Fire. It's crappy to see other countries get titles like this and Matrix, Rocky, XXX, on HD DVD, but we don't get it here. I've bought some of these and Harry Potter I gotta say looks amazing. One of the best transfers I've seen.

I had heard they could be holding it back because of them waiting for BD-J to be done and having some agreement that the film would be released in both formats at the same time.

Anyways, I'm not a fan boy of either really. I do have HD DVD, but also want Blu Ray because there are a lot of titles on it that I would love to have. I will say this in HD DVD's side, for only having 30gigs they can sure pack a ton of interactives on a disk (Harry Potter's special features are even in HD). And the picture doesn't look like it's lacking in quality at all (and I'm very picky) And most now including TrueHD... what gives that makes 50 gigs the magic number? 30 gigs seems to be fine for HD DVD, so why this BD obsession that it must be 50 gigs? Now in Blu Ray's side... I gotta give it props for having such support. It does make me want to go out and get one with one of my next paychecks because I'm missing some of my favorite movies.

Pros and cons to each, this is an interesting battle.

One last thing... does any one know why did Happy Feet get better audio on HD DVD then Blu Ray (space shouldn't be a factor since HD DVD is the smaller format and got an HD track)? Why didn't they include a HD audio track on BD? Politics maybe?

I will say this in HD DVD's side, for only having 30gigs they can sure pack a ton of interactives on a disk (Harry Potter's special features are even in HD). And the picture doesn't look like it's lacking in quality at all (and I'm very picky)...I don't understand why so many people make this same logically flawed argument over and over. Just because one movie is OK on 30 GB doesn't mean they all are. Can you put Lawrence of Arabia on there? The longer King Kong had to drop lossless audio because there wasn't enough room.

Blu-Ray is available today. With more space. More bandwidth. More studio support. More CE support. There's no need for HD DVD any more. Let it die.

I don't understand why so many people make this same logically flawed argument over and over. Just because one movie is OK on 30 GB doesn't mean they all are. Can you put Lawrence of Arabia on there? The longer King Kong had to drop lossless audio because there wasn't enough room.

Blu-Ray is available today. With more space. More bandwidth. More studio support. More CE support. There's no need for HD DVD any more. Let it die.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound in post after post? I'm sure Sony is very proud however.

I don't understand why so many people make this same logically flawed argument over and over. Just because one movie is OK on 30 GB doesn't mean they all are. Can you put Lawrence of Arabia on there? The longer King Kong had to drop lossless audio because there wasn't enough room.

Blu-Ray is available today. With more space. More bandwidth. More studio support. More CE support. There's no need for HD DVD any more. Let it die.
Rob,this is the same thing you keep posting over and over again. There is a huge gap between one HD-DVD and all, so could you post how many titles currently available to HD-DVD won't fit on 30 GB? Please don't answer with: ' thats nonsense just buy Blu-Ray' or 'it's too early to tell'. As an additonal drill why don't you ask the MSFT insiders about LoA ? Thanks in advance.

It would be better for consumers to have one format.

There are a lot of people waiting to see which one wins out.

Studios probably aren't going full-force on releasing titles either.

One format needs to pull ahead decisively. I've said I could live with it if HD-DVD won. But just do it quickly, we can't have years of this.

I'd be fine with both formats surviving. I'm enjoying the stellar PQ and AQ that has resulted from the competition.

The people calling desperately for one format to die give me a chuckle...

It would be better for consumers to have one format.

There are a lot of people waiting to see which one wins out.


It would be better for retailers and the studios. It seems clear if it would NOT have been (past tense) better for consumers. Either format would have been much, much less (and more expensive) without the battle. Or, we'd still be waiting for a merged entity.

When MMCD and SD became DVD, it delayed introduction of a new format by at least a year. And that would have undoubtedly happened with a BD/HD DVD merge. And since there is still no final AACS, undoubtedly nothing would have launched without that.

So, having content now (and a battle) versus waiting for a release of a merged entity. Which is better for the consumer?

The argument would be when, if ever, does a continuing battle transition to being bad for the consumer?


Studios probably aren't going full-force on releasing titles either.


I don't think that is right. Both Sony and Universal are releasing quantities WAY beyond previous format launches. Each format has over 200 titles in less than a year. And overall there are perhaps 300+ unique titles out there.

And all studios are launching key titles, and have gone day and date VERY early.


One format needs to pull ahead decisively. I've said I could live with it if HD-DVD won. But just do it quickly, we can't have years of this.

It could be argued that either format is now of high enough calibre, because of the battle, to be acceptable. Certainly that would be the case if TL51 arrives with a bandwidth boost.

I do believe the format war has been helpful for us consumers. That said, I am hoping it's over before 2007. BD has been pulling away for Febuary and March. If they knock out April, too, Matrix might not be enough to save HDDVD (as it is, I'm expecting the large slate of releases in May to fairly easily counter). Especially if BD/THD Matrix is out before August, for example, much less July or August.

Until then, though I'll happily cherry pick from both. I am definitely thinking I need a better HDDVD player than my 360 add-on, though, which is just not up to snuff on the audio side, even if/when the gimped audio problem is fixed...

I do believe the format war has been helpful for us consumers. That said, I am hoping it's over before 2007. BD has been pulling away for Febuary and March. If they knock out April, too, Matrix might not be enough to save HDDVD (as it is, I'm expecting the large slate of releases in May to fairly easily counter). Especially if BD/THD Matrix is out before August, for example, much less July or August.

Has there been anything written/said that would lead you to believe that the BD version of the Matrix will be released this summer? All I've heard is "by the end of the year" so far.

Has there been anything written/said that would lead you to believe that the BD version of the Matrix will be released this summer? All I've heard is "by the end of the year" so far.I read somewhere it could even be delayed until 2008. :eek:

From the battle thread: (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10107287&&#post10107287)

Utto. Seems like what I asked about a few months back has taken place?

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6427147.html

Blu-ray Disc players released after Oct. 31 will feature markedly improved functionality over models currently available for sale.

The Blu-ray Disc Assn. has mandated that all hardware streeting after that date must be able to play back picture-in-picture video, as driven by BD Java interactive technology. Many players on shelves now can handle BD Java, but to varying degrees. Few Blu-ray players include picture-in-picture capability, for instance.




Quote:
Yet Parsons doubts that firmware alone would facilitate picture-in-picture, a relatively complicated part of the BD Java specification.

“There was a grace period between the launch of the first generation Blu-ray launch and October,” said Parsons. “After October, [manufacturers] must conform to the full range of specifications.”



What happend to June?


Quote:
Additionally, after Oct. 31, all Blu-ray players must hold a minimum 256MB of persistent memory storage, which will help power the picture-in-picture feature. Also, any Blu-ray player that features an Internet connection is required to have 1GB of such memory, in order to hold whatever content users decide to download from the Web.

An Internet connection? What about currentl players that have an ethernet connection, but won't do BD-Live over the internet? What is that?


Hey Talk.... you around?

Based on the history of DVD transfers, I think you need to lower your expectations.


As far as universal players, according to the expansive polling I've done among drive designers (one guy I used to carpool with who went to all the BD and DVD/HD-DVD tech meetings when his kids didn't have a school thing going on) they/(he) didn't think universal players would ever be a realistic product option.

Between the extra hardware and complexity required, along with the few added fees that the two sides don't share, the one so-so universal would always cost more than the two separate players of each format. I don't know how much LG's is going for right now, but I'm betting he's still right.That may have been true fairly early on, but a number of companies have come out with combo read head units now. You have to realize that both BD and HD DVD can run on the same hardware, decoding chips, etc. The only extras you have to provide is a more expensive combo drive, extra licensing fees (significant in a $40 player, not so much in a >$399 player), and the development and maintenance costs for two formats, which would be cheaper in a combo device than doing it for two complete products.

Are you really trying to suggest the combo drive is so expensive that it costs more than 1 non-combo drive + a whole new player?

I don't understand why so many people make this same logically flawed argument over and over. Just because one movie is OK on 30 GB doesn't mean they all are. Can you put Lawrence of Arabia on there? The longer King Kong had to drop lossless audio because there wasn't enough room.

Blu-Ray is available today. With more space. More bandwidth. More studio support. More CE support. There's no need for HD DVD any more. Let it die.There you go with the specious King Kong argument again. King Kong never had Lossless Audio planned, so it never had to be dropped. The fact that King Kong has exactly the same audio features as practically every other Universal title AND includes Picture in Picture commentary pretty much tells me that they couldn't have been hurting all that much if they were willing to include a whole extra video stream. If the stream was VC-1, it's average bitrate would be about 2Mb, ample enough, if added onto the 1.5Mb of the DD+ track to provide a very comfortable 3->3.5Mb TrueHD track (6 channels at 16/48 only come to 4.6Mb uncompressed, 3->3.5 compressed is certainly doable)

As for available today, sure, for low enough values of "available". Where's BD-Live, where's BD-PiP? Where are these much vaunted superior titles in quality and features? Apparently not "available today" that's for sure.

