No they don't, read on.

No, when you say HD-DVD has X% less capacity than BD, you are specifying BD as the basis. That means that BD is considered to be 100%. Therefore, HD-DVD has 40% less capacity than BD, mathematically 100*(30-50)/50 = -40%, or 40% smaller.

When you say BD has X% more capacity than HD-DVD, your are specifying HD-DVD as the basis. That means that HD-DVD is considered to be 100%. Therefore, BD has 67% more capacity than BD, mathematically 100*(50-30)/30 = +67%, or 67% larger.

When you use percent difference you specify neither to be the basis, and you use an average.

There aren't three different answers. There are three different questions, each assuming a different basis. The calculations aren't the source of the confusion, it is the way in which they are stated.

Think about this statement regarding buckets: "Bucket X holds 150% more than bucket Y." Does that mean Y contains 150% less than X? No, that is impossible because 100% less would be nothing.
Ug. All this math is giving me a headache.

In the context of the original statement that started this bruhaha, it would still be 67% - as in 50GB is 67% more than 30GB or BD-50s hold 67% more than HD-30s.

:confused: At the timeframe I purchased, a 20GB PS3 would have been the same price as an A1.

Yes, now I could get it cheaper on both sides. I'll bet my AVR is cheaper than when I bought it a couple months ago, too. I know my HDTV is. Nature of the beast...

My inclination is indeed to embrace lossless for HDDVD... I just don't want to experience some severe buyers remorse. Despite its flaws, I don't have any such remorse for my add-on, even if I am not satisfied with it as a long term HDDVD solution. Getting an A2 and seeing it a hundred dollars cheaper next month would not be a good experience, however.

Fine. You want to insulate yourself the the pain of early-adopter pricing.

You continue to ignore the point that AQ doesn't suffer from the HD DVD FORMAT standpoint simply because you wanted to save money and buy the add-on.

Are you using HDMI for the audio? If so, how's the PCM output? I think I read on another thread that someone was having an issue with low output via PCM on that new player.

How do you like it overall? You upgraded from the first Sammy, right?

I am still in the process of evaluating the differences between the two.

Audio is not really a high priority for me, I'm afraid. The audio volume is a little lower than on the BD-P1000, but nowhere near as low as on my XA1.

I understand that some buyers have experienced freezing problems, but I haven't had any so far.

BD-50s hold 67% more than HD-30s.
Yes, that is correct. My point was that it is also correct to state that HD-30s hold 40% less than BD-50s. But stating either that BD-50s hold 40% more than HD-30s, or HD-30s hold 67% lessthan BD-50s are both incorrect.
In know it seems picky, but the whole "% more/less than" thing is one of my pet peeves.

Yes, that is correct. My point was that it is also correct to state that HD-30s hold 40% less than BD-50s. But stating either that BD-50s hold 40% more than HD-30s, or HD-30s hold 67% lessthan BD-50s are both incorrect.
In know it seems picky, but the whole "% more/less than" thing is one of my pet peeves.
I just have a puppy. No peeves for me - too hard to potty train.

thank you for confirming that microsoft don't infact manufacture the add-on drive for the 360, regardless of what may or may not become the case in the future. not sure what point you're trying to make with regard to the discontinued a1, since that was a full player, and not just a drive like the add-on.Er, what are you on about? Of course Microsoft manufactures the Addon drive. There are a number of different components that go into the addon drive (optical drive unit, flash memory, usb chip, a bunch of other electronics, cables, plastic enclosure, etc). Toshiba supplies one of them. The drive was designed by MS, and is assembled by one of our chinese partners in the same way the 360 is assembled.

There are three valid ways of looking at it:
1. How much larger is BD than HD-DVD? Answer: 67%
2. How much smaller is BD-DVD than BD? Answer: 40%
3. What is the percent difference in BD and HD-DVD capacity? Answer: 50%
( % diff is defined as (A-B)/((A+B)/2)*100 )

You cannot claim BD is 40% larger than HD-DVD, nor can you claim HD-DVD is 67% smaller than BD; both of these are mathematically erroneous statements.

Now can we put this to rest?
You can express the ratio of the capacities in % too. 30/50*100=60% which is more realistic. :)

Kosty was talking about hardware, not software.

You responded to Timothy, who was responding to Kosty. :eek: :eek: :eek:


That kinda describes the normal stream of conciousness flow in this thread that happens daily.... :D

I was trying to be fair to HD DVD by including the LG universal player since technically it can play HD DVD movies. If we don't include it because it isn't a compliant HD DVD player what is the cheapest stand alone HD DVD player not made by Toshiba?
snip......


To answer your question as to why the LG Universal is 3x the lowest cost Toshiba HD-DVD player, well it's probably all of that expensive Blu-Ray stuff. After all $1,200 (both) - $400 (HD-DVD) = $800 for the BD playback. $800 is a pretty reasonable list price for a Blu-ray player. ;)

You can express the ratio of the capacities in % too. 30/50*100=60% which is more realistic. :)
I don't see the difference. A is 60% of B is the same as saying A is 40% less than B.

I don't see the difference. A is 60% of B is the same as saying A is 40% less than B.


Well, if people insist on splitting GB hairs,

http://members.aol.com/dhtreptow/chart.jpg

1) do you agree with what I said? (if not then the rest is useless)
2) I thought your point is PCM=decoded losless, so why would someone prefer to have PCM. My point was that in theory that it should be = but in practice there are many reasons it might not be. That is one of the reasons that I don't want my player to take care of my audio and would rather have a receiver take care of it.
3) I don't understand the distinction. Why is it the designers issue. You will need to live with it, if you buy it. It is not as if a test can be done to see decoding X for video and Y for Audio will work, and it passes the test for all A/V combinations. It is for the consumer to care if the player has the “features he wants”.
4) like I said before, I don’t see it as a big issue, I am sure there will be product that does it correctly and all it means is for me to buy the right product and for someone that is less demanding let them live with what they bought. Since in theory it can = and I will do my duty to look for stuff that is important for m, I find lossless “good enough”

No my point was PCM = TrueHD/DTS-HD MA if they are from the same master. PCM is uncompressed, while the loseless codecs when decoded are bit for bit identical to the master. My point is that (assuming it's done correctly, and maybe we are talking past each other there) it does not make sense to use PCM when a more efficient solution exists that gives the same result.

The only reason to include PCM is to save some cash in royalties or to include it as a way to give lossless to the players that have not invested in the (optional) decoders for the BD format. I think that was a poor decision in BD land. Nothing more, nothing less. It's particularly painful when that bumps PQ in BD 25 or forces you to go to a BD50 disk (increased cost likely above what it would have been to have just included the lossless decoders in the first place).

I think you are being paranoid clinging to PCM over some concern that decoding/encoding won't be done right or won't be handled correctly in the hardware you purchase. Thus my point that it's up to the vendor to 'do it right' to collect my dollars in the first place (if I cared about getting lossless to begin with).

[

what millions of players? and who are those dumb people that bought a player that don’t have content?

It was a hypothetical, and VMD in china was actually the source of the comment, but my point still stands. Why ignore a large market. This stands for both BD and HD DVD really as the numbers of players continue to increase on both sides.

First format to $199 players wins.* ( * 70% market share)
All these people that will buy this $199 player, are they going to buy $30+ movies? If they are so price sensitive about the player, wouldn't the same apply to the movies? Or do you expect all movies to drop as fast in price as Toshiba players? I have a slight suspicion the movie studios will be less inclined to drop their prices like Toshiba has...

With BD PS3/HDMI/PCM, I am most definitely getting superior AQ than from my 360/toslink/Dolby Digital HDDVD. Same end result to my account balances at the end of the day.

Covered by scaesare, but this is related to your hardware choice and not the format. But for what it's worth, I thought the decision to not include multi-channel PCM passthrough HDMI on the 360 was a clear bone-headed manuever on MS's part.

Sufficient for now. Both formats are in the very nascent steps and while both are at parity now, Blu-ray has a far higher ceiling. DVD, for example, was maxed very near it's release and while HDDVD has some flexibility for evolution, it's going to take far more creativity than Blu-ray to really stretch it's legs as it matures.


A higher ceiling when a more expensive disk is used (not the defacto case at the moment, jury is out in regard to the future). If BD25 is plenty for the main feature with advanced codecs, then HD DVD 30 is clearly OK too... I don't agree that HD DVD is maxed, and I think you'd be foolish to expect that encoding effiency and better masters won't come in the future, further depressing data rates and making the size of the bit bucket and the BW cap even more irrelevant than it is at launch.


Quote:
Originally Posted by orogogus
Also, you bump up against studio related intrascience to using efficient codecs. I firmly believe that BD was designed with the footprint and BW cap of what it would take for quality on MPEG-2/PCM in mind and not next-generation compression schemes.


I really wish I could have more MPEG2/PCM if they're anything like Crank, Black Hawk Down, or Kingdom of Heaven. I would LOOOOOVE to "settle" for Star Wars, for example, in comparably glorious HD!

This is a studio/master thing and not a format related issue. But since we are really talking Sony/Fox here I have to question what could have been with AVC/VC-1 and a lossless track instead of bloated PCM+MPEG-2?


I don't expect altruism from anyone I'm paying hundreds of dollars to. Once I heard some LPCM tracks after finally getting my HDMI Denon AVR, I was hooked. I wish PCM was mandatory on Blu-ray! Given the whole advanced content/authoring/required decoding in the players bit, LPCM output is the logical next step anyways.

LPCM output after being decoded and mixed in the player, sure, but not LPCM on the disk. That's just a waste of bits IMO. The lossless codecs are not only bit for bit identical to the master, they are more flexible and scale better than PCM.


Eh? I see Jason Statham in my Crank BD just like I see Tom Cruise in my MI3 HDDVD and neither looks to be in higher resolution than the other. I have yet to watch either one after the first time, either... much the same as the Google Earth bits on Miami Vice (if they don't send my 360 into an error that requires going back to the blade interface, that is). :eek:

Neither side has really revealed what they're REALLY up to yet, when they indulge in that buzz-word. In a word: advertising, if not the up-sell.

While I'm sure both sides have more up their collective sleeves when it comes to interactivity (which we both agree isn't really a major sticking point with most movie lovers), my point was that HDi is delivering more now than BD-J. I suspect that will get better in the future, but from what insiders are saying, compliance in the BD-J side is a nightmare, as is the learning curve for actually getting what you want out of it in the first place. In the short term that means studios like Warner won't release on BD untili after HD DVD (go Matrix!).

While it was a perplexing choice to leave IR off, I'm expecting Harmony, if not Sony themselves to take care of this, for those interested in such. I've generally shunned universal remotes anyway (I use the 360 remote for the HDDVD and would use a Tosh remote for any replacement, just like I use the Sony bluetooth BD remote for the PS3 and I use my Denon remote for everything else).

The oversight of such a basic thing on a relatively expensive unit irks me (and I will eventually get a PS3 for gaming, but if I don't have a hybrid player by then I will use it to play BD content I can't get on HD DVD and I'd like to use my Harmony to control the PS3). Really it's at the same league as MS not including multichannel PCM out over HDMI. Short sighted and disheartening.

All these people that will buy this $199 player, are they going to buy $30+ movies? If they are so price sensitive about the player, wouldn't the same apply to the movies? Or do you expect all movies to drop as fast in price as Toshiba players? I have a slight suspicion the movie studios will be less inclined to drop their prices like Toshiba has...

Could be as the whole reason this HD thing was cooked up to begin with was to interject a new revenue stream to supplement a flagging on in DVD. But if they want us to double and triple dip again they have to be ready to play ball.

Again we are talking about low volume stuff. I'd be surprised if the studio are really making much if any money on this right now. MSRPs are what they are in order for the studios to see how much the market will bear.

See Universal's change in their pricing policy for combos (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10190485&highlight=universal+combo+price#post10190485) (no premium for combos and replacing catalog titles with non-combos at lower prices)...

Well, if people insist on splitting GB hairs,

http://members.aol.com/dhtreptow/chart.jpg


Blu-ray is 2x as ugly as hd-dvd & 5x as ugly as dvd?

All these people that will buy this $199 player, are they going to buy $30+ movies? If they are so price sensitive about the player, wouldn't the same apply to the movies? Or do you expect all movies to drop as fast in price as Toshiba players? I have a slight suspicion the movie studios will be less inclined to drop their prices like Toshiba has...


Regular price on a regular DVD is $19.99, so $10.00 more for an HD-DVD isn't that big of a deal to a "thrifty" consumer. I'm sure the price of HD-DVD movies will drop a few dollars ($5?) by the end of the year.

Originally Posted by jgyenese
There are three valid ways of looking at it:
1. How much larger is BD than HD-DVD? Answer: 67%
2. How much smaller is BD-DVD than BD? Answer: 40%
3. What is the percent difference in BD and HD-DVD capacity? Answer: 50%
( % diff is defined as (A-B)/((A+B)/2)*100 )

You cannot claim BD is 40% larger than HD-DVD, nor can you claim HD-DVD is 67% smaller than BD; both of these are mathematically erroneous statements.

Now can we put this to rest?

(my 4th way) You can express the ratio of the capacities in % too. 30/50*100=60% which is more realistic.

If HD has 60% of the capacity of BD (my 4th way) isn't it rhetorically (may not be the word I want) misleading to say that BD is 67% larger than HD, even if it is?

If HD has 60% of the capacity of BD (my 4th way) isn't it rhetorically (may not be the word I want) misleading to say that BD is 67% larger than HD, even if it is?
No. 50 is 67% more than 30. You can't spin it away by calling it misleading.

All these people that will buy this $199 player, are they going to buy $30+ movies? If they are so price sensitive about the player, wouldn't the same apply to the movies? Or do you expect all movies to drop as fast in price as Toshiba players? I have a slight suspicion the movie studios will be less inclined to drop their prices like Toshiba has... Warner has already dropped prices on its online store. Retailers have experimented with pricing. Amazon online is consistently selling catalog titles under $19.99.

I think once you get to $19.99 - $24.99 street prices or equal to day and date e DVD prices people will pay a little bit more for a HD premium over the same DVD. But not more than $5 or so.

I expect the studios and retailers to adjust pricing for both catalog and new releases to where they generate. Retail pricing will tend toward those online points as the market expands.

I actually have been surprise that I could buy as many HD DVDs as I can for under $19.99 now. Software pricing has dropped faster than I expected.

I expect retailers like BB and CC and Wal-Mart to soon drop their shelf prices below the studio MSRP so that they will start to maximize sales and revenue.

Right now, HD discs still have a soak the first adopter premium at the B&M retail level.

Could be as the whole reason this HD thing was cooked up to begin with was to interject a new revenue stream to supplement a flagging on in DVD. But if they want us to double and triple dip again they have to be ready to play ball.

Again we are talking about low volume stuff. I'd be surprised if the studio are really making much if any money on this right now. MSRPs are what they are in order for the studios to see how much the market will bear.

See Universal's change in their pricing policy for combos (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10190485&highlight=universal+combo+price#post10190485) (no premium for combos and replacing catalog titles with non-combos at lower prices)... The studios and retailers are still almost in the test marketing stage for consumer pricing. The high MSRPs are there to give retailers room to experiment.

Prices will come down soon to magic consumer price points.

It's funny to me that people would even pay $349 when Amazon has be at $290 with the five movie deal and free shipping. I guess I just assumed if your buying HD, your probably used to net-shopping. Though IMO you can't subtract the full value price of the free disks from the player unless your selection was not restricted to a small pool of titles.

You kind of have to be a net-shopper anyway when you start buying movies if you want any selection.

I dunno ... the $60 does buy you the Costco Warranty. ;)

If this is leading to a conclusion that a 50GB disk can support 3D, and it is a practical possibility, you are just killing future sales of both formats. Neither format can or will do 3D.

Wayne: not at all, but that time HD DVD won’t be nothing but a memory for some and an odd word the rest have never heard of. :)

seriously, if I wanted to put HD DVD down at the same time, there are many reason why it would be hardr on HD DVD and many of them way more serious then capacity. Why do rabid HD DVD fanboys need to assume every thing is war related. Some of us are here because we are interested in what we can and will be able to buy.

Anthony, not to worry. That far in the future - you know everything is streamed

Natraraj, maybe not as far as you think



Yes it is and we'll be showing an HD 3D system using two RS1's at our NAB booth. Either polarization or the Infitec system can be used with the RS1's

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=832237

Like I said, it should be interesting to see what they end up charging for the first standalone HD DVD-only player not made by Toshiba.It will be very interesting since though I still see the same old rumors about cheap Chinese HD DVD players there is almost no data on any of the non-Toshiba HD DVD players that are supposedly coming out this year.

But that would look rather funny, don't you think? Sorta like a giant, flat hole in the middle of the experience. And in your example, I could see the director wanting to swat you in the back of the head for not paying attention to what he/she is saying.

lol, he just might, I just want the movie don't care about the rest unless they are really movie related (alternate scenes changed to be more PC, deleted scenes to make it shorter....) on the other hand, if someone is watching a flat 2-D image in a scene of a 3D movie what will happen? Truth be told, I was just thinking the option watch the 3D movie or 2D+PiP. As can be seen by some posters here people that like PiP don’t care about quality.

Firstly, the encoders for a disc are off-line (i.e. non-real time), so either a lossless encoder produces the correct bitstream, or it is non compliant. Non-issue.


there is no such thing as a correct bitstream. Two distinct encoders can encode the same stream differently. Let's say encoder A encodes a scene and it takes higher BW but less processing to decode and B takes less BW but more processing power. Player X might be able to do A correctly while it might have issues with B. So yes the encoder can make a difference. Even though I assume all you meant is the decoded bitstream (if done correctly) should be the same , the encoded stream don't need to be.


So, are you seriously implying (within the context of our discussion of HD hardware and software here), that we should be concerned about the decoder chips have been so insufficiently tested with the maximum audio specifications so as to be non-deterministic with their behavior?

not at all. Someone stated that a lossless encode necessarily meant a lossless decode. And that is not true. It might always happen in all players, but it is not necessarily so. I clearly stated in each of the posts that lossless encodes are good enough for me, but that I can understand why someone could want PCM and I decided to give an example. An other reason (mentioned before is the guy might not have a player that can decode every lossless).

As to your test, that is a stupid comment. I won't go with HTPCs or anything else. But none of these players have separate audio and decoding chips. So there is literally no way to test all systems.

In know it seems picky, but the whole "% more/less than" thing is one of my pet peeves.
Steeb: think of it this way,
- %more you are looking at the smallest number and moving up (more) so it is (big-small)/small

- %less you are looking at the largest number and moving down (less) so it is (big-small)/big

No my point was PCM = TrueHD/DTS-HD MA if they are from the same master. PCM is uncompressed, while the loseless codecs when decoded are bit for bit identical to the master. My point is that (assuming it's done correctly, and maybe we are talking past each other there) it does not make sense to use PCM when a more efficient solution exists that gives the same result.

I would not use “make sense” but I agree, I never asked for PCM, I just pointed out that there are valid reasons for it most of which it looks that you agree are real. I always asked for lossless and I don’t care if it is uncompressed or compressed lossless. All I have ever had an issue with is compressed lossy that some want to pretend is the same as lossless

The only reason to include PCM is to save some cash in royalties or to include it as a way to give lossless to the players that have not invested in the (optional) decoders for the BD format.
I would put it as royalties and guaranteed lossless playback.
I think that was a poor decision in BD land.
no, just more honest. HD DVD stipulates there must be decoding of DTHD but that is only 2ch and it does not stipulate the output must be lossless. So a titlke that is DTS HD MA won’t play back as lossless. At some point DTHD on the add-on did not play back as lossless…..

You can express the ratio of the capacities in % too. 30/50*100=60% which is more realistic.

wayne: or 50/30*100=167%

http://members.aol.com/dhtreptow/chart.jpg

shouldn't the gorilla (Kong) be for HD DVD? we can use
http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/7/8/7/0/8900787-8900790-slarge.jpg to symbolize BD :)

Wayne: not at all, but that time HD DVD won’t be nothing but a memory for some and an odd word the rest have never heard of. :)

seriously, if I wanted to put HD DVD down at the same time, there are many reason why it would be hardr on HD DVD and many of them way more serious then capacity. Why do rabid HD DVD fanboys need to assume every thing is war related. Some of us are here because we are interested in what we can and will be able to buy.

I don't mind small digressions personally, but it is named the "Format Battle" thread for a reason.

shouldn't the gorilla (Kong) be for HD DVD? we can use
http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/7/8/7/0/8900787-8900790-slarge.jpg to symbolize BD :)

See, Anthony: you've just proved the point that perception doesn't necessarily have any relationship to objective reality. You're filling in a great many blanks when you look at that picture, which thankfully, none of us can ( or would care to, for that matter, ) share. :D

There were some posts back and forth recently on the topic of HD-DVD production lines and BD production lines. Some of the questions revolved around whether or not companies were upgrading existing production lines to handle HD-DVD media.

I wanted to approach this topic from a different perspective. What are the costs for a new production line in either format? What is the production output from each of those lines?

These issues were actually covered in the recent Financial Times article about HD-DVD and BD in the EU.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070409-hd-dvd-takes-early-lead-in-european-market.html

Production costs are also of importance to smaller studios which may not be willing to purchase entirely new equipment in order to press Blu-ray discs, or incur substantially higher costs to produce them. French replication company Qol CEO Laurent Villaume told FT that the risk involved in producing Blu-ray disks isn't comparable to that of HD DVD: "An HD DVD replication line costs about €800,000 and you can make 40,000 discs a day on it. A Blu-Ray replication line costs €1.7m or €1.8m and you can make 10,000 to 15,000 discs a day."

In other words, the BD production line costs greater than 2X the HD-DVD production line, and the output from that line is about 1/3 what the HD-DVD production line can generate per day.

You guys are driving me crazy with the math.

The number changes on how you word and what is the basis (what number is last).

50 is 67% larger than 30
50 is 167% of 30

30 is 40% smaller than 50
30 is 60% of 50

I dunno ... the $60 does buy you the Costco Warranty. ;)


Costco's have yet to make it too Milwaukee, but they seem a lot better to go than Sam's Club or Walmart. Don't they actually pay a living wage?

shouldn't the gorilla (Kong) be for HD DVD? we can use
http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/7/8/7/0/8900787-8900790-slarge.jpg to symbolize BD :)
Actually from what I hear you can get more of that on HD DVD :D

US retailers drop 20GB PS3
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=24078

However, SonyStyle isn't the only online retailer which has stopped selling the 20GB PS3. It's no longer available via the websites of Best Buy, GameStop or Electronics Boutique.

It looks like the $499 PS3 20GB is quickly going away. Not a surprise as Sony looses more money per unit on the 20GB model than the 60GB model. It looks like this officially makes the Samsung BD-P1000 the entry level Blu-Ray player.

You guys are driving me crazy with the math.

The number changes on how you word and what is the basis (what number is last).

50 is 67% larger than 30
50 is 167% of 30

30 is 40% smaller than 50
30 is 60% of 50
Now we have a reliable way of spotting BD fanbois, they use the larger numbers to exaggerate the difference. :) Edit: added :)

Sonic has just put up two white papers on HD DVD and Blu-ray. They aren't available for download but they are yours for the asking:

http://www.sonic.com/products/Professional/whitepapers.aspx

Now we have a reliable way of spotting BD fanbois, they use the larger numbers to exaggerate the difference.
:rolleyes:
I'm hardly a BD fanboy. In fact, it's very telling that you are calling someone else a fanboy.

If you remember the original statement, it was something along the lines of "BD has X% more space than HD DVD." In that case, the proper answer for "X" is 67%.

Wow - we have come a long way discussing the format war. We can't even agree on how much bigger 50 is compared to 30 :D

I was told their would be no math....

I was told their would be no math....
It was more fun talking about lossy/lossless audio. :D

I was told their would be no math....
Me too. I still have a headache from doing my "gazzintas." :D

Posted in the news by "Squidboy"

First Look Announces 'The Contract' On HD DVD

Quote:
First Look Studios, fresh off recently pledging their high definition home video allegiance to HD DVD, has announced 'The Contract' starring Morgan Freeman and John Cusack will be released on HD DVD July 24, day-and-date with the standard DVD release.

Details surrounding the HD DVD version are still sketchy at this point so the best we can do is draw from specs and features confirmed for the DVD. That version will include a behind-the-scenes featurette, a photo gallery andpreviews, and will offer both DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio tracks. Will First Look offer DTS-HD lossless audio, Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 or port over audio directly off the DVD? It might take a few weeks for First Look to divulge that answer.

'The Contract' on HD DVD will carry an SRP of $32.98, four bucks more than the DVD version. We'll have high resolution artwork to share as soon as it's available.


Not notable for the fact that a disc is coming out, but rather that a new studio is supporting HD-DVD.

I find this exciting because it's one of first small indie distributors of trash and treasure to go dip a toe into the HDM pond. I hope more will eventually follow.

there is no such thing as a correct bitstream. Two distinct encoders can encode the same stream differently. Let's say encoder A encodes a scene and it takes higher BW but less processing to decode and B takes less BW but more processing power. Player X might be able to do A correctly while it might have issues with B. So yes the encoder can make a difference. Even though I assume all you meant is the decoded bitstream (if done correctly) should be the same , the encoded stream don't need to be.

I call. We are talking lossless here. The encode either produces an output that allows a conformant decoder to produce an IDENTICAL copy of the input bitstream, or it's a non-conformant encoder.

This is why there are conformance test streams.


not at all. Someone stated that a lossless encode necessarily meant a lossless decode.And that is not true. It might always happen in all players, but it is not necessarily so.

Real world example, please.

I clearly stated in each of the posts that lossless encodes are good enough for me, but that I can understand why someone could want PCM and I decided to give an example. An other reason (mentioned before is the guy might not have a player that can decode every lossless).

As to your test, that is a stupid comment. I won't go with HTPCs or anything else. But none of these players have separate audio and decoding chips. So there is literally no way to test all systems.

Playing pretty fast and loose with the inflammatory wording there.

Regardless of the audio decoding logic resides (as a separate chip, a core on a SoC design, or as software on logic gates), there are conformance tests for it.

I ask again: do you honestly feel that there is sufficient enough danger of not getting lossless out of a systems said to support such so as to argue here against the use of lossless codecs and instead demand PCM If so, would you qualify as that being a problem endemic to lossless encoding/decoding, or a buggy implementation?

Actually from what I hear you can get more of that on HD DVD

No Timy, BD has more titles and studios. HD DVD just has a handful of third rate porn titles more. That is Jessica Alba from into the Blue an actual movie. You used a Gorilla for BD (i.e. Kong) and I said Kong is HD DVD, wile Jessica is on BD.

I call. We are talking lossless here. The encode either produces an output that allows a conformant decoder to produce an IDENTICAL copy of the input bitstream, or it's a non-conformant encoder.

agree, let me put it an other way. you can fly from A to be in 1st class or buisness or economy. you get on the plane in A and get out in B is the trip identical just because you ended up in B? No the guy in 1st class paid more but had a more comfortable seat and other benefits. The same is true here. One encoder could use higher BW and other one could take a lot more processing.

Real world example, please.


one of the Toshiba players (think it was the A1 but noit sure) had issues with one movie, it was discussed some time ago


Regardless of the audio decoding logic resides (as a separate chip, a core on a SoC design, or as software on logic gates), there are conformance tests for it.

show me the conformance tests a player needs to go through where super complicated A and V processing is done at the same time?

I ask again: do you honestly feel that there is sufficient enough danger of not getting lossless out of a systems said to support such so as to argue here against the use of lossy codecs and instead demand PCM If so, would you qualify as that being a problem endemic to lossless encoding/decoding, or a buggy implementation?


I assume you meant lossless where you said lossy (bolded).

as I said before I want lossless I don't care if it is PCM, DTS-HD MA or DTHD. actually if it comes to one being 16/48 and the other 24/96 I would rather have the 24/96 and who cares if it is compressed or not. On the other hand I think people should know everything and make informed decisions for themselves. There are reasonable reasons why others might prefere it and I mentioned one that was missed especially because someone said that decoded DTHD=PCM and it is not necesserily true.

as to the question

I think it is extremely likely that over the life of the formats there will be people/players that will have issues at the lower end of the spectrum. I also think that is just as likely that there will be higher end systems that don't. This means that it then comes down to users being informed and buying what they want. Take it this way, there are tollerences for DVDs, but have you ever had a DVD that was slightly damaged (or dirty or something) where it played in one player but not in an other?
For example today someone can buy the 360 add-on, it does not support lossless playback, even if you use the DTHD track the sound you are getting out is not lossless.

No Timy, BD has more titles and studios. HD DVD just has a handful of third rate porn titles more. That is Jessica Alba from into the Blue an actual movie. You used a Gorilla for BD (i.e. Kong) and I said Kong is HD DVD, wile Jessica is on BD.


You know I'm making the the porn on HD DVD joke.

...and by the way Into The Blue isn't exactly a four-star film either. :D

Jaffe: I Would Not Have Included Blu-ray in PS3
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=15762

In part two of Geoff Keighley's Bonus Round with Sony Santa Monica Studio Creative Director David Jaffe over at GameTrailers.com, the God of War creator had a number of interesting things to say, but it was perhaps his comments in a teaser clip for part three that will draw the most attention.

When asked what he would change about the PlayStation 3, he responded, "I probably would have taken the Blu-ray out and sold it for less money." Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, but Sony certainly doesn't seem to view the inclusion of Blu-ray as a mistake. Jaffe didn't outright label it a mistake either, but he's the first Sony employee (to this editor's knowledge) to even question the need for Blu-ray.

We've seen Wii dominate sales at $249. We've seen Sony back out of the 20GB PS3 because hitting break even at $499 we'll take even longer than $599. I'd say that Jaffe's comments are pretty self evident.

That's a myopic view, spurred more by the sales of Wii.

He wasn't questioning the value of the storage, just the cost that it added, which has put the console, at least for now, at a cost disadvantage.

It will be worth it for Sony if Blu-Ray becomes the sole HD disc format by the end of the decade.

That's a myopic view, spurred more by the sales of Wii.

He wasn't questioning the value of the storage, just the cost that it added, which has put the console, at least for now, at a cost disadvantage.

It will be worth it for Sony if Blu-Ray becomes the sole HD disc format by the end of the decade.

Well, the two go hand in hand. The extra storage doesn't come for free. He's saying he doesn't think the extra storage was worth the cost it added, and he's right.

As for your last point. I'm not sure. Was it worth relinquishing game dominance if they can win the format war? Of course the format war is still in doubt. With LG going neutral and talk of Samsung going neutral in July. Things keep getting more and more interesting.

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/samsung-bd_up5000/

agree, let me put it an other way. you can fly from A to be in 1st class or buisness or economy. you get on the plane in A and get out in B is the trip identical just because you ended up in B? No the guy in 1st class paid more but had a more comfortable seat and other benefits. The same is true here. One encoder could use higher BW and other one could take a lot more processing.



So your concern is NOT that you won't identical bits back out of the decoder, but that because because it's possible for an encoder to choose among multiple optimizations for encoding a particular buffer of samples, and there might be differing cycles/bandwidth needed for a particular optimization path, that decoders might be non-performant for some of those paths?

Seriously? That's your argument for lossless? You really think there aren't test files with pathological bitstreams for testing such corner cases?


one of the Toshiba players (think it was the A1 but noit sure) had issues with one movie, it was discussed some time ago

Again I ask for an example of a case where the encoder was producing a bitstream that required too much CPU/bandwidth for a compliant decoder to handle. If you have ANY evidence that the one disc you are referring to was not simply an encoding error or bug, I'd appreciate seeing it.

Incidentally, do you worry about this with ANY other encoder/decoder combo's in your CE devices?


show me the conformance tests a player needs to go through where super complicated A and V processing is done at the same time?

They've been referred here for codecs a number of times.

Do you honestly think that Kieth & Crew don't have en entire suite of tests from Dolby (and perhaps their own pathological test of 5.1 channels of thermal noise) that they test their audio decoding cores with? And do you think it has perhaps occurred to them to test whilst the chip is performing other functions?