So please, Rob, we know you like BD and think that HD DVD isn't going to survive, but no matter how often you repeat something, it doesn't magically make it true.

That may have been true fairly early on, but a number of companies have come out with combo read head units now. You have to realize that both BD and HD DVD can run on the same hardware, decoding chips, etc. The only extras you have to provide is a more expensive combo drive, extra licensing fees (significant in a $40 player, not so much in a >$399 player), and the development and maintenance costs for two formats, which would be cheaper in a combo device than doing it for two complete products.

Are you really trying to suggest the combo drive is so expensive that it costs more than 1 non-combo drive + a whole new player?

There you go with the specious King Kong argument again. King Kong never had Lossless Audio planned, so it never had to be dropped. The fact that King Kong has exactly the same audio features as practically every other Universal title AND includes Picture in Picture commentary pretty much tells me that they couldn't have been hurting all that much if they were willing to include a whole extra video stream. If the stream was VC-1, it's average bitrate would be about 2Mb, ample enough, if added onto the 1.5Mb of the DD+ track to provide a very comfortable 3->3.5Mb TrueHD track (6 channels at 16/48 only come to 4.6Mb uncompressed, 3->3.5 compressed is certainly doable)

As for available today, sure, for low enough values of "available". Where's BD-Live, where's BD-PiP? Where are these much vaunted superior titles in quality and features? Apparently not "available today" that's for sure.

So please, Rob, we know you like BD and think that HD DVD isn't going to survive, but no matter how often you repeat something, it doesn't magically make it true.

Rob has beaten that dead horse so often PETA is getting involved. :D

I don't understand why so many people make this same logically flawed argument over and over. Just because one movie is OK on 30 GB doesn't mean they all are. Can you put Lawrence of Arabia on there? The longer King Kong had to drop lossless audio because there wasn't enough room.

Blu-Ray is available today. With more space. More bandwidth. More studio support. More CE support. There's no need for HD DVD any more. Let it die.

Your forgot to mention the broken/unworkable BD-Java :D

As someone whom I knew once said, BD-Java does the same thing iHD does only it is 100 times harder to understand/implement ;)

Your forgot to mention the broken/unworkable BD-Java :D

As someone whom I knew once said, BD-Java does the same thing iHD does only it is 100 times harder to understand/implement ;)

Coming this summ.......err, fall! It's potentially awesome! Just wait!.........and wait.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1080please
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Zuber
Wow. HD DVD supporters are still trying to stick to the old "BD PQ < HD DVD PQ" propaganda line? Yikes. Come on. Move on to something fresh already. That horse has been dead for months.

Oops lets fix this for you..

"BD PQ" propaganda

This mess was created by a BD fan.



Actually this is what you said in post #157 (which is what I responded to),

“I find it very amusing that BD supporters constantly brag about how the Blu-Ray is much more advanced in PQ than HD DVD…you would think that all these studios would make sure all their releases were or are treated with high quality results, so they can show off how BD can preform better than HD DVD. They can't!!”

And then you said,

“…I spend $20 or more on a disc, and I view them and say hmmmm I notice a slight difference in PQ compared to my $5 SD DVD version…”

So, what you claimed is that Blu-ray’s PQ could NEVER surpass HD DVD’s PQ. And you equate Blu-ray releases as only being slightly different from a cheap DVD version.

Not cool.

Yeah and??
BD PROPAGANDA!! hello

Don't spin crap and try and twist my words.(Nice try but.. ha)

When I say BD propaganda I mean that as I said from the beginning.
You came out and started this BS about bandwidth and how BD can produce a better picture, well It seems I am not the only one waiting for this evidence.
Wait you can't give any so you must be full of it.
I said HD DVD and BD can have the same great PQ!, But you said NO BD can have better :rolleyes:

When I was talking about "“…I spend $20 or more on a disc, and I view them and say hmmmm I notice a slight difference in PQ compared to my $5 SD DVD version…”
I was referring to the BD release of "Hoosiers" which looks like to me, a movie that costs $39.00 with no extras on BD and a PQ with a ratting of 3.0, then in deed you would be most likely better off with a $5.00 version upconverted.

You called me a troll on here, yet you show the true meaning.

Shhhhhhh one more time :rolleyes:
"Hoosiers" Street Date: March 13, 2007 We should expect a 21 year old very low-budget movie to have flawless source material or warrant remastering?

We should expect a 21 year old very low-budget movie to have flawless source material or warrant remastering?

Gee I would think so, at least a try, aren't thay trying to sell PQ?
If they didn't have good source material then maybe they should have held off on this release for a while.
They should only be showing the better that this format can do, especially in such an early Infancy.

Look at some real old titles that have been release onto HD DVD ...
Like "Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) PQ ratting 4.5
Like "Casablanca" (1942) PQ rating 5.0
and like "Grand Prix" (1966) PQ ratting 4.5

I'm wondering aloud as to whether or not Fox was pressured or just flat out asked to move up their dates for the CES announcements by one of their high-profile partners.Absurd. When these announcements were made no one had reason to credibly believe that AACS had been exploited. There is ample evidence to suggest that title rescheduling is related to this exploit (i.e. to allow for revocation of compromised players and/or implementation of BD+ countermeasures).

There is no follow-on (royalty) revenue or profit for those that buy the PS3 as a BD Player. How do they make their money back for those that buy it purely as a BD player?Sony makes plenty of revenue from those who buy the PS3 as a BD player. They sell remote controls and other PS3 accessories. They get patent royalties on players and discs. They have movie studios who sell more movies. They sell more HDTV's for people to attach to the PS3. They do more replication business. They lower costs due to higher economies of scale. And many, many other benefits.

Just because HD DVD can handle some movies, doesn't mean it can handle all of them. King Kong showed they had to drop lossless audio.Actually, the concept "had to" is only your opinion. They had plenty of titles that had plenty of space and could have benefitted from TrueHD and none of them had it.Yet King Kong didn't have the space. Where would you have put the track? And that ignores the question of what bandwidth limits the compressionists would have run up against...

Anyone get the sense that Blu-Ray is spending a lot more in advertising? I see way more, "Available in DVD and Blu-Ray" and don't really recall, "Available in DVD and HD-DVD."That's what happens when you have an overwhelming advantage in studio and title support. Did you notice that Warner's ads for "Departed" advertised "available on DVD and high definition"? No added brand value there.

Here's my personal speculation: Amir and Microsoft see the writing on the wall and now know that HD DVD is going to fail. So they've regrouped and are going to focus on the "Codec Wars", in an attempt to at least win that.

So Amir retreats to the insider thread and focuses enormous time and energy into pushing VC-1.That's my read as well.I'm told a recent Microsoft org chart shows that Amir Majidimehr, Corporate VP Media Technology now reports into Pieter Knook, Senior VP, Mobile Communications Business. That might also suggest his responsibilities have shifted.

I'm told a recent Microsoft org chart shows that Amir Majidimehr, Corporate VP Media Technology now reports into Pieter Knook, Senior VP, Mobile Communications Business. That might also suggest his responsibilities have shifted.
Or maybe now that he's reporting up through the "mobile communications business", it means he's taking over the HD DVD 18 Wheeler Road Show!!! :D :D ;)

To many people you reach a point that an encoding gains little with more bits. Each codec reaches that point at different points. Once you are effectively transparent to the master then adding bits may not gain that much marginal gain. It may look better with more bits, but those bit may be better used for something else.Yet the total bandwidth available has a major impact on the ability to include multiple language tracks, interactivity, etc. Even if we all agreed that HD DVD's bandwidth is sufficient to provide equal PQ to Blu-ray, you can't credibly argue that extra bandwidth above and beyond that required for PQ isn't required for other purposes. This could also easily explain why some European releases lack advanced interactivity where the North American release didn't - the extra language audio tracks may not have left enough bandwidth for IME/U-Control.

Anyone care to comment on Gruberts posts a few pages back? Where a U-control feature is dropped on the Euro release of a HD DVD? (They even demo'ed the US version of the disc WITH the feature, essentially lying to the poor euro consumers.)Yikes. Where's the outrage from those who complained about a Blu-ray demo disc showing network features not yet available?

So you can talk untill your are blu-in the face (he he) but,
The Bandwidth/Disc size issue is not an issue at all, cause we can't prove it, since we can't see it.Talk to a compressionist. Find out what they had to leave out (like U-Control) because there wasn't enough bandwidth to support it.