For that matter, do you think the engineers are dense enough to not take into account the absolute max rate that the audio and video specs define, and then figure out deterministically how many bytes the cores are going to need to shuffle thru the chips for a worst case scenario?


I assume you meant lossless where you said lossy (bolded).

as I said before I want lossless I don't care if it is PCM, DTS-HD MA or DTHD. actually if it comes to one being 16/48 and the other 24/96 I would rather have the 24/96 and who cares if it is compressed or not. On the other hand I think people should know everything and make informed decisions for themselves. There are reasonable reasons why others might prefere it and I mentioned one that was missed especially because someone said that decoded DTHD=PCM and it is not necesserily true.

I did. Corrected, thanks.

Um... You seemed concerned about it here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10254857&&#post10254857) when you said "I thought your point is PCM=decoded lossless, so why would someone prefer to have PCM. My point was that in theory that it should be = but in practice there are many reasons it might not be.".

My contention is that you are stating that in practice there are MANY reasons why a lossless codec will not provide a lossless output stream. I'm waiting for you to provide even ONE case where that's been demonstrated.


I think it is extremely likely that over the life of the formats there will be people/players that will have issues at the lower end of the spectrum. I also think that is just as likely that there will be higher end systems that don't. This means that it then comes down to users being informed and buying what they want.

Then I fully expect Dolby & Co. will take issue with the use of their logos for lossless decoding when they don't conform.


Take it this way, there are tollerences for DVDs, but have you ever had a DVD that was slightly damaged (or dirty or something) where it played in one player but not in an other?

A damaged disc does not equate in any way to a device not outputting the correct lossless stream as designed. Seriously.


For example today someone can buy the 360 add-on, it does not support lossless playback, even if you use the DTHD track the sound you are getting out is not lossless.

Nor does it claim to. This is entirely different then your suggestion that a device that DOES support lossless output not doing so x% of the time because the encoder took encoding path "A" instead of encoding path "B".

That's a myopic view, spurred more by the sales of Wii.

He wasn't questioning the value of the storage, just the cost that it added, which has put the console, at least for now, at a cost disadvantage.

It will be worth it for Sony if Blu-Ray becomes the sole HD disc format by the end of the decade.
Unless Xbox puts in a blue laser drive, the PS3 will remain the most expensive player in the generation. This will cut the relative number of sales to gamers. Is it worth making PS3 #2 (or #3) on the chance it may win the hd format war?

Sony issued a statement early on strongly defending the BD drive in the PS3 for game content, and here is someone saying it isn't required.

I own a PS3 and a 360 and an HD-D1. I watch what I want on whatever format and play whatever games. It is wonderful.
I used to get very caught up in the "war" because I purchased HDdvd first and I just wanted it to succeed so badly, now I just enjoy what each format has to offer and don't worry at all.
This may seem trite, but for a total cost of around $1100 (ps3 and Hdd1) I am truly enjoying HD content on all formats without an ulcer. It was worth the $1100.

Unless Xbox puts in a blue laser drive, the PS3 will remain the most expensive player in the generation. This will cut the relative number of sales to gamers. Is it worth making PS3 #2 (or #3) on the chance it may win the hd format war?

Sony issued a statement early on strongly defending the BD drive in the PS3 for game content, and here is someone saying it isn't required.

Sony also issued statements saying multiple SKU's are confusing to the consumer, and that backwards compatibility being 100% was imperative.

Several developers have said it's not required ... and some have ... usually it's the 1st/2nd party guys though.

I'm surprised no one has brought up the Editor in Chief's article on DVDTOWN.COM "Don't Get the Blues - Say No to Blu-ray" in this format war.

http://www.dvdtown.com/news/dontgettheblues-saynotoblu-ray/4407

But does DVDTOWN have a huge following?

Does this imply, despite the authoring of the document that Alex already says exists (and has for months now), you are completely unaware of any plans at this point to formally introduce this info? No logo'ing program?An official Q&A is being prepared and should appear shortly on the official BDA site (and will undoubtedly be referenced profusely from other sources). There is a logo program which will support BD-Live upon its release.

- Talk

On Interactivity: HD-DVD supporters claim it's here now and it's "cool, etc". BD Supporters say it's silly and useless and they'll never take advantage of it. I can't wait for BD-J to be finished, so Interactivity can be important to the BD Camp. Blu-ray supporters don't say interactivity is silly and useless, we just don't consider secondary video support to be the sole defining feature of interactivity.
We're waiting for most discs to be BD50'sAre we? This year roughly 50% of discs have been BD-50, and at least two upcoming titles will be 75GB. Many catalog titles don't require more than 25GB, so it certainly appears BD-50 is being used on any title which justifies it.
we're waiting for it to support PiPThere's nothing preventing the use of PiP today, though it can be more efficiently supported as secondary video hardware becomes enabled.
we're waiting for it to support BD-JThat's funny, I've seen over a dozen titles with BD-J support running on every player in the marketplace, and I have yet to see an interactivity feature shown on HD DVD for which a similar feature hasn't been seen on a Blu-ray title. PiP? Check. Bookmarks? Check. In-movie interactivity? Check. Games? Check. Oh, wait, I don't think any HD DVD games have been shown - chalk one up for the Blu-ray side!
we're waiting for it to support network connectivity.We're waiting for that on the HD DVD side, too, other than firmware updates, which I've done on my PS3 as well.

An official Q&A is being prepared and should appear shortly on the official BDA site (and will undoubtedly be referenced profusely from other sources). There is a logo program which will support BD-Live upon its release.

- Talk

Well I guess that's a good-news/bad-news situation.

Good: More prominent disclosure that will make it to the segment of the buying public that decides to research these things via the web/print articles.

Bad: Logoing coming out only AFTER people had been unknowingly buying less-capable hardware for the previous 18 months. :(

Nonetheless, I appreciate you following up and letting us know, Talk.

An official ... logo program which will support BD-Live upon its release.

Coming summer of 2008?

Blu-ray supporters don't say interactivity is silly and useless, we just don't consider secondary video support to be the sole defining feature of interactivity.Of course you do not - because you do not have it. If you did you would be trumpeting it from the highest mountain. Man I hate retarded spin.
Many catalog titles don't require more than 25GBI can't for the life of me understand why BD claims the "quality high ground" and "better picture" superiority when I get statements like this from BD spokes "persons".
There's nothing preventing the use of PiP today, though it can be more efficiently supported as secondary video hardware becomes enabled.Only BD players that can play PiP. Show me which currently shipping BD players can play PiP? I beg you...
That's funny, I've seen over a dozen titles with BD-J support running on every player in the marketplace, and I have yet to see an interactivity feature shown on HD DVD for which a similar feature hasn't been seen on a Blu-ray title. PiP? Check. Bookmarks? Check. In-movie interactivity? Check. Games? Check. Oh, wait, I don't think any HD DVD games have been shown - chalk one up for the Blu-ray side!Talk, you remind me of a used car salesman...
We're waiting for that on the HD DVD side, too, other than firmware updates, which I've done on my PS3 as well.Even Talk cannot bring himself to buy an actual BD player...Because they are already obsolete...

Bookmarks? Check.
Which BD titles support bookmarks? Is that feature supported by all of the first gen players (like my Panny?)

I'm not trying to be combative - I've just never read anything about any BD titles supporting that feature and I'd like to take advantage of it.

Blu-ray supporters don't say interactivity is silly and useless, we just don't consider secondary video support to be the sole defining feature of interactivity.


Many say the extras are silly and they just want the movie. I'm sure you're a big fan of Interactivity ... but ... we're still waiting on BD-J to be finished, right? ;)


Are we? This year roughly 50% of discs have been BD-50, and at least two upcoming titles will be 75GB. Many catalog titles don't require more than 25GB, so it certainly appears BD-50 is being used on any title which justifies it.


Okay, BD75 is silly ... it's spin, and marketing ... I could say that a combo disc is HD-DVD-40, but I don't ... because that would be dumb.

Also, if many catalog titles don't require more than 25GB, then where is that advantage of BD50 again? :confused:


There's nothing preventing the use of PiP today, though it can be more efficiently supported as secondary video hardware becomes enabled.


The only way to support it is a whole separate encode. That's not PiP ... plus, many have said you lose menu control when watching the PiP encoded version of the movie.


That's funny, I've seen over a dozen titles with BD-J support running on every player in the marketplace, and I have yet to see an interactivity feature shown on HD DVD for which a similar feature hasn't been seen on a Blu-ray title. PiP? Check. Bookmarks? Check. In-movie interactivity? Check. Games? Check. Oh, wait, I don't think any HD DVD games have been shown - chalk one up for the Blu-ray side!


Then why the articles regarding how the older players don't fully support the revision of BD-J that will be supported in upcoming players?


We're waiting for that on the HD DVD side, too, other than firmware updates, which I've done on my PS3 as well.

The hardware is there for the Studios to want to use it. Unlike on the Blu-Ray side where content providers have indicated they're not terribly excited to have to 87 different versions of hardware out there to build for. I'd imagine they'll build for LCD. *shrug*

Well, the two go hand in hand. The extra storage doesn't come for free. He's saying he doesn't think the extra storage was worth the cost it added, and he's right.2Channel, just because you agree with him doesn't mean he is right. What he has is a personal opinion and there will be game developers who both agree and disagree that the Blu-ray drive was worth the added cost. Also it is only in the short term that I think anyone would be against it since in the long term the additional price will become much smaller. On the other hand how many game developers really thought it was a good idea to make the hard drive optional on the Xbox 360? It will help with Xbox 360 sales from those poor souls who buy an Xbox 360 core system but I have never heard of a good argument for making the hard drive optional in terms of gameplay. Honestly 2Channel there are advantages and disadvantages to all the current game consoles and maybe if you tried to judge the PS3 on its merits instead of finding reasons to dislike it you would see that.


Was it worth relinquishing game dominance if they can win the format war? Of course the format war is still in doubt.I think it is a tad hypocritical to say that the format war is in doubt while also stating that the PS3 has lost the console war.


Sony also issued statements saying multiple SKU's are confusing to the consumer, and that backwards compatibility being 100% was imperative.Care to provide evidence for these claims from an objective website? Just saying that with the amount of exaggeration and rumors that I routinely see when it comes to game consoles it is nice to see proof for such claims. For instance do you know which company stated that their game console was capable of Toy Story graphics?


An official Q&A is being prepared and should appear shortly on the official BDA site (and will undoubtedly be referenced profusely from other sources). There is a logo program which will support BD-Live upon its release.Great to hear and will it include the maximum bitrate for PiP in Blu-ray? So far I only have the maximum bitrates for the two PiP specs in HD DVD (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9533119&&#post9533119).


This year roughly 50% of discs have been BD-50, and at least two upcoming titles will be 75GB.It is good to see Disney put so much effort into the two PoTC Blu-ray movies but to clarify this they are two disc sets with one 50 GB disc and one 25 GB disc.

Ahh, thanks for that. I wonder if the apparently candid discussion the BDA had with Video Business (?) was rather forced as a result of this sort of negative publicity starting to trickle out.I saw no public discussion of the date change until after the Video Business article was published.
Actually, does anybody know if that BDA interview is available to see somewhere? Talk?Sure, the original article is here (http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6427147.html).

Bad: Logoing coming out only AFTER people had been unknowingly buying less-capable hardware for the previous 18 months. :(HD DVD players aren't that bad ;). Kidding aside I would point out that no one, not even HD DVD insiders on this forum, know if any of the current HD DVD players have an Enhanced Video secondary decoder (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9533119&&#post9533119).


Of course you do not - because you do not have it. Mike, have you ever applied this level of skepticism to HD DVD insiders before? For instance haven't you ever wondered why MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC, BD-J, bandwidth over 30 Mbps, capacity over 30 GB, greater studio support, greater CE support, and HD PiP have either been attacked or criticized as "unimportant" by many of the HD DVD insiders?


Talk, you remind me of a used car salesman...Do we really need these type of personal attacks in this thread?


Even Talk cannot bring himself to buy an actual BD player...Because they are already obsolete...Honestly Mike you can think what ever you want about Blu-ray but can you make up your mind about whether or not the PS3 is a Blu-ray player? I have seen you in the past refer to it as one but it looks like you are currently saying that it isn't.

Blu-ray supporters don't say interactivity is silly and useless, we just don't consider secondary video support to be the sole defining feature of interactivity.
Are we? This year roughly 50% of discs have been BD-50, and at least two upcoming titles will be 75GB. Many catalog titles don't require more than 25GB, so it certainly appears BD-50 is being used on any title which justifies it.
There's nothing preventing the use of PiP today, though it can be more efficiently supported as secondary video hardware becomes enabled.
That's funny, I've seen over a dozen titles with BD-J support running on every player in the marketplace, and I have yet to see an interactivity feature shown on HD DVD for which a similar feature hasn't been seen on a Blu-ray title. PiP? Check. Bookmarks? Check. In-movie interactivity? Check. Games? Check. Oh, wait, I don't think any HD DVD games have been shown - chalk one up for the Blu-ray side!
We're waiting for that on the HD DVD side, too, other than firmware updates, which I've done on my PS3 as well.

I track my stats based on the highdefdigest reviews. It's relatively up to date as they have 200+ BD reviews posted. My stats show 15 of the last 40 titles (37.5%) were BD-50 and 8 of the last 20 titles (40%) were BD-50. If I look at the last ten titles it's only 20% BD-50, but that's too small of a sample to be fair to the trend. The total percentage is 27.8% BD-50. I suppose that means that 70+% of titles don't need anything bigger than BD-25.

But now BD-75, that's a whole different story. Will the G1 players, like the entry level Samasung BD-P1000, be compatible with these titles? Can you give us a hint as to when we should see the first BD-75 hit the street? I'm also curious if you're still optimistic about the first BD-Live player shipping this year.

Okay, BD75 is silly ... it's spin, and marketingI didn't say BD-75, I said 75GB. At least two titles will be released wiht bundled BD-50 + BD-25 discs. So while you're claiming that BD-50 is rarely used, I'm proving that even 50GB isn't enough for some titles.
I could say that a combo disc is HD-DVD-40, but I don't ... because that would be dumb.And you'd be comparing apples and oranges. A combo disc is the same content in two different formats. The two titles I'm referring to will have 75GB or unique content.
Also, if many catalog titles don't require more than 25GB, then where is that advantage of BD50 again?Do you understand the definition of catalog title? New releases are often worth providing extra content for. Old (catalog) releases often aren't, so 25GB is enough.
The only way to support it is a whole separate encode. That's not PiP .PiP is Picture in picture. Does the Descent put a picture in another picture? Yes. Would the average consumer have the faintest idea whether it's achieved via secondary video hardware or a second encode? No, nor would they care.
plus, many have said you lose menu control when watching the PiP encoded version of the movie.If so, that's due to the author's choice, not a limitation of the feature. if it's a separate encode it just acts like any other part of the movie, so why should you not be able to bring up a menu over the PiP-encoded segment when you can over the standard segment if this wasn't a design choice?
Then why the articles regarding how the older players don't fully support the revision of BD-J that will be supported in upcoming players?Because there are a lot of poorly-informed bloggers who are referencing other poorly-informed articles.
Unlike on the Blu-Ray side where content providers have indicated they're not terribly excited to have to 87 different versions of hardware out there to build for.Oh, so you're saying you like having only Toshiba to choose from when you buy a player?

I didn't say BD-75, I said 75GB. At least two titles will be released wiht bundled BD-50 + BD-25 discs. So while you're claiming that BD-50 is rarely used, I'm proving that even 50GB isn't enough for some titles.
Nice load it up with that hog called PCM.

Talk answered my question in another thread. I thought it might be helpful to post the response here for those who missed it.
Which BD titles support bookmarks? Is that feature supported by all of the first gen players (like my Panny?)

I'm not trying to be combative - I've just never read anything about any BD titles supporting that feature and I'd like to take advantage of it.
Behind Enemy Lines, Speed, and League of Extraordinary Gentleman all support up to 99 bookmarks each on all Blu-ray Disc players. There may be other titles as well...

Thanks Talk.

Nice load it up with that hog called PCM.

Pretty Please! :D

2Channel, just because you agree with him doesn't mean he is right. What he has is a personal opinion and there will be game developers who both agree and disagree that the Blu-ray drive was worth the added cost. Also it is only in the short term that I think anyone would be against it since in the long term the additional price will become much smaller. On the other hand how many game developers really thought it was a good idea to make the hard drive optional on the Xbox 360? It will help with Xbox 360 sales from those poor souls who buy an Xbox 360 core system but I have never heard of a good argument for making the hard drive optional in terms of gameplay. Honestly 2Channel there are advantages and disadvantages to all the current game consoles and maybe if you tried to judge the PS3 on its merits instead of finding reasons to dislike it you would see that.

I think it is a tad hypocritical to say that the format war is in doubt while also stating that the PS3 has lost the console war.

snip.................


Well, he's not just any game developer he's David Jaffe, Creative Director for Sony Santa Monica Studio and creator of God of War. For someone in his position to publicly speak out against the corporate message, says to me that his feelings are pretty strong on the subject of the BD drive and system price.

I agree with you that the price of the Blu-ray drive is a bigger issue in the short term, as component prices will drop in the long term. Unfortunately for Sony, the console war will be decided in the short term. By the time component prices have significantly dropped, this generation of console winners and loosers will be long decided.

Unfortunately VGcharts no longer shows the NA console comparisons but between Wii and PS3 it's a similar story the world over. The Wii is outselling the PS3 by greater than 2:1. Here is the Japan chart.

http://vgchartz.com/japconscomps.php?name1=PS3&name2=Wii&type=2&align=1

In fact the Wii launch looks closer to the PS2 launch than any of the other consoles.

http://vgchartz.com/japconscomps.php?name1=PS2&name2=Wii&type=2&align=0

I understand that everyone doesn't agree with me, but I believe (based on previous generations of console competitions) that this one is already settled. If you look at the current data, it seems pretty clear.

prices
Wii - $249
Xbox360 - $299 to $479
PS3 - $599

sales ratios since 11/2006
Wii - 2
Xbox360 - 1.5
PS3 - 1

aprox. installed base
Wii - 6M
Xbox360 - 10M
PS3 - 3M

Samusng goes neutral

Samsung says Duo HD BD-UP5000 dual-format Blu-ray/HD-DVD combo player on the way
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/04/12/samsung-bd-up5000-dual-format-blu-ray-hd-dvd-combo-player-on-the/

So here's my question folks. Who will be the third BD CE to go format neutral?

Sony: Jaffe Has Earned the Right to Say What He Wants
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=15781

"David Jaffe is an industry pioneer who has earned the right to speak his mind on anything he wants when it comes to videogames," Dave Karraker Sr. Director, Corporate Communications at Sony Computer Entertainment America told GameDaily BIZ. "While we respect his opinion, we feel strongly that the future of gaming lies in the ability to deliver more to the consumer -- more gameplay options, more lifelike graphics, more dynamic sound -- all in high definition. To do that, you need a storage vehicle such as the 50 GB Blu-ray disc, because your standard 9 GB DVD simply can't handle the demands of true next-generation gaming."

Nice load it up with that hog called PCM.Personally speaking I think that a lossless audio codec make more sense than PCM for Blu-ray movies. As for PCM being a space hog it is true that it uses more capacity than Dolby TrueHD but if we go with the Dolby estimate of a 50% bitrate reduction on average than that means for a 5.1 channel 16/48 soundtrack it would be the difference of an average bit rate of 4.6 Mbps (PCM) and 2.3 Mbps (Dolby TrueHD). A 2.3 Mbps additional bitrate even on a 2.5 hour long movie would add up to about 2.6 GB.


Well, he's not just any game developer he's David Jaffe, Creative Director for Sony Santa Monica Studio and creator of God of War. For someone in his position to publicly speak out against the corporate message, says to me that his feelings are pretty strong on the subject of the BD drive and system price.Okay, but once again this is a personal opinion and doesn't make it right or wrong simply because he is a well known game developer. No offense but I see this happen a lot on forums when people try to "prove" that there personal opinion is right by pointing out that someone famous agrees with them. At the same time they often ignore the fact that other famous people also disagree with them as well. Just saying that people can often be selective about which famous people they consider "objective" based on whether that person shares the same personal opinion.


I agree with you that the price of the Blu-ray drive is a bigger issue in the short term, as component prices will drop in the long term. Unfortunately for Sony, the console war will be decided in the short term.Obviously I would disagree with that and only time will tell which one of us is right about the PS3.


I understand that everyone doesn't agree with me, but I believe (based on previous generations of console competitions) that this one is already settled.If you really believe the console war has already been decided you really should be less confrontational with the people who believe the HD format war has already been decided. After all both are personal opinions.

Okay, but once again this is a personal opinion and doesn't make it right or wrong simply because he is a well known game developer. No offense but I see this happen a lot on forums when people try to "prove" that there personal opinion is right by pointing out that someone famous agrees with them. At the same time they often ignore the fact that other famous people also disagree with them as well. Just saying that people can often be selective about which famous people they consider "objective" based on whether that person shares the same personal opinion.

Agreed. The final result will prove his opinion right or wrong.

Obviously I would disagree with that and only time will tell which one of us is right about the PS3.

Agreed.

If you really believe the console war has already been decided you really should be less confrontational with the people who believe the HD format war has already been decided. After all both are personal opinions.

Have I been conforntational with someone who has said the format war is over? The only post I can recall that intimated that was B2B when he showed up here a few weeks ago, and I didn't comment on it.

My personal opinion (and I've been consistent on this for months) is that Sony has lost the console war, but their trojan horse strategy could still win them the format war. I think the jury is still out on the format war, but hey that's my opinion, others may consider it over. Of course that doesn't really explain the Samsung universal player announcement.

Samusng goes neutral

Samsung says Duo HD BD-UP5000 dual-format Blu-ray/HD-DVD combo player on the way
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/04/12/samsung-bd-up5000-dual-format-blu-ray-hd-dvd-combo-player-on-the/

So here's my question folks. Who will be the third BD CE to go format neutral?
i don't know, who's gonna be the 2nd?

i don't know, who's gonna be the 2nd?

LG was the first

nope, lg were format neutral all along, and displayed hd dvd and bd players at the previous year's ces.

Issac spinning the probablility of dual format players...
i don't know, who's gonna be the 2nd?
As far as I can remember only the Samsung combo had anything even remotely approaching official about it. The LG rumour was over a supposed internal memo, and this one is a journalist talking to some bod at a convention. There's an old truism about not believing everything you read in the press...
No, the source was a journalist's interpretation of what he'd been told.
Talk is cheap, and dates are easily made up, as we've seen from this article.
BTW there have been 2 internet rumours which have turned out to be false, and one official indication of a dual format player (from Samsung) which has been retracted.
That's some fine whine you've got there. I, I, I, I, I.... You're not at all self-regarding or inwardlooking are you. Guess what, I don't care what you think you're saying or doing, or how you decide to re-interpret words to your own level of paranoia. You're just more noise taking up valuble signal space, on this already bogged down forum.
Give it a rest. Your arguments are tired, and ill directed. Re-read my post and try to figure out where I called you a troll. I certainly can't. Though your behaviour right here is slipping in that direction...
Please feel free to throw this line at me when I start trolling the HD DVD forums. Until then it looks like a few posters need to check their sarcasm detectors - they seem to be on the fritz.And last, but not least:
Someone should link to the LG universal player thread that some HD DVD fans were convinced was going to happen.

Oops..So, LG huh... And their dual layer player. Not gonna happen. Was that what this thread was once about...?

PiP is Picture in picture. Does the Descent put a picture in another picture? Yes. Would the average consumer have the faintest idea whether it's achieved via secondary video hardware or a second encode? No, nor would they care.


Talk, can you stop this here?

Seriously... I'm with ya on understanding why you referred to 75GB of combined BR discs (rather than saying BD-75), and I'm so far convinced you are right about the BD-J versioning stuff mostly confusion over the Oct. deadline and hardware features. But please... this is disingenuous.

Maybe J6P doesn't care, but many here do. If you want to tout THAT well implemented feature, then call it accurately what it is: seamless branching.

To state that any method to get a smaller picture inside a larger one regardless of delivery method doesn't fly. Just because the news has a talking head with a picture of the news story over his shoulder does not mean I have PiP. Nor does a post-it note stuck on my tee vee count.

Furthermore, I suggest that Sony and the BDA (and CE vendors in general) DO believe that the average consumer cares about feature delivery, even if it's nothing more than marketing. Otherwise a good portion of the logos and checklist items wouldn't be on lots of equipment.

On edit, I just finished reading that Video Business article you linked. Here is how the current situation is viewed, both by the folks who talked directly to Andy Parsons and Philips, a BDA member:

To this point, studios have not released a true picture-in-picture Blu-ray product, according to manufacturing and studio sources. Lionsgate worked around the issue for The Descent, by creatively placing two versions of the film on a large capacity Blu-ray 50GB disc to give the appearance of picture-in-picture technology.

“As is common in new format introductions, future products will include some additional features such as picture-in-picture,” said Marty Gordon, Philips VP. (emphasis mine)

I saw no public discussion of the date change until after the Video Business article was published.
Sure, the original article is here (http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6427147.html).

Man. I'm not sure how "candid" I'd say that article was. Ether Andy really wanted to avoid saying "current decks don't have PiP decoders", or VB managed to get all the other hardware info right (persistent memory specs for Video 1.1 vs. Live), and somehow completely missed the specific lack of PiP hardware. The best that got through in the interview was:

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

Doubts?

Also, I see where a lot of the confusion regarding lack of some features being BD-J issues is coming from. That interview is highly suggestive that indeed that is the case.

PiP is Picture in picture. Does the Descent put a picture in another picture? Yes. Would the average consumer have the faintest idea whether it's achieved via secondary video hardware or a second encode? No, nor would they care.
They might care if they're given an opportunity to use HD DVD's version of PiP. Big difference, and you know it. You can spin things six ways to Sunday and it won't change the facts. The Descent and Crank use seamless branching to achieve a faux-PiP. The difference? You can't turn it on and off without restarting the movie. You also can't use your menu functions, because for some reason the faux-PiP feature disables all of the controls (besides next chapter, pause, etc.) With real PiP, you can be watching the movie in normal mode, see a scene that you're interested in learning more about, and pop on the PiP - all seamlessly, without having to restart the movie or remember where you were. Once the scene's over, the PiP can be easily deactivated, again without having to start the movie over or jump through hoops. I know you understand the differences and I know it's your job to downplay them (at least until there's hardware and software that supports the more advanced technology.)

Plus, let's not forget that eventually studios will begin taking advantage of secondary video streams (guess they feel that two encodes using seamless branching is a pretty poor substitute for the real thing, too.) Once that happens, those "average consumers" you were talking about will all of a sudden lose a feature (crippled, though it may have been) that they had on older titles. Will they care about having secondary video stream support then? Absolutely. The potential backlash could be pretty rough.

nope, lg were format neutral all along, and displayed hd dvd and bd players at the previous year's ces.

Holy Moly! LG was an HD-DVD manufacturer all this time and I never realized it? Everyone's been telling me that it's just Toshiba making HD-DVD.

Actually, now that I think about it, Samsung has been neutral all this time too. They have that laptop with an HD-DVD player.

My first generation Sony DVP-S7000 DVD player has never had any problem playing value-added content. It doesn't output progressive or up-convert, and it's missing some convenience features which were incorporated in later models, but it can play back everything on the disc. It's hardly unreasonable for consumers to expect the same fundamental level of compatibility from these new formats, and when they discover it's not the case with BD, I seriously doubt they'll blithely accept the feeble rationale/spin that: "I only care about the movie" we've been reading ever more frequently on these threads.

I find very interesting the discussion around 75Gb disc content... because right now the issue seems to me to be political more than anything else.

The Blu-ray basic disc is 25Gb which by itself negates the size superiority that by itself drives so many people towards the format. This means that the BD50 is more important today (when the marketing war is hot) than it will ever be. It may never become the norm and its use may be sporadic... but today, it makes all the sense to release as many discs as they can in BD50 and cash in the old "size matters" motto.

Now, to me, 25Gb (when compared to 30Gb) seem a much bigger problem than 30Gb compared to the 50Gb disc. Why? Because the smaller the disc, the more valuable each Gb gets. Those 5Gb of difference may simply push a title to a 50Gb disc. And a 28Gb content may be an awkward confirmation that 30Gb is, in fact a near perfect number.

Unfortunately, the 30Gb disc is still the measure all titles are put against. If it is enough for HD DVD, that may not be the case with BD. So, a 28Gb of basic content, is enough to drive a title towards the more expensive 50Gb. There's just no other choice.

But then there will be voices saying "30 is enough, while 25 isn't". So, the thing that the BD camp must avoid at all costs is that limbo that separates 25 from 30 showing BD's inferiority. In that case anyone with a brain will try to produce as much content as possible to surpass the 30Gb mark to... say... 42Gb, a position where it is very comfortable to say "see! 30Gb isn't enough. BD50 is the way. BD is superior. Size does matter". PCM audio and Mpeg2 are two ways of doing it. (even if they do can look great). There may be others.

Then there is the value of two disc editions. We all know those versions represent an added value many consumers see (even when the value is really not that great or isn't there at all).

In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if those 75Gb versions were made up from one BD50 disc with all the things needed for it to be a BD50 disc (perhaps 38 or 40Gb of content - that HD DVD would fit in a 30Gb disc) plus a 25Gb disc with little more than 10Gb of content - the size here may be irrelevant because the value of the second disc in itself precedes any content it may have. Maybe the BD second disc could fit easily in a HD DVD single layer (15Gb). In that case, HD DVD two disc editions may be even cheaper than expected: 30+15 or 30+30 against 50+25.

30+15 if the second disc is just for "added value" effect.
30+30 if you really want to take advantage of a second disc.
50+25 if you waste space on the first disc and the 25Gb second disc is you "entry" size (even if the content isn't considerable).

If I were to be really mean, I would say that even with a 200Gb disc, we would still be seeing 2-disc editions. :D

Therefore, I'd say:
1) 100+ titles later, BD still cannot prove 30Gb discs are not enough and their 50Gb discs are superior. They may have more space... but given HD DVD's records, after the 30Gb mark, size is debatable due to current AV codecs and the even better use future will make of them.
2) It is always easier to extend and waste than it is to save. Therefore, HD DVD may pay us bigger dividends on the efficiency field. Some people say that, in that area (efficiency) the DVD came a long way since 1997. Ten years from today, probably HD DVD will even more efficient on 30Gb discs - that is why I make no fuss about TL51. It may be great... but I feel 99% of all discs will come in 30 and that will be enough.
3) I do not know why 30Gb may not be enough even in the future. Are we planning to go beyond 1080p? If not, it would be surprising is the future use codecs like VC1 or TrueHD actually come to take more space than they do today - specially if technological evolution usually allows us do do increasingly more with increasingly less.
4) The truth is that for the BD camp 30Gb is not enough just because 25 is an awkward position to be.

But this all seems that the whole thing is political.

My first generation Sony DVP-S7000 DVD player has never had any problem playing value-added content. It doesn't output progressive or up-convert, and it's missing some convenience features which were incorporated in later models, but it can play back everything on the disc. It's hardly unreasonable for consumers to expect the same fundamental level of compatibility from these new formats, and when they discover it's not the case with BD, I seriously doubt they'll blithely accept the feeble rationale/spin that: "I only care about the movie" we've been reading ever more frequently on these threads.
Especially if it's inconsistent - it works on these discs here, but on these discs, the option doesn't even show up in the menu (or it's greyed out.) IMO, it would have been better to leave the fake stuff off of Crank and the others and instead waited for the hardware to support real PiP. This will cause tons of confusion, especially if the CE manufacturers decide to exploit the loophole that allows them to continue releasing their first gen players after the cutoff date, even though they won't support the profile 1.1 features. And why not? They could keep selling them at lower prices in an effort to combat the cheaper HD DVD players. Gotta love that loophole...

It sounds like they're not going to bother differentiating anything with logos until we start seeing BD-Live stuff, so I have no idea how the consumer's supposed to know if the included PiP on the disc is supported by all players (aka faux PiP) or if it's only supported by 1.1 compliant players (aka secondary video stream.)