No, it was presented as a solution to implement the interactivity, and a vote was taken. Other solutions were looked before HDi came along, and were rejected for either technical or licensing reasons.There was a heavy, heavy dose of politics involved as well, however. I can assure there were votes cast which didn't reflect the actual preference of the voter.

It's wonderful that BD supports the same 3 codecs. It's a shame that they cling to mpeg2.Why does it matter what codec a given title uses if the results are good? Why is it a shame when a given title uses MPEG2 yet still receives a 5 for PQ? MPEG2 is just one more option which Blu-ray studios can make use of where it makes sense. By and large HD DVD studios don't have this option due to lower capacity and bandwidth limits.

What happend to June?The deadline was pushed back to October 31st in order to provide hardware manufacturers more time. Note that BD-Video 1.1 secondary video requirements are substantially higher than those of HD DVD, so first generation SoC's aren't sufficient to meet the spec. Lots of unforeseen developmental delays can happen with new silicon, firmware, etc.

I'd have said something sooner, but couldn't until it was otherwise announced.

- Talk

You have to realize that both BD and HD DVD can run on the same hardware, decoding chips, etc.If it's sufficiently powerful. But Blu-ray requires more decoding power (to support higher bitrates and more flexible secondary video) while HD DVD requires more CPU (to support HDi). Yes, throw enough hardware at it and you can support both, but few of the existing designs can support both specs.
The only extras you have to provide is a more expensive combo drive, extra licensing fees (significant in a $40 player, not so much in a >$399 player), and the development and maintenance costs for two formats, which would be cheaper in a combo device than doing it for two complete products.Yet still very substantial; building a player for either format is non-trivial. Building a player that supports both is almost absurdly complex.

Your forgot to mention the broken/unworkable BD-JavaLots of BD-J titles out now or coming imminently. Big Fish uses it for interesting menu effects. Seen the Space Invaders game on Chicken Little? You'd be hard-pressed to implement that with HDi. No, it's not going to excite the average videophile, but your kids who will watch Chicken Little dozens of times are going to love it.

Talkstr8t: There has been some non-expert discussion about the relative costs of real manufacturing of a stand-alone HD DVD player vs. Blu-ray, within the current context of how HD DVD is achieving a substantial lower MSRP (at least in NA).

Can you comment on the relative cost/manufacturing complexity of a HD DVD player vs. Blu-ray?

Microsoft Second-Guessing HD-DVD? (http://www.dailygame.net/news/archives/006277.php)

Not sure why you are posting something that was posted as a new topic - discussed, debunked and locked.

There has been some non-expert discussion about the relative costs of real manufacturing of a stand-alone HD DVD player vs. Blu-ray, within the current context of how HD DVD is achieving a substantial lower MSRP (at least in NA).It's my belief that the current difference in MSRP is purely based on pricing strategy and has no bearing on underlying build cost, as has been validated by iSuppli's teardown.
Can you comment on the relative cost/manufacturing complexity of a HD DVD player vs. Blu-ray?Comparison of 2G players suggests similar costs; Blu-ray players have a slightly more expensive optical unit, while HD DVD players require more CPU to adequately support HDi.

Not sure why you are posting something that was posted as a new topic - discussed, debunked and locked.Sorry, way behind on AVS, haven't looked at new topics yet. I'll delete if the mods don't beat me to it.

It's my belief that the current difference in MSRP is purely based on pricing strategy and has no bearing on underlying build cost, as has been validated by iSuppli's teardown.
Comparison of 2G players suggests similar costs; Blu-ray players have a slightly more expensive optical unit, while HD DVD players require more CPU to adequately support HDi.

Thanks!

I think we can all read between the lines ... Icemage is vindicated (once again!)

If it's sufficiently powerful. But Blu-ray requires more decoding power (to support higher bitrates and more flexible secondary video) while HD DVD requires more CPU (to support HDi). Yes, throw enough hardware at it and you can support both, but few of the existing designs can support both specs.
Yet still very substantial; building a player for either format is non-trivial. Building a player that supports both is almost absurdly complex.Damn... you got BUSY! :) An impressive post splurge there.

Anyway, yes, you might need different designs from ones currently out there, although I have a SOC design on my desk at the moment that happily handles both, and will be in multiple players by the end of the year, if all goes well. We're also helping reduce player development costs significantly for the HD DVD side, so it won't be as "absurdly complex" as you seem to think (Especially if the company already has a BD stack to work with ;) ). We'll just have to watch and see what the year brings.

Absurd. When these announcements were made no one had reason to credibly believe that AACS had been exploited. There is ample evidence to suggest that title rescheduling is related to this exploit (i.e. to allow for revocation of compromised players and/or implementation of BD+ countermeasures).

Oh ... So Fox is using BD+? I didn't think anyone was using it yet?

It doesn't make sense that everytime there is an exploit an entire release schedule shifts. Is that the way it's going to be every time AACS is compromised? Seems silly to me.

Besides, if it's up to AACS to revoke those player keys, why delay the discs? Does their content need updating based on the key revocation? How long does that all take?

Quote:
Yet Parsons doubts that firmware alone would facilitate picture-in-picture, a relatively complicated part of the BD Java specification.

“There was a grace period between the launch of the first generation Blu-ray launch and October,” said Parsons. “After October, [manufacturers] must conform to the full range of specifications.”

I'm just back from a weeks vacation in the beauteous city of San Francisco, and I see everyone is still arguing PQ "potential"

At some potential must be demonstrated or it has no meaning. Far too many HD DVD supporters back down from some of the absurd elliptical arguments which support, not the features and quality the BDA actually deliver, but the ones they might. Particularly when a healthy dose of skepticism might cause one to question what lurks behind Delays, and weather or not they are intentional.

I suspect improvements that will be incompatible with current players, or the PS3 would be a nightmare of bad PR, and the BDA would much rather "win" before the are forced to put-up or shut-up. The best way to do that is stall-off features you may never need to deliver on if your competition isn't there showing you up.

Memories here must be short indeed if people don't remember the bevy of extra goodies promised for DVD that never came to be. Nobody missed them, with the exception of the handful of people in forums like this.

The most popular Blu-ray player, Sony’s PS3, supports HDMI 1.3. So does the Toshiba HD-XA2. Are current releases taking advantage of HDMI 1.3’s greater color depth or are they being limited to the YCbCr color space? The xvYCC color range goes beyond ‘Deep Color’ even exceeding what human eyes can see.We will never see any movies from either HD format use Deep Color or xvYCC since the video codecs used are limited to 8-bit 4:2:0 YCbCr (12-bits per pixel). Technically there are certain profiles of MPEG-4 AVC (http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/meetings/redmond04/redmond_pr.htm) that could have been used to support Deep Color but for cost reasons they were never implemented in either HD format. Also a good concise explanation of the difference between Deep Color and xvYCC can be seen here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9951019&&#post9951019).

Look at some real old titles that have been release onto HD DVD ...You forgot about Excalibur (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/excalibur.html), National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/christmasvacation.html), and Army of Darkness (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/armyofdarkness.html). Just pointing out that there are poor quality encodings for older movies on both HD formats.


There is ample evidence to suggest that title rescheduling is related to this exploit (i.e. to allow for revocation of compromised players and/or implementation of BD+ countermeasures).Just to add to this but from what I have heard Studio Canal delayed their second wave of HD DVD titles until May to wait for AACS key renewal, and exploit fixes, on software HD DVD players.


The deadline was pushed back to October 31st in order to provide hardware manufacturers more time. Note that BD-Video 1.1 secondary video requirements are substantially higher than those of HD DVD, so first generation SoC's aren't sufficient to meet the spec.Personally I think that Blu-ray has a better long term plan when it comes to PiP decoding, but I get the sense that this delay will only encourage Warner to procrastinate when it comes to releasing certain titles with PiP on Blu-ray. For someone who wants this format war to be over sooner rather than later I wouldn't consider this to be good news.

Just to add to this but from what I have heard Studio Canal delayed their second wave of HD DVD titles until May to wait for AACS key renewal, and exploit fixes, on software HD DVD players.


How does this AACS key renewal work exactly? If the only affected players are software based, and AACS revokes (or has revoked) the keys for those players -- what is the next step? I guess some data file on the disc itself needs to change that shows the old key as bad? or doesn't show it at all?

If that's how it works, does that mean if a disc has already been mastered, it would need to be remastered? And any replicated copies disposed of? iow: how much would they be willing to scrap if an exploit was detected before release?

Just seems silly to delay all of these releases because of an exploit ... it'll likely be re-exploited ... *shrug*

You forgot about Excalibur (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/excalibur.html), National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/christmasvacation.html), and Army of Darkness (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/armyofdarkness.html). Just pointing out that there are poor quality encodings for older movies on both HD formats.
.
It is just hysterical how these 3 titles are always brought to attention meanwhile we can pull up a lot more on BD, can't we!
:D


P.S.
Shhhh, but this still doesn't prove BD is better :D

It is just hysterical how these 3 titles are always brought to attention meanwhile we can pull up a lot more on BD, can't we!



P.S.
Shhhh, but this still doesn't prove BD is better


If you were reading, you'd have seen that he wasn't trying to prove one was better, he was pointing out that crummy encodes are present, regardless of format or video codec (or one might mention Full Metal Jacket, The Breakup, and other titles on HDDVD)... just like it doesn't matter for GOOD titles like MI:3, Corpse Bride, and Aeon Flux...

How does this AACS key renewal work exactly?I don't know exactly, but from what I have heard it has something to do with the fact that AACS keys used on software players are only good for a certain length of time. After that point in time newer titles won't work with that software player unless you update it.


If the only affected players are software based, and AACS revokes (or has revoked) the keys for those players -- what is the next step?I don't know if AACS key renewal works with software players by revoking AACS keys or by some other method but regardless the only way you can get new AACS keys is by updating the software player.


Just seems silly to delay all of these releases because of an exploit ... it'll likely be re-exploited ... *shrug*Well to studios that can lose money because of it such an exploit can be less than welcome news. After all AACS was supposed to be a lot more secure than even CSS was.


It is just hysterical how these 3 titles are always brought to attention meanwhile we can pull up a lot more on BD, can't we!I personally don't get this hatred of Blu-ray that you seem to have and I was just pointing out the fact that we have seen poor quality sources encoded on both HD formats.

I personally don't get this hatred of Blu-ray that you seem to have and I was just pointing out the fact that we have seen poor quality sources encoded on both HD formats.

Sorry to have come across that way.
I really don't have a hatred of Blu-Ray just a lot of supporters seem to jump to this conclusion that It Is better than HD DVD.
My argument is that there isn't anything out as far as software that proves to me that Blu-Ray is better than HD DVD.
As far in PQ both of these formats can produce the same and there isn't any software that shows this being different.
HD DVD gets higher marks in It interactive features being ready than BD, Which still yet to be seen in it's completion.

There has been a lot of discussion about the picture quality and extras, but what about the media quality? DVDs are susceptible to scratches, but most players can tolerate a few light ones. How does HD-DVD compare to BD? I imagine HD-DVD should be similar to DVD because it is the same basic production technique. BD on the otherhand utilze a shallower format, hence it may be prone to terminal scratches. I have young children and they can be hard on discs. Just wondering what impact this might have on consumer adoption?

I'm told a recent Microsoft org chart shows that Amir Majidimehr, Corporate VP Media Technology now reports into Pieter Knook, Senior VP, Mobile Communications Business. That might also suggest his responsibilities have shifted.
Talkstr8, Amir posted the reason he is only participating in the Insiders Thread. The post is back a number of pages in the Insiders Thread but it is in there. Maybe you could ask him in the Insiders Thread if his responsiblities have changed.

There has been a lot of discussion about the picture quality and extras, but what about the media quality? DVDs are susceptible to scratches, but most players can tolerate a few light ones. How does HD-DVD compare to BD? I imagine HD-DVD should be similar to DVD because it is the same basic production technique. BD on the otherhand utilze a shallower format, hence it may be prone to terminal scratches. I have young children and they can be hard on discs. Just wondering what impact this might have on consumer adoption?BD's have a hardcoat. Here are some threads:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=781859
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=770776
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=781836
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=781312

Even if we all agreed that HD DVD's bandwidth is sufficient to provide equal PQ to Blu-ray, you can't credibly argue that extra bandwidth above and beyond that required for PQ isn't required for other purposes.
Such as? You can't credibly argue that the bandwidth is required unless you can show how it is presently being used to deliver a clearly superior home entertainment experience. Pie-in-the-sky arguments aren't very compelling.

--Jerome

Coming this summ.......err, fall! It's potentially awesome! Just wait!.........and wait.
LMAO!!

--Jerome

I don't know exactly, but from what I have heard it has something to do with the fact that AACS keys used on software players are only good for a certain length of time. After that point in time newer titles won't work with that software player unless you update it.

I don't know if AACS key renewal works with software players by revoking AACS keys or by some other method but regardless the only way you can get new AACS keys is by updating the software player.


Hmmm ... maybe someone can chime in ... a timed expiration would seem a silly way to go about it, but would explain some of the delays. I would think it would be easier to revoke the key for the player like they would for the hardware ones ... but ... I dunno ... I'll see if I can do some digging and figure out how this is supposed to work. ;)

Because BD is here, with more bandwidth, more capacity and more studio support, there is absolutely no logical reason to support HD DVD. Why settle for less when more is here, today?

Why is it, then, that the overwhelming majority of my Blu-ray discs give me LESS than the HD-DVD ones in terms of extras, supplements, etc.?

Weird.

Why is it, then, that the overwhelming majority of my Blu-ray discs give me LESS than the HD-DVD ones in terms of extras, supplements, etc.?

Weird.

you cant compare technology advantages with suplements which could be implemented every time for BD too.

What happend to June?
The deadline was pushed back to October 31st in order to provide hardware manufacturers more time. Note that BD-Video 1.1 secondary video requirements are substantially higher than those of HD DVD, so first generation SoC's aren't sufficient to meet the spec. Lots of unforeseen developmental delays can happen with new silicon, firmware, etc.

I'd have said something sooner, but couldn't until it was otherwise announced.

- Talk
While it's understandable that you wouldn't want to break any NDAs, it seems odd that when asked the question directly by scaesare back in December, you flat-out denied that the there was going to be a delay. Was it your intention to mislead us, or did you honestly not have the information at the time he asked?

In case you're wondering, I'm referring to this post. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9187409&&#post9187409)
2) If the June '07 deadline for PiP only in in danger of being pushed back?
No discussion whatsoever about this. This shouldn't be a big deal - the Sigma and Broadcom chips have had support for some time.

- Talk
Now, Amir claims that he knew, at the time of your post, that there were already discussions of moving the date back. Is it your contention that he knew about these discussions, but you did not?

Why is it, then, that the overwhelming majority of my Blu-ray discs give me LESS than the HD-DVD ones in terms of extras, supplements, etc.?Why don't YOU answer that question? Go ahead. We're listening.

While it's understandable that you wouldn't want to break any NDAs, it seems odd that when asked the question directly by scaesare back in December, you flat-out denied that the there was going to be a delay. Was it your intention to mislead us, or did you honestly not have the information at the time he asked?

In case you're wondering, I'm referring to this post. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9187409&&#post9187409)


Now, Amir claims that he knew, at the time of your post, that there were already discussions of moving the date back. Is it your contention that he knew about these discussions, but you did not?

I'm very curious about that myself.

While it's understandable that you wouldn't want to break any NDAs, it seems odd that when asked the question directly by scaesare back in December, you flat-out denied that the there was going to be a delay. Was it your intention to mislead us, or did you honestly not have the information at the time he asked?

In case you're wondering, I'm referring to this post. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9187409&&#post9187409)


Now, Amir claims that he knew, at the time of your post, that there were already discussions of moving the date back. Is it your contention that he knew about these discussions, but you did not?

Based on this post here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10118068&&#post10118068

It seems that was indeed the case ...

Why does it matter what codec a given title uses if the results are good? Why is it a shame when a given title uses MPEG2 yet still receives a 5 for PQ? MPEG2 is just one more option which Blu-ray studios can make use of where it makes sense. By and large HD DVD studios don't have this option due to lower capacity and bandwidth limits.

Hi Talk. I'm not sure if you were following all my posts or not. My point was that Mpeg2 can produce great results, but it also show the highest percentage of bad results (3/5 or lower). In other words, it's odds of producing a bad looking title vs. a great looking title are worse than the other codecs.

I'll take a quick look at BD-50's as an example. BD-50's make up 26.3% of the BD titles reviewed and have a much lower percentage of poor looking titles than the general population of BD titles. I'm sure some of that is due to careful selection of what is put on BD-50 (if the source material is bad, why bother to use BD-50). However the significant thing I see is that all 4 of the poor looking titles (Talladega Nights, The Sentinel, Resident Evil and Finding Neverland) where Mpeg2 encoded. None of the AVC or VC1 titles encoded on BD-50 have scored less than 3.5/5.

Looking at the broader population of BD titles, you still find a disproportionately high percentage of the bad looking titles are Mpeg2 encoded.

Oh ... So Fox is using BD+? I didn't think anyone was using it yet?I'm not saying they are or they aren't, but if you were a studio concerned about AACS exploits leading to your movies being made available in the clear and there was an additional protection mechanism available, wouldn't you be hard at work making use of that additional protection?
If it's up to AACS to revoke those player keys, why delay the discs? Does their content need updating based on the key revocation?As I understand it, any title released prior to revocation of a given player will still work on that player, and hence is likely to be compromised. By delaying title release until after revocation of the exploited players your content is once again protected (at least until the next player exploit).