Especially if it's inconsistent - it works on these discs here, but on these discs, the option doesn't even show up in the menu (or it's greyed out.) IMO, it would have been better to leave the fake stuff off of Crank and the others and instead waited for the hardware to support real PiP. This will cause tons of confusion, especially if the CE manufacturers decide to exploit the loophole that allows them to continue releasing their first gen players after the cutoff date, even though they won't support the profile 1.1 features. And why not? They could keep selling them at lower prices in an effort to combat the cheaper HD DVD players. Gotta love that loophole...

Yeah, I love the bit about not having menus pop up if the player is incompatible with software on disc, as if people won't notice the prominent marketing blurbs on the back of the case expounding the wonders of all those nifty interactive features that give every appearance of not even being there. Next, we'll be hearing that disclaimers printed in an extra large font will avoid confusion, and avert consumer anger. :rolleyes:

Holy Moly! LG was an HD-DVD manufacturer all this time and I never realized it? Everyone's been telling me that it's just Toshiba making HD-DVD.
are you trying to claim lg was a bd manufacturer all this time, and just failed to release a player?! ludicrous. they displayed bd and hd dvd players at the ces before last (over a year ago) and released press releases trumpeting the launch of both players. neither saw the light of day. good luck with your revisionism...

incidentally there were other companies who showed hd dvd players at that exhibition, notably sharp, though they too have failed to launch. wonder why...

I find very interesting the discussion around 75Gb disc content... because right now the issue seems to me to be political more than anything else.

The Blu-ray basic disc is 25Gb which by itself negates the size superiority that by itself drives so many people towards the format. This means that the BD50 is more important today (when the marketing war is hot) than it will ever be. It may never become the norm and its use may be sporadic... but today, it makes all the sense to release as many discs as they can in BD50 and cash in the old "size matters" motto.
snip............


I agree completely. What I found eye opening recently, is that despite many people believeing that the future will contain nothing but 50GB discs, Talk came out and said that BD-25 is perfectly fine for many titles. In other words, we should expect to continue to see BD-25 on many titles (based on track record....perhaps the majority of titles).

Now the flip side to the argument is that BD has the option to go to 50GB on titles that need it. Which brings us to one of your later points. Despite being 200+ discs in, we haven't seen BD produce better PQ. In fact going by the highdefdigest numbers, the overall PQ average continues to be slightly better for HD-DVD than BD.

Likely this is because of diminishing returns for the larger discs, coupled with the political handicap of using mpeg2 which has a higher rate of stinkers than the two newer codecs.

if you predict enough things often enough you'll eventually be right, and then conveniently forget all the times you were wrong, as is the case with this lg dual player. did lg launch at the end of last year as many of the more "intense" hd dvd fans were guessing? no, they didn't. did samsung issue a denial of the dual player rumour? yep. cutting responses out of context and they attempting to string them into a pretty picture is so you. trying to rewrite history, with a stalker's verve, has only lowered you in my estimation. truly do i envy your life, stalker boy!
I don't know - maybe you should fill us in on the context of those quotes, then. As it stands, he's shown multiple instances of you discounting the idea of LG ever releasing a dual-format player (even going as far as to say, "So, LG huh... And their dual layer player. Not gonna happen.") Then in this thread, in order to minimize the perceived impact of a second company releasing dual-format players, you claim that LG has been neutral all along. If you truly believed LG was neutral from day one, why would you be so adamant that they would never release a dual-format player?

I don't know - maybe you should fill us in on the context of those quotes, then. As it stands, he's shown multiple instances of you discounting the idea of LG ever releasing a dual-format player (even going as far as to say, "So, LG huh... And their dual layer player. Not gonna happen.") Then in this thread, in order to minimize the perceived impact of a second company releasing dual-format players, you claim that LG has been neutral all along. If you truly believed LG was neutral from day one, why would you be so adamant that they would never release a dual-format player?
are you denying that lg was neutral for at least a year and a half now, with both bd and hd dvd players scheduled for release? or is this revisionist history starting to rub off on you? as to going back and looking at the context of each and every quote the stalker has chosen to include and explain the relevance as it stood to whatever discussion was taking place at the time: you must be joking! some people may enjoy trawling the archives for this kind of twaddle, but others have lives to attend to. the only recollection i have of the past dual format debates (other than nat wondering if sony was somehow blocking their release!) is of hd dvd supporters jumping on the flimsiest of evidence to enable their belief that a player was just about to be released. at the time this was palpably not the case, and didn't happen. that it later has, doesn't validate their previous claim.

I agree completely. What I found eye opening recently, is that despite many people believeing that the future will contain nothing but 50GB discs, Talk came out and said that BD-25 is perfectly fine for many titles. In other words, we should expect to continue to see BD-25 on many titles (based on track record....perhaps the majority of titles).

Now the flip side to the argument is that BD has the option to go to 50GB on titles that need it. Which brings us to one of your later points. Despite being 200+ discs in, we haven't seen BD produce better PQ. In fact going by the highdefdigest numbers, the overall PQ average continues to be slightly better for HD-DVD than BD.

Likely this is because of diminishing returns for the larger discs, coupled with the political handicap of using mpeg2 which has a higher rate of stinkers than the two newer codecs.

Whatever disc becomes the norm, will get so cheap that it will make all other possibilities useless. If BD50 does not become the norm, it will never be used because it will never be as competitive as BD25. It will become as rare as the rarest forms of DVD.

That means that any company will think twice before going BD50 - specially if you think doing 25+25 will not only be cheaper than BD50 but will ALSO grant them the "double disc special edition" class. And even if you decide not to use 2 discs, it will make much more sense (financially) to squeeze it a little more into 25Gb than to let it loose on a 50Gb disc just because you needed 28Gb. Nobody will ever know about it.

So it is all or nothing right now. People are thinking that BD50 will be the norm because that's the idea that's been cooked. They use the idea to hurt HD DVD... but after winning... BD will face an industry where 99% of the titles simply do not need 50Gb discs. Because they are just catalog titles, old films, films around 90 minutes and films to which there is not many extras needed.

Sony, Disney and Fox alone cannot make norm out of a disc that 99% of the industry does not need. Because the movies that can be released as double discs WILL STILL be released that way (nobody will sacrifice the "double disc special edition"). Plus... all the other discs that never received a "special edition" of any sort, probably never will...

So, the 50Gb disc is nice, but as it has been many times pointed out, they belong in an artificial reality.

are you denying that lg was neutral for at least a year and a half now, with both bd and hd dvd players scheduled for release? or is this revisionist history starting to rub off on you? as to going back and looking at the context of each and every quote the stalker has chosen to include and explain the relevance as it stood to whatever discussion was taking place at the time: you must be joking! some people may enjoy trawling the archives for this kind of twaddle, but others have lives to attend to. the only recollection i have of the past dual format debates (other than nat wondering if sony was somehow blocking their release!) is of hd dvd supporters jumping on the flimsiest of evidence to enable their belief that a player was just about to be released. at the time this was palpably not the case, and didn't happen. that it later has, doesn't validate their previous claim.
I never denied that LG was neutral for any amount of time. What I asked, quite clearly, was that if you truly believed that LG has been neutral since day one, why were you so adamant that a dual-format player would never be released? I also asked you to fill us in on the context of some of those quotes, since you specifically said they were out of context (implying that if they were put into context, the quotes might reflect different intentions.) You've refused (and haven't claimed that the quotes were fabricated,) so we have no choice but to take the quotes provided at face value.

Again, if you truly believed LG was neutral from day one, why would you be so adamant that they would never release a dual-format player?

if you predict enough things often enough you'll eventually be right You should know that very well Isaac. If you were to say that Samsung WILL NOT release a dual format player at this point, I would believe you. If, of course I was a BD Fanboy. Which there are many here.

are you trying to claim lg was a bd manufacturer all this time, and just failed to release a player?! ludicrous. they displayed bd and hd dvd players at the ces before last (over a year ago) and released press releases trumpeting the launch of both players. neither saw the light of day. good luck with your revisionism...

incidentally there were other companies who showed hd dvd players at that exhibition, notably sharp, though they too have failed to launch. wonder why...

Let me be clear in what I'm saying.

The message has been deliverd over and over on this thread (and others), that Toshiba is the only CE supporting HD-DVD. I have seen numerous posts state that all of the other major Japanese and Korean CEs are supporting BD. Any mention of any other CE (besides Toshiba) shipping a player that can handle HD-DVD has been met with strong skepticism. Any mention of CEs wavering in their unilateral support of BD has been similarly met with strong skepticism.

Perhaps I need to review this whole idea that everyone is in lock step behind BD. The news of Sharp not counting as a true Blu supporter surprises me, so I'd like to make sure I understand who really counts. Can you tell us who you consider to be a BD CE?

Issac spinning the probablility of dual format players...Taking his opinion on this issue a bit personally aren't you? Also just to point this out but you should always include a link to old posts you quote from since it is very easy to take someone's comments out of context.


I don't know - maybe you should fill us in on the context of those quotes, then.No offense but that is something Mike should do since you are basically asking Isaac to find quotes that might have been taken from posts made months ago. In my experience those who take quotes from old posts and don't provide links to them often do so because they were taken out of context.

Issac spinning the probablility of dual format players...







And last, but not least:

Wow, I'm generally NOT a fan of this sort of stuff . . . but that was funny!

No offense intended to anyone, I'm not claiming anyone is wrong or right, but just the shear effort (and result) of looking up and quoting all of those has me chuckling right now. There seems to be a pervasive idea that when one posts on the internet that it's a "conversation" and like real conversations, once things have been said, unless their is a tape recorder or court reporter present, they can later be denied. Unfortunately (again, right, wrong, correct, or mis-quoted) Forums such as this preserve for all posterity, our opinions for others to view after the fact. One would think that such "trace-ability" of commentary would encourage people to be even-handed and somewhat cautious in their posts (as in "I believe" versus "I know"), but that doesn't seem to be the case . . . .

Anyway, continue . . . (I may stop watching TV alltogether).

No offense but that is something Mike should do since you are basically asking Isaac to find quotes that might have been taken from posts made months ago. In my experience those who take quotes from old posts and don't provide links to them often do so because they were taken out of context.
Point taken. And I agree - a link definitely should have been included with the quotes.

So, the 50Gb disc is nice, but as it has been many times pointed out, they belong in an artificial reality.

Is that like "science fiction?" :rolleyes:

There must be endless supplies of turfers.

Is that like "science fiction?" :rolleyes:

There must be endless supplies of turfers.

No, they're not science fiction (if that's what you think I'm implying).
They do exist alright. But they have no place in real world industry. They are an anachronism. And their whole existence is artificially supported by less than 1% of a huge industry.

That is all.

Is that like "science fiction?" :rolleyes:

There must be endless supplies of turfers.

Speculation that once the chips fall, we might not end up seeing many BD50s. Not as in they are hard to make so we'll never see them., just that they might not make sense economically in the long run.

I don't necessarily agree, but I think it's interesting speculation just the same wrt the size you *really* need at the end of the day to deliver a movie in high quality.

Speculation that once the chips fall, we might not end up seeing many BD50s. Not as in they are hard to make so we'll never see them., just that they might not make sense economically in the long run.

I don't necessarily agree, but I think it's interesting speculation just the same wrt the size you *really* need at the end of the day to deliver a movie in high quality.

Well... since no one ever found a crystal ball that actually worked, speculation is one of the key elements that keep us going... anywhere...

To me, what I said makes all the sense. Nevertheless, I'd love to read what others think if they disagree with me. I may well be wrong.

Samsung to release a HD DVD/BD player...no longer BD exclusive. ;)

http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/PressRelease.asp?seq=20070413_0000338109

Originialy posted by Richard Paul on the News thread

BD-Plus technology timetable accelerated
Sony predicts Blu-ray enhanced disc to be ready by year-end
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6433561.html


“Sony has been focusing more on BD+ than before the attacks occurred,” said Don Eklund, executive VP of advanced technology for SPHE. “Still, work needs to be done in terms of verifying the BD+ discs on all of the players and in sorting out the production process when authoring the titles.”

Eklund estimates that adding the BD+ layer can add as much as a week to a month of extra production time to a Blu-ray title.

:eek:

Why is it that a consumer should be ok with buying products that have BD+? Oh yeah, because...........

Sony, among other studios, believes BD+ allows them to produce secure, yet consumer-friendly product, because only the hacker is punished for comprising copy-protection.

Watch out for the friendly fire. :rolleyes:

Whatever disc becomes the norm, will get so cheap that it will make all other possibilities useless.In my opinion that doesn't make a bit of sense. For instance almost all DVD movies are now dual layer but there are still a good percentage of them that are single layer and they are still cheaper to make. To suggest that we can only have single layer or dual layer discs in my opinion ignores the past few years of DVD history.


If BD50 does not become the norm, it will never be used because it will never be as competitive as BD25.I would point out that dual layer DVDs are still more expensive than single layer DVDs but that the price difference became so small that most movies are now made with dual layer DVDs.


And even if you decide not to use 2 discs, it will make much more sense (financially) to squeeze it a little more into 25Gb than to let it loose on a 50Gb disc just because you needed 28Gb. Nobody will ever know about it.Have you ever wondered if studios had to do a bit of "squeezing" with 30 GB HD DVDs? It is somewhat funny how some posters make up scenarios for movies between 26 and 30 GBs without even thinking about scenarios that go beyond 30 GB.


So it is all or nothing right now. People are thinking that BD50 will be the norm because that's the idea that's been cooked. They use the idea to hurt HD DVD...In the absolute sense any thing that is promoted as useful that is unique to one HD format will "hurt" the other HD format but that is taking a very sensitive position. In my opinion that just isn't a very healthy way to view the format war.

Watch out for the friendly fire. :rolleyes:
And the rootkits... :D

Speculation that once the chips fall, we might not end up seeing many BD50s. Not as in they are hard to make so we'll never see them., just that they might not make sense economically in the long run.

I don't necessarily agree, but I think it's interesting speculation just the same wrt the size you *really* need at the end of the day to deliver a movie in high quality.

Right. We know that BD 25 with MPEG2 is just fine for a good AV encode (hello Tears of the Sun and MI3), just like we know that VC1 can't help you polish a turd (hello Full Metal Jacket, Army of Darkness, Excalibur, Spartacus). The available master, the skill of the compressionists, and the studio doctrine on the issue is what matters, as does QC. I've never seen anything other than format partisanship to doubt that BD50 is increasing in deployment or viability. We certainly don't have evidence to doubt SPHE's commitment to put out 80% of their releases to BD50, either...

In my opinion that doesn't make a bit of sense. For instance almost all DVD movies are now dual layer but there are still a good percentage of them that are single layer and they are still cheaper to make. To suggest that we can only have single layer or dual layer discs in my opinion ignores the past few years of DVD history.

That is a matter of perception and interpretation as far as I can see. In the end, the double layer DVD did became the norm. NOT single layer.

That's my whole point (and you did not see it).

Just in the same way, HD DVD DL30 is positioned to do the same (good news for SL15). When you establish a certain norm, anything under it is just fine. The opposite, however, is not true.

I never said that BD50's adoption as the norm would erase BD25. I said the opposite: BD25 can become so cheap that there may be not enough investment in order to make BD50 truly viable. Note that the same could be said with HDDVD30. If it becomes the norm, we'll probably never see TL45 or TL51 everywhere except for burning (and we know that's a whole different type of disc). That, however, has no impact on SL15.

It's not the disc availability that makes anything happen alone. There must be enough and steady demand.


I would point out that dual layer DVDs are still more expensive than single layer DVDs but that the price difference became so small that most movies are now made with dual layer DVDs.


That's exactly what I said. If you can do DL cheap enough, you can do SL even cheaper. Why would I not agree with you? It is always easier to lower the bar (producing SL) when DL is widespread. But do you honestly think that if BD25 catches on, it will have the same necessary positive impact on BD50?

That is not what happened with DVD. The change from VHS to DVD introduced significant changes in film consumption patterns that made DVD DL a norm virtually overnight. I am not saying you are wrong. I just think that your example is does not apply here.