If the only affected players are software based, and AACS revokes (or has revoked) the keys for those players -- what is the next step? I guess some data file on the disc itself needs to change that shows the old key as bad? or doesn't show it at all?Titles released prior to revocation continue to work on the revoked players. New titles won't work on the revoked player (until the player is updated to cure the exploit and renew the key).
If that's how it works, does that mean if a disc has already been mastered, it would need to be remastered?There's little value in remastering a title which has already been compromised, since it's probably already available "in the clear".

Such as? You can't credibly argue that the bandwidth is required unless you can show how it is presently being used to deliver a clearly superior home entertainment experience. Pie-in-the-sky arguments aren't very compelling.It isn't pie-in-the-sky. Every additional language track requires additional bandwidth. If you're releasing a movie in Europe you want as many languages on a disc as possible. Blu-ray's 50% greater bandwidth clearly allows you to put more tracks on the disc than HD DVD.

Every interactive feature requires bandwidth as well. How much depends on the type of feature, but every bit used for interactivity is a bit which can't be used for picture quality. With 50% more bits Blu-ray unquestionably provides more capacity for additional features without compromising picture quality.

While it's understandable that you wouldn't want to break any NDAs, it seems odd that when asked the question directly by scaesare back in December, you flat-out denied that the there was going to be a delay. Was it your intention to mislead us, or did you honestly not have the information at the time he asked?As has already been pointed out by jdg345, I've fully addressed this in this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10118068&&#post10118068) post. I honestly did not have the information at the time I posted that response.

Hi Talk. I'm not sure if you were following all my posts or not. My point was that Mpeg2 can produce great results, but it also show the highest percentage of bad results (3/5 or lower). In other words, it's odds of producing a bad looking title vs. a great looking title are worse than the other codecs.The fact that there are several examples of major titles where the HD DVD/VC-1 release and the Blu-ray/MPEG2 release are comparably reviewed shows that clearly MPEG2 is capable of providing excellent results across a wide variety of content. You're assuming chance has something to do with it - it doesn't. By and large the titles encoded in MPEG2 with bad results are due to poor masters, poor encoding, or not allocating enough bits (i.e. using BD25 where BD50 is needed to do the job). I suspect that if you were to ignore the first three or four months you'd also find that MPEG2 releases don't have a significantly worse track record than the other formats.

The fact that there are several examples of major titles where the HD DVD/VC-1 release and the Blu-ray/MPEG2 release are comparably reviewed shows that clearly MPEG2 is capable of providing excellent results across a wide variety of content. You're assuming chance has something to do with it - it doesn't. By and large the titles encoded in MPEG2 with bad results are due to poor masters, poor encoding, or not allocating enough bits (i.e. using BD25 where BD50 is needed to do the job). I suspect that if you were to ignore the first three or four months you'd also find that MPEG2 releases don't have a significantly worse track record than the other formats.

Talk -

I think that few few months was almost exclusively BD25. And it does seem likely that the extra capacity of BD50 could make up for some of MPEG2's limited efficiency. Do we at least agree then that MPEG2 + BD25 is probably a bad choice for most movies?

- Tom

It isn't pie-in-the-sky.We can agree to disagree on that. What you have shown is how bandwidth may possibly be important in ways that don't really matter.

If you're releasing a movie in Europe you want as many languages on a disc as possible. Blu-ray's 50% greater bandwidth clearly allows you to put more tracks on the disc than HD DVD.Why should movies being released in Europe be of any concern to customers in the United States and vice versa?

Every interactive feature requires bandwidth as well. How much depends on the type of feature, but every bit used for interactivity is a bit which can't be used for picture quality. With 50% more bits Blu-ray unquestionably provides more capacity for additional features without compromising picture quality.Again, you are arguing bandwidth as though it really mattered in some demonstrable way. Name some current HD DVD releses where its lower bandwidth hurt the movie viewing experience. Similarly, show me some current Blu-ray releases that have interactivity and quality that would be impossible to achieve in similar measure on HD DVD. Even better, show me the same title on both formats that feature interactivity where Blu-ray's higher bandwidth made it clearly superior. Until you can do that I will continue to view your argument with a great deal of skepticism.

I'll conceed the point about Blu-ray's higher bandwidth and capacity allowing studios to fill these discs with a lot of non-essential material that has nothing to do with the movie viewing experience.

--Jerome

You can't credibly argue that the bandwidth is required unless you can show how it is presently being used to deliver a clearly superior home entertainment experience.Are you enjoying that lossless audio track on your King Kong HD DVD?

Are you enjoying that lossless audio track on your King Kong HD DVD?Prove to me that it matters Rob. When you can do that then you might be approaching something close to a point.

--Jerome

Prove to me that it matters Rob. When you can do that then you might be approaching something close to a point.

--Jerome


http://mp3.juno.co.uk/MP3/SF119492-01-01-01.mp3

It isn't pie-in-the-sky. Every additional language track requires additional bandwidth. If you're releasing a movie in Europe you want as many languages on a disc as possible. Blu-ray's 50% greater bandwidth clearly allows you to put more tracks on the disc than HD DVD.


That's some kind of deal-breaker? Isn't it a little bit of a throw-away if the format with regional encoding is supposed to benefit from this?

http://mp3.juno.co.uk/MP3/SF119492-01-01-01.mp3


Always liked that song, but whats the point ? :)

Speaking only for myself...the point is whether or not lossless audio is even necessary is entirely debatable. There are some very good ABX tools on the audio side that allows one to set up a proper double blind test. Many people freely admit that they cannot tell the difference between lossless and LAME MP3 3.97 V5 (target variable bitrate of 128kpbs) encoding. I could not tell the difference between FLAC, ALAC, ACC 128kbps, or MP3 128kbps, and I have an audiophile caliber listening environment.

There is also a lot of science to support how effective psychoacoutic perceptual modeling is in lossy audio encoding. The trick is to maximize quantitative loss without any perceptible qualitative loss.

So in my view the bandwidth arguments are really unsupported empirically. Now, if you simply want more bandwidth and storage so you can throw more bits around, then just say so.

Having said all that, if there is some real science and independent ABXes that suggest lossy audio encoding for motion picture soundtracks does not measure up then point me to it. I'd love to read up on it.

--Jerome

...............................

Why should movies being released in Europe be of any concern to customers in the United States and vice versa?

...............................

--Jerome


My apologies for jumping into the middle of this, but this statement was just a tad too ethnocentric for me.

Why should you care about movies released in Europe? Because HD-DVD has already failed to capture any of the market in Japan. If HD-DVD fails in Europe because of PS3 penetration and a lack of language tracks, and then only garner 1/3 of the market in the US (based on present sales), how long do you think your format of choice will be around?

So yes, HD-DVD can deliver the movie experience you desire - but if it can't for anyone else they aren't just going to make it for you. :D

Titles released prior to revocation continue to work on the revoked players. New titles won't work on the revoked player (until the player is updated to cure the exploit and renew the key).
There's little value in remastering a title which has already been compromised, since it's probably already available "in the clear".

Understood, but I'm guessing the title/media itself knows which keys are valid and which aren't ... otherwise, how would it know how to play in the player or not? Since the players 'AACS Key Database' can't be updated via internet, the only way to do that is via the actual media I would think? So, then begs the question: who is responsible for updating that media database, would it fall on all AACS users? Do they all get a copy of the same updates regardless of the studio/etc?

My thinking was if Fox (or whoever) already mastered a copy of Title-X based on the AACS Key Database Version that was compromised, would they have to then remaster that version to keep it 'safe'? :confused:

My apologies for jumping into the middle of this, but this statement was just a tad too ethnocentric for me.
Please keep the conversation focused on the technical issues, thank you. Trying to politicize the debate does nothing to move the discussion forward.

You also assume too much. My format of choice is high definition movies...period. If HD DVD and Blu-ray are to survive, then they will do so on their own merits.

--Jerome

Always liked that song, but whats the point ? :)

I was suggesting that Jerome:

"Enjoy the silence"

Because there's isn't a body of empirical evidence to support the contention that lossless is of any real benefit, any response, would be a matter of anecdotal opinion, and we all know about opinions, don't we?

"Words are very, unnecessary, they can only do harm."

I was afraid it was too oblique for many, but I'll bet Jerome gets it before he reads this. :)

...
Why should movies being released in Europe be of any concern to customers in the United States and vice versa?
...
--Jerome

Because HD DVD & BD are global products created by global corporations. The market for a sucessful global market is 20x bigger than the US market by number. It is probably 4x by monetary value right now but the growth rate of many global markets is much faster. There is a lot of value in pursuing non US market (Europe, China, & India for example) especially if you are looking at the 1-2 decade time frame.

Are you enjoying that lossless audio track on your King Kong HD DVD?

If you're going to continue to pick on one title over and over and over and (well, you get the idea) ... doesn't that seem silly?

For example, I would think that to the majority of the consumers out there, High Definition is more about PQ than lossless audio (although I'll agree that with the additional space, improvements might as well be made on the audio side). The reason I think this way is because I believe that the average consumer (not necessarily the people here, reading this) is going to pretty easily see a difference between 480i DVD and 1080i HD. Is that same average consumer going to be able to tell the difference between TrueHD, DD+, LPCM, etc? I would say likely not.

That said, Are you enjoying the PQ of that bundled Talledega Nights BR Disc? Or the PQ of The Fifth Element?

See what I did there? I would much rather have stellar PQ than waste space on an audio track I likely won't be able to tell the benefit of ... if my stereo equipment can even handle the stream.

Let's not forget that several insiders have noted that King Kong was never slated to receive a lossless audio track to begin with.

I guess my point is, if you're going to pick on an HD-DVD Title, perhaps you should think about picking on one that isn't considered Reference Quality and probably (at least for some) is the standard to which other releases are being measured. *shrug*

Always liked that song, but whats the point ? :)

I think the point was, "Words are very unecessary, they can only do harm." :p

Because HD DVD & BD are global products created by global corporations. The market for a sucessful global market is 20x bigger than the US market by number. It is probably 4x by monetary value right now but the growth rate of many global markets is much faster. There is a lot of value in pursuing non US market (Europe, China, & India for example) especially if you are looking at the 1-2 decade time frame.

Understood, but if we think the number of player sales in the states is anemic, it seems far more starved in Europe and elsewhere. It seems like any single individual with a decent credit limit can sway the #'s across the pond on any given week.

But, yes, agree, if we're looking at decades, the global market is a nice piece of the pie not to be ignored.

I have been following this site for some time, as I am building my home theater and whole house audio. I am registered, but have not joined the club
I have searched the site, but cannot figure out how to post my questions! Please advise!
Judy

Would anyone argue that many hardware/software features are not of vanishingly small benefit, relative to the manner in which they are loudly touted in marketing efforts to convince consumers that they vitally important?

"1080p?"..............."Deep Color?"..................."DTS" vs. "DD"?................Why should "lossless" sound, along with the increased bandwidth and storage capacity of BD be any different, when no one, ( let me repeat that ), no one has offered an iota of objective evidence which demonstrates that they really are?

I have been following this site for some time, as I am building my home theater and whole house audio. I am registered, but have not joined the club
I have searched the site, but cannot figure out how to post my questions! Please advise!
Judy

Looks like you just figured out HOW to post. Now you just need to figure out WHERE to post. :)

Prove to me that it matters Rob. When you can do that then you might be approaching something close to a point.

--Jerome
He isn't going to give you an answer, he just likes to play the KK card over and over again to 'prove' HD-DVD is 'crippled'. I've asked him to tell me how many titles HD-DVD has access to that might be 'crippled' under his criteria and never received a good answer. bkillian posted a response to talk a few pages back re: lossless on KK. Might be good reading for a refresher on this dead horse.
As far as lossless goes it is so user and equipment dependent ( obviously ) that except for a few enthusiasts it will never matter much and won't matter for mass adoption except for sales hype. I have 56 year old ears and around 3000 dollars in audio attached to the HT and I don't hear a significant difference. Others have different experiences and that is vaild for them. Hell, some audiophiles will tell you sticking a TV between your speakers ( doesn't' apply to FP folks ) isn't high end audio, others will tell you surround sound bites...and on and on. I say enjoy both formats and quit arguing over minutiae. Just my two cents. Almost time to watch Oregon vs Florida. Hope that crappy DD from satellite doesn't ruin Oregon's win over Florida. Flame suit on.

I have been following this site for some time, as I am building my home theater and whole house audio. I am registered, but have not joined the club
I have searched the site, but cannot figure out how to post my questions! Please advise!
Judy

AVS forum is broken up into many categories and sub-categories. Find the area that you are interested (audio, projector, flat panel, etc.) and perform a search through those area - odds are your questions have been asked and answered.

If you don't find what you are looking for, start a new thread in the area of interest. Be as specific, but as brief, as possible in the title - many a thread has been started with, "Question:", or "hey, have you tried this" type of titles and they don't get much traffic.


thom

Please keep the conversation focused on the technical issues, thank you. Trying to politicize the debate does nothing to move the discussion forward.

You also assume too much. My format of choice is high definition movies...period. If HD DVD and Blu-ray are to survive, then they will do so on their own merits.

--Jerome



Yeah, no. The launch of one format, let alone competing formats is as much political (or rather economic) as it is technical. First question, can both formats put out good quality? Answer, yes. Second question, is either format financially viable? Answer, remains to be seen.

The merits that allow them to survive are as much economic as they are technical. It isn't enough to just sell some units that look good- we don't know for either format what their break-even point is with sales to allow them to move forward. BluRay has the economic advantage of being shoved into the PS3 - in other words, even if BD doesn't make money in and of itself, Sony can't pull it out of their falgship product, so it isn't going anywhere. HD-DVD doesn't have that kind of anchor. Even if it technically works, if not enough people buy it, it's not gonig anywhere.


If you want to only argue on technical merits for superiority based on ~9 months of releases, by all means go ahead. If you want to try to figure out where these formats are going, you may want to include the rest of the world in your discussion.

Why should movies being released in Europe be of any concern to customers in the United States and vice versa?What a bizarre response. In any case, even if the USA didn't exist, you'd still have the problem of putting multiple languages on discs meant for Europe. It's a heck of a lot easier putting multiple languages on one disc instead of one language for each region.

There's no reason to settle for HD DVD's crippled bandwidth when BD is here now.

If you want to only argue on technical merits for superiority based on ~9 months of releases, by all means go ahead. If you want to try to figure out where these formats are going, you may want to include the rest of the world in your discussion.I was attempting to discuss the technical merits of lossless audio and how it pertains to BR bandwidth; your repeated efforts at trying to politicize this discussion or otherwise derail the topic are not appreciated.

If you don't see value in this part of the discourse then please allow those us who do the courtesy of pursuing a discussion without further interference.

Thank you.

--Jerome

There's no reason to settle for HD DVD's crippled bandwidth when BD is here now.Please provide proof that HD DVD is a "crippled" format. What is the technical basis for this statement? You've said this so many times in so many threads that you might be better served by putting it in your signature. It would sure save you a great deal of repetitive typing.

--Jerome

For example, I would think that to the majority of the consumers out there, High Definition is more about PQ than lossless audio (although I'll agree that with the additional space, improvements might as well be made on the audio side). The reason I think this way is because I believe that the average consumer (not necessarily the people here, reading this) is going to pretty easily see a difference between 480i DVD and 1080i HD. Is that same average consumer going to be able to tell the difference between TrueHD, DD+, LPCM, etc? I would say likely not.



I agree, my non-videophile HDTV owning friends don't pump the audio through anything but the televisions native speakers. They still keep their stereo separate from their video. They also don't select an audio preference on DVDs, whatever the default is, is what gets played.

I don't think this is even that uncommon.

The fact that there are several examples of major titles where the HD DVD/VC-1 release and the Blu-ray/MPEG2 release are comparably reviewed shows that clearly MPEG2 is capable of providing excellent results across a wide variety of content. You're assuming chance has something to do with it - it doesn't. By and large the titles encoded in MPEG2 with bad results are due to poor masters, poor encoding, or not allocating enough bits (i.e. using BD25 where BD50 is needed to do the job). I suspect that if you were to ignore the first three or four months you'd also find that MPEG2 releases don't have a significantly worse track record than the other formats.

Your third point (some of those Mpeg2 BD-25s would have looked good if they had the extra space of a BD-50) certainly explains why BD has a higher percentage of bad looking titles (and why Mpeg2 is the disproportionately over represented on that list). Of course BD-50 doesn't guarantee a good looking title. Perhaps those are bad masters (see below for an example of a couple of BD-50 Mpeg2s that didn't work out well).

That then begs the question of why most titles are still being released on BD-25 (only 6 of the last 20 titles reviewed are BD-50).