Because what you say is not what happens with BD because of three reasons:
1) the change from DVD to HD formats does not introduce radical changes of the same order in film consumption as we saw on VHS to DVD.
2) It is obvious that Sony is trying to force the same phenomenon (DL so cheap even SL content goes into DL discs)... but DVDs (DL or SL) do not relate themselves with the whole AV produced universe the same way BD (DL and SL) does.
3) HD DVD 30 has been quite enough (and THAT IS ALREADY double layer). BD, on the contrary, could be single layer and still be enough... but, as I said, it is an awkward position. Why? Because Warner (for example), when decides to release the same disc in two formats, sets the bar at 30Gb for both formats. NOT 25.

They could do that. But they don't. As far as 50Gb are being handled by Sony at discount price for big studios whose titles go with a bang, why not burn 29Gb in a 50Gb disc?

But that's not reality... because Sony will not keep handing BD50 to everybody. Only to those whose marketing muscle counts right now: the big studios. Why do you think European distributors (whose movies - European ones - do not go with the same bang) are not so impressed with Blu? Price.


Have you ever wondered if studios had to do a bit of "squeezing" with 30 GB HD DVDs? It is somewhat funny how some posters make up scenarios for movies between 26 and 30 GBs without even thinking about scenarios that go beyond 30 GB.


Tell me... did you ever see anything that actually got bigger after getting compressed? :D :D :D
Ok... now serious:
I wouldn't like the 30Gb disc if it could not produce the stunning picture and sound it does.

I'm not affirming that 30Gb the best. That was not what I said. What I said was: given the choices (SL15, SL25, DL30 and DL50) and considering the universe of content, DL30 is the better choice. And the safest choice if think (like I do) that there is a chance that we might get stuck with SL25.

Oh, sour irony!!

It is obvious that by compression we mean squeezing. Everything is squeezed towards something - a size we want it to have. That goes without saying.

Now correct me if I'm wrong... many posts here were already written where people used to show the space taken on discs. It varies a lot from 90' movies with no extras to a big movies like King Kong or Reign of Fire with everything but the kitchen sink. In many cases, the space taken hardly surpasses 20Gb. Is some cases it barely surpasses 25Gb (I guess Superman Returns is one of those cases). In a few BD titles it surpasses 30Gb (with PCM sound added, obviously).

Now...
Are movies like King Kong, Reign of Fire and Superman Returns the norm for... say... 95% of all the movies waiting to be released in HD formats? And I'm talking about the whole AV output we have today on DVD.

"Hardly" is the answer. Because 95-99% of everything would probably fit nicely even on BD25, let alone HDDVD30!!!!
And I'm sure that you do not want to convince me that standards are made thinking about Gone with the Wind, right? These films are milimetrical exceptions and it is they who follow the market - not the other way around (meaning that those movies are not the kind of content that say what disc gets cheaper or more widespread).

So, to answer your remark, yes, there is always a squeeze. Even into 30Gb. Even into 50Gb. What's your point? But even if you advocate the least squeezing, you would agree with me that a 30+30 double disc edition of GWTW COULD look better than the same movie squeezed into BD50... or into BD25+BD25.

I believe that, in real world conditions, marketing (and then consumers) would always chose 30+30 over 50. In real life, people everywhere look at BD and HD DVD and say "wow" NOT knowing if they are seeing 22, 25, 27, 30 or 40Gb.
And those are the people who support the industry. Not us here.

But that's all theoretical because we'll probably never know. Plus, examples like GWTW are not norm. They are exceptions. Like Cleopatra! People hear about BD50 and instantly think about LOTR and that's fine. But bear in mind that in real world, LOTR will only come to BD50 if DB50 makes sense. Not the opposite. So before thinking about LOTR or Reign of Fire, think about all the "100-minutes-with-little-to-no-extras" 7000 other titles that will decide what disc will be cheaper.

Bottom line is: neutral (big) studios use 30Gb as standard and do not think twice because for them, at this point, it is possible that their DB50 comes at a great price. So why bother lowering both bars to just 25Gb?

Would this happen, the BDA would lose one of its key arguments against HD DVD.

The world is not made of films that will use BD50, no matter how much we would love them to be. The world is made of films that need 19, 20, 25, 30Gb tops - many of them can opt for just 15 or less.


In the absolute sense any thing that is promoted as useful that is unique to one HD format will "hurt" the other HD format but that is taking a very sensitive position. In my opinion that just isn't a very healthy way to view the format war.

Those are nice words... "a healthy way to view the format war". But let me tell you: there is nothing healthy about a war. I wouldn't say the same about competition. Competition is healthy. War isn't.

I do not agree with this last quote. Why? Because I do not believe Sony actually thinks BD50 will be the norm. They just want to win the format war and have its format established as the standard. They couldn't care less if BD50 or BD25 becomes the norm. As long as HD DVD does not...

Ever cared to think why we are at a war and not at just plain competition? I'm sure you did.

Speculation that once the chips fall, we might not end up seeing many BD50s. Not as in they are hard to make so we'll never see them., just that they might not make sense economically in the long run.

I don't necessarily agree, but I think it's interesting speculation just the same wrt the size you *really* need at the end of the day to deliver a movie in high quality.

That speculation presupposes that it's only HD-DVD which is competing against Blu-Ray for hardware and media sales.

But of course, the real competitor to both HD formats is DVD.

And maybe PPV or those pseudo-VOD setups from cable companies.

That speculation presupposes that it's only HD-DVD which is competing against Blu-Ray for hardware and media sales.

But of course, the real competitor to both HD formats is DVD.

And maybe PPV or those pseudo-VOD setups from cable companies.

Forgive me but I slightly disagree...

DVDs are in no competition with HD formats.
Right now DVDs are 1000000 times more popular because they ARE the standard everybody has and they have been around for almost 10 years so far.

But as we all know, the HD formats deliver and cost much more than the DVD.
In that sense you don't expect a Honda Civic to compete with a Lamborghini and a Ferrari. At best, these last two high profile Italian cars will compete (right now) with each other for the rich customers' attention (or early adopters).

But soon enough, as those two expensive cars become cheaper and cheaper and popular like... a new Ford and GM... DVDs will start to look like Yugos.

And the Yugos will quietly retire, giving way to whatever car comes next.

DVDs are not competing with anyone because they still reign supreme. DVDs still dominate. What they will do (after the heir is chosen) is retire.

DVDs never competed with VHS. DVDs retired VHS.

But that's just semantics.
I got your point. :)

Right. We know that BD 25 with MPEG2 is just fine for a good AV encode (hello Tears of the Sun and MI3), just like we know that VC1 can't help you polish a turd (hello Full Metal Jacket, Army of Darkness, Excalibur, Spartacus).
Gee those were almost as old as that horrible BD "Fifth Element"
Try again??

Wait lets look at some newer titles, Like..
Both of these got 3 out of 5 ratting!
That BD 50 release of "Finding Neverland" baahahaha Wow what 50gbs can do with that bitrate! HA HA HA
That BD 25 release of "Hoosiers" BAAAAAHA HA HA HAAAA :D

I didn't say BD-75, I said 75GB. At least two titles will be released wiht bundled BD-50 + BD-25 discs. So while you're claiming that BD-50 is rarely used, I'm proving that even 50GB isn't enough for some titles.


Then why not say it was going to be a two disc set? Based on what you're saying here, BD50 isn't enough and we should scrap Blu-Ray too. If we need to scrap HD-DVD for the corner cases, then why not Blu-Ray? Let's just move on to Holographic Storage already ... then we can get Lossless Video too. :rolleyes:


And you'd be comparing apples and oranges. A combo disc is the same content in two different formats. The two titles I'm referring to will have 75GB or unique content.


If it's in different formats, wouldn't it meet the definition of unique? Regardless, it's just semantics. I'll be sure to note that HD-DVD supports 60GB releases when the first 2-disc set comes out though.


Do you understand the definition of catalog title? New releases are often worth providing extra content for. Old (catalog) releases often aren't, so 25GB is enough.


Yes, I know what a catalog title is. But, since the DVD's have extra content on them today, I would think that they would include that same extra content on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. Or, are you suggesting that Catalog titles should just be the movie, plain and simple? Regardless of what was issued on the DVD Release?


PiP is Picture in picture. Does the Descent put a picture in another picture? Yes. Would the average consumer have the faintest idea whether it's achieved via secondary video hardware or a second encode? No, nor would they care.


Oh ... fine then. Would the average consumer have the faintest idea whether or not they are getting lossless or lossy AQ encodes? Would the average consumer have the faintest idea that the disc is 30GB versus 50GB if the PQ is the same? Would the average consumer have the faintest idea if they were seeing a feature encoded in HDi vs BD-J? No, nor would they care. I guess the average consumer doesn't need Blu-Ray after all, thanks for confirming. :rolleyes:


If so, that's due to the author's choice, not a limitation of the feature. if it's a separate encode it just acts like any other part of the movie, so why should you not be able to bring up a menu over the PiP-encoded segment when you can over the standard segment if this wasn't a design choice?


Dunno ... perhaps it's a problem with BD-J? :p


Because there are a lot of poorly-informed bloggers who are referencing other poorly-informed articles.


Oh, I see ... I would hate for them to start saying Blu-Ray supports PiP or that Blu-Ray releases are 75GB and start to reference that all over the place.


Oh, so you're saying you like having only Toshiba to choose from when you buy a player?

No, I'm saying that Content Creaters aren't thrilled by the fact that there are several different versions of Blu-Ray hard ware out there because it forces them to code for the LCD. Whereas, with HD-DVD, all the players must certain minimum requirements that allow content creators to do great things that can be accessed by all hardware on the market.

Care to provide evidence for these claims from an objective website? Just saying that with the amount of exaggeration and rumors that I routinely see when it comes to game consoles it is nice to see proof for such claims. For instance do you know which company stated that their game console was capable of Toy Story graphics?


The BC thing was by Kutaragi, here's one of the articles:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=120454

And the regarding multiple SKU's being confusing to the consumer was by Harrison, here:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=11209

Oh, so you're saying you like having only Toshiba to choose from when you buy a player?


No, I'm saying that Content Creaters aren't thrilled by the fact that there are several different versions of Blu-Ray hard ware out there because it forces them to code for the LCD. Whereas, with HD-DVD, all the players must certain minimum requirements that allow content creators to do great things that can be accessed by all hardware on the market.

Incredible.....
Does anybody really think that Toshiba is or will ever be the only one busy with HD DVD players????
Does anybody really think that Fox, Disney and Sony will withdraw from the home video business if Blu-ray fails completely?
Does anybody really think that Universal and the Wiensteins will withdraw from the home video business if HD DVD does not win?

Incredible...

nope, lg were format neutral all along, and displayed hd dvd and bd players at the previous year's ces.

Aroo? LG only formally unveiled their product at this year's CES if I remember correctly. :confused:

I'll be sure to note that HD-DVD supports 60GB releases when the first 2-disc set comes out though.
Clerks II and Mission Impossible 3 (though I'm not 100% positive that either release uses an HD-30 for the second disc.)

Incredible.....
Does anybody really think that Toshiba is or will ever be the only one busy with HD DVD players????
Does anybody really think that Fox, Disney and Sony will withdraw from the home video business if Blu-ray fails completely?
Does anybody really think that Universal and the Wiensteins will withdraw from the home video business if HD DVD does not win?

Incredible...

LG has announced support for a Dual Player, as has Samsung. Even though they are different manufacturers, content creators can rest assured that as long as they have the HD-DVD logo, they can support the same minimum requirements for content.

So no, I dont think Toshiba will be the only one.
No, I dnot think Fox, etc will withdraw.
No, I dont think Universal, etc will either.

Did my post suggest otherwise? :confused:

Clerks II and Mission Impossible 3 (though I'm not 100% positive that either release uses an HD-30 for the second disc.)

Oh, cool ... I'll see if I can get confirmation of the second discs. HD-DVD could possibly already be 60GB! :p

Did my post suggest otherwise? :confused:

:p
I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the other guy to whom you where answering.

I do agree with you.

That is a matter of perception and interpretation as far as I can see. In the end, the double layer DVD did became the norm.Once again the cost difference between single and double layer DVD decreased to the point where it doesn't cost much more to use a double layer DVD. That is why it is now standard and in my opinion the same thing will eventually happen with dual layer Blu-ray.


As far as 50Gb are being handled by Sony at discount price for big studios whose titles go with a bang, why not burn 29Gb in a 50Gb disc?No offense but could you prove this belief that Sony is subsidizing the use of dual layer Blu-ray discs? I see this is implied by posters who dislike Blu-ray but I have never seen any evidence for it.


Tell me... did you ever see anything that actually got bigger after getting compressed?I was talking about scenarios over 30 GB. What you made earlier was a scenario to make Blu-ray look bad by implying that a movie that would look best at 28 GB might be "squeezed" into 25 GB but from the sounds of it you have never thought of a movie that might look best at over 30 GB being "squeezed" into a 30 GB disc.


The world is made of films that need 19, 20, 25, 30Gb tops - many of them can opt for just 15 or less.Just curious but how many HD DVD movies have come out on 15 GB discs and how good did they look?


hose are nice words... "a healthy way to view the format war". But let me tell you: there is nothing healthy about a war. I wouldn't say the same about competition. Competition is healthy. War isn't.Have you missed the previous format wars and niche video formats that have lived and died like flys? Trust me the format war between Blu-ray and HD DVD is only unusual in terms of the number of companies involved and the amount of money they are spending to support them. I personally don't like this format war but it is most definitely competition between companies. Some would even argue there are benefits to it.


I do not agree with this last quote. Why? Because I do not believe Sony actually thinks BD50 will be the norm.I do, and given time I think that is very likely.


They just want to win the format war and have its format established as the standard.This could easily be said for companies on both sides in this format war.

:p
I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the other guy to whom you where answering.

I do agree with you.

oh ... :lol: ... I must be tired ... I read your post like 4 times and I was trying to figure out if my post was off base ... ;)

Wait lets look at some newer titles, Like..
Both of these got 3 out of 5 ratting!
That BD 50 release of "Finding Neverland" baahahaha Wow what 50gbs can do with that bitrate! HA HA HA
That BD 25 release of "Hoosiers" BAAAAAHA HA HA HAAAA :DFor someone who says that they aren't against Blu-ray (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10112443&&#post10112443) you certainly have an odd way of showing it.


Then why not say it was going to be a two disc set? Based on what you're saying here, BD50 isn't enough and we should scrap Blu-Ray too.This looks to be a strawman argument since I don't remember the BDA ever saying that a movie and all of its extras would always fit on a BD-50. If anything the fact that Disney is using a two disc set for the PoTC movie shows that maybe they really do prefer the greater capacity of Blu-ray. I know that some HD DVD supporters can't imagine that being true but that looks quite possible to me. Of course before anyone decides to attack Disney over this maybe it would be nice to actually wait and see how the PoTC movies turn out.


The BC thing was by Kutaragi, here's one of the articles:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=120454I don't see him ever saying that 100% backward compatibility was imperative to Sony. What he did say was that the PS3 would have a higher level of backward compatibility by using a combination of hardware and software, which is what is being done today with European PS3 consoles. I don't think that Sony planned to include the PS2 CPU in the PS3 back in June of 2005 and that was a decision which was probably made later on.


And the regarding multiple SKU's being confusing to the consumer was by Harrison, here:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=11209That wasn't a well made comment though he did say that it was just his personal opinion.

I don't see him ever saying that 100% backward compatibility was imperative to Sony. What he did say was that the PS3 would have a higher level of backward compatibility by using a combination of hardware and software, which is what is being done today with European PS3 consoles. I don't think that Sony planned to include the PS2 CPU in the PS3 back in June of 2005 and that was a decision which was probably made later on.


Well, he does say:


The current Xbox will become antiquated once the new machine comes out this November. When that happens, the Xbox will be killing itself. The only way to avoid that is to support 100 percent compatibility from its [Xbox 360’s] launch date, but Microsoft won’t be able to commit to that. It’s technically difficult.


I suppose it's possible that it was read into, or that there were some issues in translation, but it seems to me that he's saying that while MS cannot commit to 100%, Sony can.