Looking at the last 20 titles (to avoid arguments about launch titles) I see the following

HD-DVD

1 Stinker (1/5 to 3/5) - 1 Mpeg2
12 Decent looking titles (3.5/5 to 4/5) - 10 VC1 and 2 AVC
7 Great looking titles (4.5 to 5/5) - 6 VC1 and 1 AVC

BD

4 Stinkers (1/5 to 3/5) - 4 Mpeg2
10 Decent looking titles (3.5/5 to 4/5) - 7 Mpeg2 and 3 AVC
6 Great looking titles (4.5 to 5/5) - 4 Mpeg2, 1 AVC and 1 VC1

Of the 4 BD stinkers, 2 of them (Resident Evil and Finding Neverland) are BD-50s. Perhaps they should have tried AVC or VC1. Why are the majority of BD releases still Mpeg2 (16 of the last 20 titles), especially when BD-25s still dominate new releases?

Of course BD-50 doesn't guarantee a good looking title.Of course it doesn't. Even if you have plenty of capacity to work with, are using an advanced video codec, and have good compressionists you can only encode what you have to work with. For instance if you look at many of the reviews on highdefdigest there are plenty which have scores below 4 that don't have any major compression artifacts.


That then begs the question of why most titles are still being released on BD-25 (only 6 of the last 20 titles reviewed are BD-50).The obvious answer to this question is that it is a lot cheaper to use BD-25 instead of BD-50. As time goes on BD-50 will get cheaper and eventually we will see it used in the majority of new releases. Personally I am somewhat impressed that 6 of the last 20 titles were BD-50 and that would indicate that Blu-ray is improving yields on dual layer discs faster than DVD did.

What a bizarre response. In any case, even if the USA didn't exist, you'd still have the problem of putting multiple languages on discs meant for Europe. It's a heck of a lot easier putting multiple languages on one disc instead of one language for each region.

There's no reason to settle for HD DVD's crippled bandwidth when BD is here now.

Why is bandwidth an issue when it comes to multiple languages? Or are you assuming people will want to listen to the feature in multiple languages at the same time? :confused:

There's no reason to settle for HD DVD's crippled bandwidth when BD is here now. Again, here's your brain on drugs.

Of course it doesn't. Even if you have plenty of capacity to work with, are using an advanced video codec, and have good compressionists you can only encode what you have to work with. For instance if you look at many of the reviews on highdefdigest there are plenty which have scores below 4 that don't have any major compression artifacts.


The obvious answer to this question is that it is a lot cheaper to use BD-25 instead of BD-50. As time goes on BD-50 will get cheaper and eventually we will see it used in the majority of new releases. Personally I am somewhat impressed that 6 of the last 20 titles were BD-50 and that would indicate that Blu-ray is improving yields on dual layer discs faster than DVD did.

But then Blu-Ray only has greater capacity than HD-DVD 30% of the time ... otherwise, HD-DVD actually has greater capacity. :p

Bandwidth would still go to Blu-Ray though ... ;)

Why is bandwidth an issue when it comes to multiple languages? Or are you assuming people will want to listen to the feature in multiple languages at the same time? :confused:Because all audio and video streams have to come off the disc real-time (or faster during trick play modes), whether it's used or not. The decoder in the player then determines what to actually decode based on user selection.

Understood, but if we think the number of player sales in the states is anemic, it seems far more starved in Europe and elsewhere. It seems like any single individual with a decent credit limit can sway the #'s across the pond on any given week.Takes time for a new format to take off reasonably. Everybody here thinks in AVS time, while in the real world there are adoption rates based on price/region/preferences/etc. But for comparison, sales of even 1M units is considered very poor for a typical mainstream CE product.

There has been a lot of discussion about the picture quality and extras, but what about the media quality? DVDs are susceptible to scratches, but most players can tolerate a few light ones. How does HD-DVD compare to BD? I imagine HD-DVD should be similar to DVD because it is the same basic production technique. BD on the otherhand utilze a shallower format, hence it may be prone to terminal scratches. I have young children and they can be hard on discs. Just wondering what impact this might have on consumer adoption?

all BD disks have a scratch resistant coating that makes them for normal usage scratch proof. On the other hand HD DVD has higher density , smaller pits then DVD so they are actually a bit more fragile then DVD and a lot more then BD

Why should movies being released in Europe be of any concern to customers in the United States and vice versa?

When DVD was relatively new many of them had DTS in the US and it was dropped in Canada to fit French. Now a days most DTS has almost disappeared from DVD and many have English, French and Spanish. What % of people in France do you think care about German or Italian? How about in Italy about French or German? If a studio adds 5 languages on the European version it is not for that one country? but for every other country that will release it. How long before Studios start realizing that having the German, Italian (as well as English, French and Spanish that is already there) is a benefit that saves them $$?

Because all audio and video streams have to come off the disc real-time (or faster during trick play modes), whether it's used or not. The decoder in the player then determines what to actually decode based on user selection.

Wow ... I didn't realize ... I thought only the selected stream was pulled off the disc and decoded. So the whole mux of X languages is all read off at the same time and then only the selected one is decoded?

Takes time for a new format to take off reasonably. Everybody here thinks in AVS time, while in the real world there are adoption rates based on price/region/preferences/etc. But for comparison, sales of even 1M units is considered very poor for a typical mainstream CE product.

Agreed ... I don't think there is a single title of either format selling in the hundreds of thousands even ... much less millions. ;)

If you're going to continue to pick on one title over and over and over and (well, you get the idea) ... doesn't that seem silly?

not at all. The issue is that movie is given as an example by every HD DVD supporter of what is in their mind "good enough" pointing out that it is no where near good enough if someone is looking for quality is not silly. Giving it as an example of good enough is silly when we all know it is a bad compromise.



For example, I would think that to the majority of the consumers out there, High Definition is more about PQ than lossless audio

not for me. I want the total experience. Why should I accept sub par of anything?

not at all. The issue is that movie is given as an example by every HD DVD supporter of what is in their mind "good enough" pointing out that it is no where near good enough if someone is looking for quality is not silly. Giving it as an example of good enough is silly when we all know it is a bad compromise.

not for me. I want the total experience. Why should I accept sub par of anything?

I guess you missed my disclaimer: ;)


The reason I think this way is because I believe that the average consumer (not necessarily the people here, reading this) is going to pretty easily see a difference between 480i DVD and 1080i HD. Is that same average consumer going to be able to tell the difference between TrueHD, DD+, LPCM, etc? I would say likely not.


If things were being done specifically for the majority of people here, everything would have lossless audio and no extras would exist. *shrug*

As far as the full experience, can you tell the difference on your system between lossless and TrueHD? or lossless and DD+? Or is it just enough that the 'full experience' is on the disc whether you take advantage of it or not? And, what is the definition of 'full experience'? I would think that to some that might include lossless, to others, reference quality video, and others, interactivity ... etc.

So the whole mux of X languages is all read off at the same time and then only the selected one is decoded?Correct. :) Along with the main video and any PiP video. Now starting doing 8x forward, or 0.5x forward, or 2x backward, and things get a lot more intersting. :)

Correct. :) Along with the main video and any PiP video. Now starting doing 8x forward, or 0.5x forward, or 2x backward, and things get a lot more intersting. :)

Is that why most players mute out the audio and doing chip-munk it during FF/RW ?

the feature in multiple languages at the same time

that is not how it works. A disk has info on it let's call it V, E,F,S,P,M,T these are all different elements for example V could be video, E English..... the data on the disk is muxed together. What that means is that the data is in bite size (seconds and fractions of a second) portions. So it would look something like V, E,F,V,S,P,M,T,V, E,F,V,S,P,V, E,F,V,S,PV, E,F,V,S,PV, E,F,V,S,P,T,V, E,F,V,S,P,M .....
because of that if you are using, E,F,S.... is irrelevent.

The disk needs to read all the data that is muxed together if you use it in the play back or not. There is no transporter that can skip over that data. It needs to read it all because it can't tell the difference. Once loaded into the player the player goes "this is Spanish, not what the guy wants to hear" and so dismisses it.

That is why if you use it simultaneously or not is irrelevant. If it needs to be able to play back simultaneously then the BW requirements add up. And since each alt language needs to play at the same time as the main video their BW are added even though it will never happen that someone is listening to all of them at the same time.

Wow ... I didn't realize ... I thought only the selected stream was pulled off the disc and decoded. So the whole mux of X languages is all read off at the same time and then only the selected one is decoded?

not just audio languages. Real PiP (two streams), subtitles (obviously they are not as BW intensive), even location sensative menus (like a game). That is why it sounds so dumb when people say who cares about BW

If things were being done specifically for the majority of people here, everything would have lossless audio and no extras would exist. *shrug*

but that is exactly why extra BW and Capacity is important. Even though I don't use extras, obviously some care for them. That is why it is important for a format toi have extra capacity and BW so that J6P can have his extras and we can have our quality. If a studio decides to give up lossless because some moron migh have convinced himself that lossy is good enough and PiP is what is more important, I am the one that is losing quality, that other person is a moron to start off.

lossless and TrueHD? or lossless and DD+?

TrueHD is lossless. and the answer to the second, in many instances yes (obviously in some other instances -like dead silence- the answer is no).

Wow ... I didn't realize ... I thought only the selected stream was pulled off the disc and decoded. So the whole mux of X languages is all read off at the same time and then only the selected one is decoded?This came up a while ago. One of the people who was involved in HD DVD back when they decided their minimum 1.0x spin rate that led to their current bandwidth limitations, and who brags about how the HD DVD camp didn't overdesign their format, didn't understand this and thought that the extra languages not being played didn't affect the bandwidth left for video, other audio, PiP, etc. Along with not understanding what branching was at the time (according to what they said here), I can understand how they wouldn't have had a problem with HD DVD deciding on a 1.0x minimum spin rate instead of a 1.5x minimum spin rate. I wish they had actually understood how things worked back when that decision was made. It may have changed that decision, as they might not have been so smug about how their side wasn't overdesigning things, if they had known how things really work. I have a strong feeling that the decision about spin rate would have been different if they had known then what they know today.

--Darin

I wish they had actually understood how things worked back when that decision was made. It may have changed that decision, as they might not have been so smug about how their side wasn't overdesigning things, if they had known how things really work. I have a strong feeling that the decision about spin rate would have been different if they had known then what they know today.I know that a certain someone who posts here matches this description, but are you saying that the people involved in making the technical decisions for HD DVD did not know this?

This came up a while ago. One of the people who was involved in HD DVD back when they decided their minimum 1.0x spin rate that led to their current bandwidth limitations, and who brags about how the HD DVD camp didn't overdesign their format, didn't understand this and thought that the extra languages not being played didn't affect the bandwidth left for video, other audio, PiP, etc. Along with not understanding what branching was at the time (according to what they said here), I can understand how they wouldn't have had a problem with HD DVD deciding on a 1.0x minimum spin rate instead of a 1.5x minimum spin rate. I wish they had actually understood how things worked back when that decision was made. It may have changed that decision, as they might not have been so smug about how their side wasn't overdesigning things, if they had known how things really work. I have a strong feeling that the decision about spin rate would have been different if they had known then what they know today.

--Darin

How sure are you that this person is instrumental in deciding the current bandwidth of HD DVD? Are you saying that current HD DVD bandwidth limitation is due to one pseron's misundertanding of mux rate?

I know that a certain someone who posts here matches this description, but are you saying that the people involved in making the technical decisions for HD DVD did not know this?I'm sure there were multiple people involved and different people could have pushed the issue. If one person understands one part and a different person understands another (but has a misconception about the first), then things may not end up as they would if everything was understood by at least one person involved. There is also the factor of how much bitrate they needed with an advanced codec. If they looked at the WMV discs at something like 6-8Mbps CBR and decided they didn't need a lot more than that, then that could have played into this too. But overall, I think if they had known what they know today about all these issues, they would have set themselves up for higher bandwidth. Even the Broadcom chip in the HD-A1 could have handled it, but they saddled themselves with the minimum 1.0x spin rate. I highly doubt they thought they were going to need to limit lossless audio tracks to 16/48 in the way it seems they have (although there are situations where they don't need to) even when not utilizing seamless branching, back when the decision about spin rate was made.

--Darin

If they increase the bandwidth, then they have effective lower capacity.

But yeah, we heard hype about how great VC-1 was at 10-12 Mbps, and how there was diminishing returns at not much higher bitrates.

If they increase the bandwidth, then they have effective lower capacity.Just allowing the people making the discs to use higher bandwidth in places where they find it useful doesn't lower the capacity. They aren't forced to use higher bandwidth just because it is a tool in their toolkit. But it is the case that using higher bandwidth does reduce the capacity left for other things. From what I've seen HD DVD has been much more bandwidth constrained than capacity constrained though. They can always add a 2nd disc for more capacity, but there isn't a solution like that for bandwidth.

--Darin

They can always add a 2nd disc for more capacity, but there isn't a solution like that for bandwidth.But using a 2nd disc limits the IME that's possible. What you see today on HD DVD is nothing compared to what the studios really want to do.

Is that why most players mute out the audio and doing chip-munk it during FF/RW ?Doing pitch adjustment on the audio is not easy, which is why it's done that way in many cases.

But using a 2nd disc limits the IME that's possible. What you see today on HD DVD is nothing compared to what the studios really want to do.Should be interesting. I can understand what you are saying as far as if IME goes on the 2nd disc somehow, but if they were willing to split the movie across the 2 discs then it seems like they could still get around the capacity issue with a 2nd disc (or 3rd disc, ... :)). But maybe I'm missing something as far as what they want to do.

Do you have any position as far as whether adding TL51s for HD DVD, but staying with the same 1.0x spin rate, would make much difference?

--Darin

Please provide proof that HD DVD is a "crippled" format. What is the technical basis for this statement? You've said this so many times in so many threads that you might be better served by putting it in your signature. It would sure save you a great deal of repetitive typing.

--Jerome
A picture paints a thousand words... Time for the "chart". ;)

Edit: Data removed due to copyright issue...

b2b

Want to add a third dimension including actual replication costs, which are just as important a factor?

http://www.pacificdisc.com/PricingHD-DVD.html

Bulk HD-DVD Pricing
Single Layer Dual Layer
5,000 $1.45 $1.79
10,000 $1.39 $1.71
25,000 $1.34 $1.63
100,000 $1.29 $1.45

Bulk Blu-ray Pricing

Single Layer Dual Layer
5,000 $2.35 N/A
10,000 $2.19 N/A
25,000 $2.09 N/A
100,000 $1.99 N/A Pacific Disc and many other replicators can't even make DL Blu-ray discs, but have no problem making DL HD DVD discs

...

But I expect that this is due to machinery costs. As you all know, HD DVDs can be made on modified equipment we already own. Blu-ray lines cost an arm-and-a-leg and we'll be trying to recoup those costs quickly.
....

First, let me clarify that I was not thinking of the format war when I made my multiple disc comment. It was a general comment, not directed at either format. The mention of HD DVD was a compliment to the level of interactivity achieved so far so quickly.

I can understand what you are saying as far as if IME goes on the 2nd disc somehow, but if they were willing to split the movie across the 2 discs then it seems like they could still get around the capacity issue with a 2nd disc (or 3rd disc, ... :)).Yuk. :) Makes moving around within the movie a little difficult. :)

Do you have any position as far as whether adding TL51s for HD DVD, but staying with the same 1.0x spin rate, would make much difference?I like the TL51 option. The additional capacity is there if somebody needs it, and you never know what the future needs. It's better to have it sooner rather than later on from an interoperability viewpoint. I haven't researched enough regarding the spin rate to have an opinion.

Do we at least agree then that MPEG2 + BD25 is probably a bad choice for most movies? For most movies, sure. But others (like Tears of the Sun) prove that the combination can still achieve terrific results.

Do we at least agree then that MPEG2 + BD25 is probably a bad choice for most movies?

Of course BD50 is better, but BD25 when done right should still looks great. D-Theater (DVHS) is only around 22G for 2 hours with MPEG2 and many still think it gives stellar result.

regards,

Li On

Why should movies being released in Europe be of any concern to customers in the United States and vice versa?Additional languages aren't a Europe-only issue, though it's obviously a greater concern there. Many movies here have multiple language tracks; every additional language eats into available bandwidth. Further, many people choose to import movies. That import, which may need to support more languages than typical US releases do, may well have reduced PQ due to bandwidth issues.
Name some current HD DVD releses where its lower bandwidth hurt the movie viewing experience. Similarly, show me some current Blu-ray releases that have interactivity and quality that would be impossible to achieve in similar measure on HD DVD.You're posing questions that are virtually impossible for anyone outside of the studio production chain to answer. We don't know where a compressionist had to compromise quality due to lack of bandwidth unless they tell us (unlikely to happen). I can't prove that the reason far more Blu-ray titles have lossless audio than do HD DVD titles is because the lower bandwidth availability on HD DVD makes it less feasible, but that's certainly a reasonable conclusion to reach.
Even better, show me the same title on both formats that feature interactivity where Blu-ray's higher bandwidth made it clearly superior. Until you can do that I will continue to view your argument with a great deal of skepticism.This is an even more improbable scenario, since the neutral studios don't appear particularly motivated to optimize their releases for the capabilities of each platform (as evidenced by the lack of lossless audio on most of Warner's Blu-ray releases, even where the disc capacity is clearly there). However, there is one title which does point in this direction - the Nine Inch Nails release. The Blu-ray version features seamless multiple angle support; the HD DVD version doesn't. This is a feature which bandwidth directly impacts. You can tell me you don't care about this disc or this feature, but it quite directly points to Blu-ray's better specs as enabling a feature which couldn't be supported on HD DVD.