If 100% BC isn't important to them, then the PS2 will become antiquated once the PS3 comes out, or the PS2 will be 'killing itself'.

This looks to be a strawman argument since I don't remember the BDA ever saying that a movie and all of its extras would always fit on a BD-50. If anything the fact that Disney is using a two disc set for the PoTC movie shows that maybe they really do prefer the greater capacity of Blu-ray. I know that some HD DVD supporters can't imagine that being true but that looks quite possible to me. Of course before anyone decides to attack Disney over this maybe it would be nice to actually wait and see how the PoTC movies turn out.

Well, the issue is that if even BD50 isn't enough and we're just going to have to deal with corner cases anyways, why not go with the more inexpensive alternative? Sure, there might be more corner cases with HD-DVD ... but we're talking about small relative %'s.

That said, I agree ... let's wait and see what is actually released ... media, content, quality, encode, etc. If I remember correctly, Disney was a big proponent of (1) Interactivity and (2) Extra Space.

Right. We know that BD 25 with MPEG2 is just fine for a good AV encode (hello Tears of the Sun and MI3), just like we know that VC1 can't help you polish a turd (hello Full Metal Jacket, Army of Darkness, Excalibur, Spartacus). The available master, the skill of the compressionists, and the studio doctrine on the issue is what matters, as does QC. I've never seen anything other than format partisanship to doubt that BD50 is increasing in deployment or viability. We certainly don't have evidence to doubt SPHE's commitment to put out 80% of their releases to BD50, either...

I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating. Just because mpeg2 can deliver great results on some titles, does not mean that is not inferior to AVC and VC1.

If we look at titles that score 3/5 on PQ or lower, here's what we find.

HD-DVD - 9.76%
BD - 13.24%

If we take a closer look at BD to understand why it averages a higher rate of stinkers, we find that 16.15% of mpeg2 titles on BD score 3/5 or lower.

I believe the quantity of titles is sufficiently high at this point that this is not just a bad luck of the draw for mpeg2. It is not delivering as consistent results as AVC or VC1 and it's time to put it out to pasture. Tears of the Sun and MI:3 would not have looked worse using AVC or VC1.

...
If 100% BC isn't important to them, then the PS2 will become antiquated once the PS3 comes out, or the PS2 will be 'killing itself'.I certainly wouldn't agree with the comment you quoted and if an accurate translation looks like he was just bashing the Xbox 360 with a ridiculously high requirement (100% BC).


Well, the issue is that if even BD50 isn't enough and we're just going to have to deal with corner cases anyways, why not go with the more inexpensive alternative?VMD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versatile_Multilayer_Disc)? Seriously though your right that you could always just use more discs with HD DVD, though that does nothing in terms of bandwidth, but what happens if the encoding of the movie itself is over 30 GB? Also some things have to be on the same disc as the movie, such as lossless audio and SD/HD PiP, so I think one can make a good logical argument for capacity.

I just have to point this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10294246&&#post10294246) out since Amir was playing games:


In contrast, I am not aware of any studios worrying about "enhanced video secondary decoder." Whatever you think that is :).Considering it is an optional PiP feature of HD DVD I have a bit of trouble believing that a HD DVD insider like Amir wouldn't know about it. In fact considering I once had to correct Amir on this in an earlier thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9533119&&#post9533119) I am sure he knows exactly what it is.


And keep in mind that even after BD gets Picture in Picture, they will only catch up to where we are now.Nonsense, even other HD DVD insiders (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9378765&&#post9378765) have said before that the PiP specs of Blu-ray are much higher than the PiP specs of HD DVD. I know some people are always ready to defend Amir but can anyone say that Amir is really being honest with statements like these?

I just have to point this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10294246&&#post10294246) out since Amir was playing games:


Considering it is an optional PiP feature of HD DVD I have a bit of trouble believing that a HD DVD insider like Amir wouldn't know about it. In fact considering I once had to correct Amir on this in an earlier thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9533119&&#post9533119) I am sure he knows exactly what it is.


Nonsense, even other HD DVD insiders (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9378765&&#post9378765) have said before that the PiP specs of Blu-ray are much higher than the PiP specs of HD DVD. I know some people are always ready to defend Amir but can anyone say that Amir is really being honest with statements like these?
Well we haven't seen these BD PiP specs yet have we?

Well we haven't seen these BD PiP specs yet have we?

I believe the reference is to the fact that the BD Secondary Encoder mandates HD whereas the HD-DVD Secondary Encoder mandates on SD.

From the Insiders Thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10286535&&#post10286535

Dreamworks is neutral? I thought they were completely on the fence? Have they announced titles? :confused:

"Originally Posted by amirm
In contrast, I am not aware of any studios worrying about "enhanced video secondary decoder." Whatever you think that is ."

That enhanced video second decoder is the reason Batman Begins isn't out on BD.
And the reason why I went dual. Ha Ha what studio? WhoTF is Warner?

My favorite response from amirim: (paraphrasing) 'we didn't upgrade Xbox hd dvd audio with elite, because most people can't tell the difference. '

And: 'why not just listen to the compressed audio, you can't hear those frequencies taken out anyway'

LPs and music from iTunes are worlds apart.

Well we haven't seen these BD PiP specs yet have we?

And of coure the PiP specs for BD are higher. The current players can't even support DTS-MA, let alone PiP.

The Blu-ray disc is so far ahead of its time it's literally transparent.

The ideal solution for all of this would be for the HD DVD association to manage the Blu-ray media. The best of both worlds, consistency/reliabilty and a lot of 50GB disc space.

Those 200GB BDs are bound to have some sort of use. :p

"Originally Posted by amirm
In contrast, I am not aware of any studios worrying about "enhanced video secondary decoder." Whatever you think that is ."

That enhanced video second decoder is the reason Batman Begins isn't out on BD.
And the reason why I went dual. Ha Ha what studio? WhoTF is Warner?

My favorite response from amirim: (paraphrasing) 'we didn't upgrade Xbox hd dvd audio with elite, because most people can't tell the difference. '

And: 'why not just listen to the compressed audio, you can't hear those frequencies taken out anyway'

LPs and music from iTunes are worlds apart.



And of coure the PiP specs for BD are higher. The current players can't even support DTS-MA, let alone PiP.

The Blu-ray disc is so far ahead of its time it's literally transparent.

The ideal solution for all of this would be for the HD DVD association to manage the Blu-ray media. The best of both worlds, consistency/reliabilty and a lot of 50GB disc space.

Those 200GB BDs are bound to have some sort of use. :p

Well screw BD the future is right here! :p
Come on down HVD!!!!! 3.9 terabytes :eek: can we get even closer to lossless video with this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc

Sorry BD is not looking good as a future poof format :D

Well we haven't seen these BD PiP specs yet have we?Not yet, but several insiders (Blu-ray, HD DVD, and neutral) on this forum have either stated or hinted that the Blu-ray PiP specs are much higher than the HD DVD PiP specs. Also Amir once argued against against HD PiP in a debate with Talkstr8t which I doubt he did simply for the fun of it. As such I think there is a good amount of evidence in support of Blu-ray PiP specs being much higher than the HD DVD PiP specs.

Not yet, but several insiders (Blu-ray, HD DVD, and neutral) on this forum have either stated or hinted that the Blu-ray PiP specs are much higher than the HD DVD PiP specs. And Amir once argued against against HD PiP in a debate with Talkstr8t which I doubt he did simply for the heck of it.
they hinted a lot of things but never seem to deliver unfortunately.
when I see it then maybe I'll believe it :p

they hinted a lot of things but never seem to deliver unfortunately.
when I see it then maybe I'll believe it :p

There is supposedly a document coming soon that will explain all the profiles and the like ... it's been 'coming soon' since CES ... and some have alluded to the information being readily available if you're a paying BDA member. It seems it shouldn't be too difficult to PDF it and place the data in a readily accessible area of the BDA website. Unless ... they don't want people to see it. ;)

There is supposedly a document coming soon that will explain all the profiles and the like ... it's been 'coming soon' since CES ... and some have alluded to the information being readily available if you're a paying BDA member. It seems it shouldn't be too difficult to PDF it and place the data in a readily accessible area of the BDA website. Unless ... they don't want people to see it. ;)

And that is ONLY IF you read this website. Gosh help the average joe.

they hinted a lot but never seem to deliver unfortunately.No offense but this is just general Blu-ray bashing which adds nothing to this thread. If you really don't dislike Blu-ray than you shouldn't feel the need to make such remarks.


when I see it then maybe I'll believe it :pThough a rather flippant remark I can understand some amount of skepticism.

Not yet, but several insiders (Blu-ray, HD DVD, and neutral) on this forum have either stated or hinted that the Blu-ray PiP specs are much higher than the HD DVD PiP specs. Also Amir once argued against against HD PiP in a debate with Talkstr8t which I doubt he did simply for the fun of it. As such I think there is a good amount of evidence in support of Blu-ray PiP specs being much higher than the HD DVD PiP specs.

I'm not an expert on PiP, but I seem to recall seeing something that said the PiP on HD-DVD is 480 where as the (future) PiP on BD can go up to 1080. If someone knows otherwise, please correct me.

Now the question I have is on a 1080 pixel display where the PiP window will be a small subset of that full resolution, how will 1080 resolution benefit you? The display doesn't have enough pixels to make use of that much resolution in a small overlay window. Is there something I'm missing here?

Any other CE companies that have hesitated to get their feet wet (Denon in my case) willing to get into the next generation of optical? Any Denon insiders that may see this, any comment?

Let me be clear in what I'm saying.

The message has been deliverd over and over on this thread (and others), that Toshiba is the only CE supporting HD-DVD. I have seen numerous posts state that all of the other major Japanese and Korean CEs are supporting BD. Any mention of any other CE (besides Toshiba) shipping a player that can handle HD-DVD has been met with strong skepticism. Any mention of CEs wavering in their unilateral support of BD has been similarly met with strong skepticism.

Perhaps I need to review this whole idea that everyone is in lock step behind BD. The news of Sharp not counting as a true Blu supporter surprises me, so I'd like to make sure I understand who really counts. Can you tell us who you consider to be a BD CE?
why does it matter what i or anyone else on here considers to be a bd or hd supporter? all that counts is what the ce manufacturers themselves are saying and doing. in this area there have been a number who have come out supporting hd, and even gone so far as to display prototypes at ces a year back, but have yet to release. not sure if you were following events then. claiming them as bd supporters simply because they haven't released their hd player yet is a bit of a stretch! sorry but i can't help you with messages you feel have been given on this thread regarding toshiba and hd dvd, that's down to your own readings. though posts stating that all of the korean and japanese ce's asside from toshiba are exclusively supporting bd were and are wrong, if such posts were made.

Again, if you truly believed LG was neutral from day one, why would you be so adamant that they would never release a dual-format player?
when have i ever said that lg would never release a dual format player? it's not a contradiction to consider a company format neurtral but to not accept evidence posted on an obscure blog that they're about to release a dual format player. something they didn't infact, until much later.

So is there any word on how well the LG player is selling?

Probably not too well at its price point, despite getting some pub for being the first dual-format player.

What ever happened to that LG dual format player? There was discussion at the time that it did not have the required features to meet the HD DVD specs and therefore could not be marketed under that logo. Did that ever get resolved?

- Tom

I just have to point this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10294246&&#post10294246) out since Amir was playing games:

In contrast, I am not aware of any studios worrying about "enhanced video secondary decoder." Whatever you think that is :) .

Considering it is an optional PiP feature of HD DVD I have a bit of trouble believing that a HD DVD insider like Amir wouldn't know about it. In fact considering I once had to correct Amir on this in an earlier thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9533119&&#post9533119) I am sure he knows exactly what it is.

Umm, methinks you over looked where Amir is suggesting he is unsure you know exactly what that is.

He never claimed to now know what it was.

I'm not an expert on PiP, but I seem to recall seeing something that said the PiP on HD-DVD is 480 where as the (future) PiP on BD can go up to 1080. If someone knows otherwise, please correct me.

Now the question I have is on a 1080 pixel display where the PiP window will be a small subset of that full resolution, how will 1080 resolution benefit you? The display doesn't have enough pixels to make use of that much resolution in a small overlay window. Is there something I'm missing here?

Excellent question.

I asked the same a looong time ago (along with "And if it's ony 10% of the screen area, why wouldn't 2-4Mbps w/ advanced codecs be just fine?"), and never got much of an answer.

when have i ever said that lg would never release a dual format player?
Did you, or did you not, post this:
So, LG huh... And their dual layer player. Not gonna happen. Was that what this thread was once about...?
If you were so sure that LG would eventually release a dual-format player (since they're neutral) why would you say that such a player was "not gonna happen?"
it's not a contradiction to consider a company format neurtral but to not accept evidence posted on an obscure blog that they're about to release a dual format player. something they didn't infact, until much later.
It would be one thing if you said that it wasn't going to be released soon, but you said it wouldn't be released at all (unless "not gonna happen" means something different to you than it does to the rest of us.)

The other quotes that were provided (and that you haven't denied posting) show that you have been extremely skeptical of any reports of an LG dual-format player being released. Why would you doubt it so much if you really believed LG has been neutral from day one?

Now the question I have is on a 1080 pixel display where the PiP window will be a small subset of that full resolution, how will 1080 resolution benefit you? The display doesn't have enough pixels to make use of that much resolution in a small overlay window. Is there something I'm missing here?
I can think of a case - what if the disc was authored with PiP that was like the PiP you get with TVs now? What I mean is, you could be watching the IME feature, see something you want to see better and hit the "swap" button - switching the IME to the main screen and the movie to the little window. In this example, it would be nice to have 1080p footage, so that when blown up to full size it still looked great.

If the footage is to remain in the little window and is not going to be "switchable," I can't imagine why you would want the IME footage in HD. I suppose it might still make a difference on giant screens...

What ever happened to that LG dual format player? There was discussion at the time that it did not have the required features to meet the HD DVD specs and therefore could not be marketed under that logo. Did that ever get resolved?
nah, it was released as a bd deck that could also play hd dvd discs, minus the ihd content. as such it wasn't allowed to carry the hd dvd badge. though i believe their dual drive for computers is more compliant.

Did you, or did you not, post this:

If you were so sure that LG would eventually release a dual-format player (since they're neutral - and hav) why would you say that such a player was "not gonna happen?"
nobody should have been sure they were about to release a player (which infact they didn't, untill much later) which is precisely the point. god knows where you've gotten this "sure that lg would eventually release" from, perhaps the same mysterious place as the "never" comment? there's no mention of never in any of those quotes, assuming they're correct. though i'm giving staker boy the benefit of the doubt that i meant dual format instead of dual layer in the above instance. saying that something is not gonna happen can mean now or ever, depending on context. which is of course missing from this discussion.

The other quotes that were provided (and that you haven't denied posting) show that you have been extremely skeptical of any reports of an LG dual-format player being released. Why would you doubt it so much if you really believed LG has been neutral from day one?
most of the quotes seem to have nothing at all to do with a dual format player at all, but about someone trolling the bd forum. can't remember who. while the few quotes specific to an lg dual format player are dealing with the dodgy evidence presented to support it's imininent release (which didn't happen) and the subsequent postulation that sony must have blocked it. considering the eventual player wasn't ihd ready when it was released it's highly unlikely it was ready to go at the time of the rumour and that anyone on the bda tried to block it.

I can think of a case - what if the disc was authored with PiP that was like the PiP you get with TVs now? What I mean is, you could be watching the IME feature, see something you want to see better and hit the "swap" button - switching the IME to the main screen and the movie to the little window. In this example, it would be nice to have 1080p footage, so that when blown up to full size it still looked great.

If the footage is to remain in the little window and is not going to be "switchable," I can't imagine why you would want the IME footage in HD. I suppose it might still make a difference on giant screens...

Well if you are going to take full resolution/bandwidth rate video to display full screen, why no just encode as a secondary stream and branch to it? The point of proper(hardware) PiP is is to have 2 pictures at the same time. If you are going to go full-screen, then you don't need to decode another stream concurrently. That's a seamless branch scenario, not a PiP scenario, it would seem.

Well if you are going to take full resolution/bandwidth rate video to display full screen, why no just encode as a secondary stream and branch to it? The point of proper(hardware) PiP is is to have 2 pictures at the same time. If you are going to go full-screen, then you don't need to decode another stream concurrently. That's a seamless branch scenario, not a PiP scenario, it would seem.
What are you talking about? I'm talking about implementing a feature similar to the PiP available on many TVs and cable boxes currently. You're watching the movie with the IME in a little window. You spot something in the IME window that you want to see better, so you hit the "swap" button and now the IME window is the main video and the movie is in the little window that previously held the IME. When you're done watching that part, you hit the "swap" button again and everything goes back to how it was. This would be able to be done on the fly at any time, just like it's done with TV PiP. How would seamless branching work for this?

saying that something is not gonna happen can mean now or ever, depending on context. which is of course missing from this discussion.

Fair enough. Without those links, we have no way of putting your comments in context.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about implementing a feature similar to the PiP available on many TVs and cable boxes currently. You're watching the movie with the IME in a little window. You spot something in the IME window that you want to see better, so you hit the "swap" button and now the IME window is the main video and the movie is in the little window that previously held the IME. When you're done watching that part, you hit the "swap" button again and everything goes back to how it was. This would be able to be done on the fly at any time, just like it's done with TV PiP. How would seamless branching work for this?



I see what you mean, but maybe you are implying something that I've never seen clearly indicated here: Are you saying that a secondary video stream can be scaled to an arbitrarily smaller resolution in a PiP window? I know that the entire output plane can be scaled (i.e. 720 output or 1080). But if a secondary stream is encoded at 1080, can it be scaled to 640x480 for PiP usage on the fly?

Perhaps so... set top boxes and TV's are doing it. If so, then I concede that full-bandwidth secondary decoders make your scenario easier. For non-full-BW decoders, I'd guess you'd have to have an encode for both the PiP window, and then another one at a greater resolution for the "swap" to full-screen.

I see what you mean, but maybe you are implying something that I've never seen clearly indicated here: Are you saying that a secondary video stream can be scaled to an arbitrarily smaller resolution in a PiP window? I know that the entire output plane can be scaled (i.e. 720 output or 1080). But if a secondary stream is encoded at 1080, can it be scaled to 640x480 for PiP usage on the fly?

Perhaps so... set top boxes and TV's are doing it. If so, then I concede that full-bandwidth secondary decoders make your scenario easier. For non-full-BW decoders, I'd guess you'd have to have an encode for both the PiP window, and then another one at a greater resolution for the "swap" to full-screen.
I seem to remember reading that the feature I described was possible for both formats. I'll double-check in the insider's thread.

What ever happened to that LG dual format player? There was discussion at the time that it did not have the required features to meet the HD DVD specs and therefore could not be marketed under that logo. Did that ever get resolved?

- Tom

My understanding is that they didn't include the necessary hardware to implement the HDi functionality. The Samsung will support HDi. I expect that LG will ship an updated model with HDi support by the end of the year, but that' just my own speculation.

So is there any word on how well the LG player is selling?

Probably not too well at its price point, despite getting some pub for being the first dual-format player.

I agree. It's probably selling in the same sort of numbers as other players in that same price range. All of these players need to hit more agressive price points to sell in bigger volumes.

I seem to remember reading that the feature I described was possible for both formats. I'll double-check in the insider's thread.
Amir has replied already. Still waiting for response from the BD side. Here's what was said:

Insiders from both camps -

Is it possible for the studios to code the PiP features (IME, U-Control, etc.) in such a way that the user could hit a "swap" button and have the footage in the little window change places with the main movie (like what TVs and cable boxes do?) It would need to be "on the fly" and the user would need to be able to switch back and forth seamlessly. We're discussing the merits of BD mandating HD resolutions for the secondary video stream in another thread, and I thought this might be a circumstance where it would be benefitial.

Is it possible on HD DVD (even though the second stream would be SD?) Is it possible on BD (assuming you have a profile 1.1 compliant player and software?)
If I understand your scenario correctly, yes, this is simple to do in HD DVD. As soon as the user selects the PiP to go full screen, you switch to another encode of the PiP in full resolution. The advantage of this mechanism is that you do not need to share the bandwidth of the full-screen with the primary experience. Each can be full bandwidth because they are not playing at the same time.

HD DVD also allows zooming using HDi so you could choose the alternative full-screen encode to be at a different resolution, and have it be scaled. This would let you save space as most PiP content is not shot in highest fidelity anyway. You could also zoom it to a subset of the screen and show other stats/graphics, etc. in “full screen” mode. Things you could not do if you don’t have a secondary scalar for the PiP picture.

To make it seamless though, you would need to possibly encode the PiP content differently, allowing more precise seeks into it. But personally, I don’t understand the requirement for it to be “seamless.” You are watching two completely different things when you switch. As such, there is no expectation that this is a seamless switch as the two experiences are unrelated. Yes, you don’t want a pop or glitch but this can be nicely taken care of in HDi by controlling the audio levels/mixing between the two streams. And one can minimize the switch time using the encoding option just mentioned.

Would be interesting to see if BD 1.1 has the ability to scale down PiP and at the same time, have ability to scale the primary window.
Thank you for the quick response. To clarify, I meant "seamless" in that you wouldn't have to start the movie over - it would just swap the IME content from the little window to the big window (with the movie now occupying the little window.) A little pause or "flash" is no big deal, imo.
Oh, then that is really easy :). We can under HDi control jump into any part of a clip (think bookmarks). So all one does is keep track of where we are in PiP and when the switch comes, we play the alternate full screen one with that as the seek position.

I see what you mean, but maybe you are implying something that I've never seen clearly indicated here: Are you saying that a secondary video stream can be scaled to an arbitrarily smaller resolution in a PiP window? I know that the entire output plane can be scaled (i.e. 720 output or 1080). But if a secondary stream is encoded at 1080, can it be scaled to 640x480 for PiP usage on the fly?The system model is that main video and secondary video each have their own scalers, so each could be scaled to any resolution, then mixed together.

Our chip also enables seamless swapping the use of main and secondary video, so PiP could go full screen and main could go to PiP. Or split screen. It's up to the player manufacturers what they want to feature on their players, and this could be in response to a remote control button. One thing to consider is if the secondary video has luma key info, it could look funny to see a floating head taking up the whole screen... :)

Thanks Steeb, Amir, and Keith.

So if one wanted to "swap" or scale the video, you could do it from a hardware perspective, provided that platform provided the infrastructure to do so. It appears that Amir is saying HDi does... I assume BD-J would as well.

So Steeb, it certainly looks like your scenario would be one where one might want to justify greater secondary stream bitrates, provided you wanted to steal that much mux bandwidth away from the primary.

So your concern is NOT that you won't identical bits back out of the decoder, but that because because it's possible for an encoder to choose among multiple optimizations for encoding a particular buffer of samples, and there might be differing cycles/bandwidth needed for a particular optimization path, that decoders might be non-performant for some of those paths?

Seriously? That's your argument for lossless? You really think there aren't test files with pathological bitstreams for testing such corner cases?

scaesare :
Do you realize you are contradicting yourself in the first paragraph? I said in an earlier post that there are two differences between straight PCM and a lossless codec. One is the encoder and the other the decoder and together it means that you might not get the same as the PCM once decoded. I then explained why the decoder might not do a good job. You asked what about the encoder and why I brought it up in the first place and so I obliged you by explaining that

1) different encoders could encode the same stream differently and
2) that a decoder could have issues wityh one encoding while being OK for the other.

As for the second paragraph, there can be no test cases for everything? Because what is being streamed and processed by the player is an A/V stream> If I go to the store with 100$ that is definitely enough for a couple of movies, it is also enough for my bus pass, but it is not enough for my bus pass and a movie. A player is doing a lot of stuff at the same time. If you are watching a movie+PiP+the menu (for example) it needs to process all that at the same time. Just because it has enough for one or the other or even an other option it does not mean it has enough for everything.

Again I ask for an example of a case where the encoder was producing a bitstream that required too much CPU/bandwidth for a compliant decoder to handle. If you have ANY evidence that the one disc you are referring to was not simply an encoding error or bug, I'd appreciate seeing it.

call it what you want. In that instance buying the movie with PCM gave a lossless rendition while the DTHD did not. The point I stated was that PCM is better at guaranteeing what you get. That it is one of the valide points for someone asking for PCM over lossless but for me at the end of the day it is not important enough to require PCM over lossless. But that even though I did not agree with the guy that PCM be used over other lossless compressions, saing that PCM=decoded lossless is wrong.

Incidentally, do you worry about this with ANY other encoder/decoder combo's in your CE devices?


I do my research :)


They've been referred here for codecs a number of times.

I have not seen them, do you have a link?

Do you honestly think that Kieth & Crew don't have en entire suite of tests from Dolby (and perhaps their own pathological test of 5.1 channels of thermal noise) that they test their audio decoding cores with? And do you think it has perhaps occurred to them to test whilst the chip is performing other functions?

I am sure they do, do I think they test absolutely all possibilities? no

For that matter, do you think the engineers are dense enough to not take into account the absolute max rate that the audio and video specs define, and then figure out deterministically how many bytes the cores are going to need to shuffle thru the chips for a worst case scenario?
the issue is that there is no way to know. Let’s take an absolutely stupid example a porn studio decides to add a game to the movie, if you “click” on the lady she starts moaning and screaming (or something) so that you are an extra person in the movie. How will Keith know before hand how many resources need to be put for the extra moans processing and the movement of that virtual hand?



Um... You seemed concerned about it here when you said "I thought your point is PCM=decoded lossless, so why would someone prefer to have PCM. My point was that in theory that it should be = but in practice there are many reasons it might not be.".


no I was correcting something wrong. Yes all of us are caught up in this war. But I still assume most of us want to go to bed smarter instead of dumber after coming here. Even though I don’t think PCM is needed, it does not mean his statement is right. Like I said, for those who see it as important to get good audio it is up to them to buy good players/receivers. For example Fox /SC/LG on some have used DTS HD for lossless. As far as I know right now there is no player on either side that can do a lossless decode of it (all just do the DTS part)

A damaged disc does not equate in any way to a device not outputting the correct lossless stream as designed. Seriously.


that is not what I said, go read it again

Now the question I have is on a 1080 pixel display where the PiP window will be a small subset of that full resolution, how will 1080 resolution benefit you?So far I have heard about two usage scenarios in which HD PiP would be useful. The first usage scenario (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9557101&&#post9557101), which was discussed for PiP with both HD formats, was brought up by Keith and was the ability to make the PiP source full screen when ever the user wanted. Another usage scenario (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9567284&&#post9567284) was the ability to overlay the main video with the secondary video. That is done by using the luma key data of the secondary video which, if within a certain range of values, indicates the primary video should be shown for those pixels.


The display doesn't have enough pixels to make use of that much resolution in a small overlay window. Is there something I'm missing here?Yes, that PiP can go beyond a small window in the corner of the screen. In my personal opinion the BDA took the harder but better path with PiP when they could have easily went with SD PiP which was supported by SoC chips last year. I honestly find it amazing that some posters ridicule the BDA about PiP when to me it looks like they made the better long term choice.


Umm, methinks you over looked where Amir is suggesting he is unsure you know exactly what that is.There was a reason I put a link in my earlier post and if you had read the post I linked to (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9533119&&#post9533119) it would have helped. I will explain it in detail since it is a bit of an interesting story:

I have seen Amir mention several times in the past that one could stream video from secondary storage at up to 15 Mbps with HD DVD for secondary video. Which sounded a bit unlikely so one day I looked at my downloaded copy of HD DVD Video Guidelines (version 1.0) and noticed that there were two tables that mentioned secondary decoders. One being standard and one being optional and the optional just happened to support a peak bit rate of 15 Mbps. In other words Amir was mentioning a bit rate for HD DVD that was only possible with an Enhanced Video secondary decoder. Something which at the moment I don't think any stand alone HD DVD player is capable of decoding. Also I think it is unlikely that you could even have a HD PiP video stream on a HD DVD since it has only been mentioned in the context of secondary storage streaming and because of its 30 Mbps total bandwidth.


He never claimed to now know what it was.Well I would point out that he is a HD DVD promoter and a very highly placed one at that so I think it is likely he knows the HD DVD specs well. Secondly he has mentioned (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9488846&&#post9488846) before that playing PiP in HD is optional in HD DVD and has mentioned several times the peak bit rate for the Enhanced Video secondary decoder in his posts (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9532354&&#post9532354). In my opinion he is reluctant to acknowledge it but he certainly seems to know what it is (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9435420&&#post9435420).

scaesare :
Do you realize you are contradicting yourself in the first paragraph? I said in an earlier post that there are two differences between straight PCM and a lossless codec. One is the encoder and the other the decoder and together it means that you might not get the same as the PCM once decoded. I then explained why the decoder might not do a good job. You asked what about the encoder and why I brought it up in the first place and so I obliged you by explaining that

1) different encoders could encode the same stream differently and
2) that a decoder could have issues wityh one encoding while being OK for the other.

As for the second paragraph, there can be no test cases for everything? Because what is being streamed and processed by the player is an A/V stream> If I go to the store with 100$ that is definitely enough for a couple of movies, it is also enough for my bus pass, but it is not enough for my bus pass and a movie. A player is doing a lot of stuff at the same time. If you are watching a movie+PiP+the menu (for example) it needs to process all that at the same time. Just because it has enough for one or the other or even an other option it does not mean it has enough for everything.



call it what you want. In that instance buying the movie with PCM gave a lossless rendition while the DTHD did not. The point I stated was that PCM is better at guaranteeing what you get. That it is one of the valide points for someone asking for PCM over lossless but for me at the end of the day it is not important enough to require PCM over lossless. But that even though I did not agree with the guy that PCM be used over other lossless compressions, saing that PCM=decoded lossless is wrong.


I do my research :)



I have not seen them, do you have a link?



I am sure they do, do I think they test absolutely all possibilities? no


the issue is that there is no way to know. Let’s take an absolutely stupid example a porn studio decides to add a game to the movie, if you “click” on the lady she starts moaning and screaming (or something) so that you are an extra person in the movie. How will Keith know before hand how many resources need to be put for the extra moans processing and the movement of that virtual hand?




no I was correcting something wrong. Yes all of us are caught up in this war. But I still assume most of us want to go to bed smarter instead of dumber after coming here. Even though I don’t think PCM is needed, it does not mean his statement is right. Like I said, for those who see it as important to get good audio it is up to them to buy good players/receivers. For example Fox /SC/LG on some have used DTS HD for lossless. As far as I know right now there is no player on either side that can do a lossless decode of it (all just do the DTS part)


that is not what I said, go read it again

OK Anthony. You think there's a significant danger of lossless not giving you the same bitstream as PCM.

My face can't get any bluer, so I'll leave it at that.

snip............
Yes, that PiP can go beyond a small window in the corner of the screen. In my personal opinion the BDA took the harder but better path with PiP when they could have easily went with SD PiP which was supported by SoC chips last year. I honestly find it amazing that some posters ridicule the BDA about PiP when to me it looks like they made the better long term choice.
snip...........


Well, there we disagree. I suppose if I had no interest in buying a high definition player until 2008 I would be fine with the choices BD made. From my point of view they've put customers in the awkward position of buying players now, that lack functionality like PiP, or waiting for BD to fully mature with players that can deliver these features. HD-DVD's approach has been quite refreshing in contrast, and I appreciate that.

After Blu-ray has matured and there are full featured universal players available at good prices, I'll be willing to adopt BD as well. Until then, I view it as a work in progress that's not quite ready for prime time.

Did I read correctly that HD-DVD can't do seamless branching? I can't find the post. I don't really care that much about PiP (not capping on people who do, just not interested) but seamless branching is a feature I have enjoyed on the few DVD's that have supported it. The ability to watch a sequence from the director's cut then go back and watch the same sequence as the released version to see which is better - rather than just watching deleted or alternate scenes out of context - is awesome imho.

So yeah, is this not allowed for some reason on HD-DVD or did I completely read that wrong?

Did I read correctly that HD-DVD can't do seamless branching? I can't find the post. I don't really care that much about PiP (not capping on people who do, just not interested) but seamless branching is a feature I have enjoyed on the few DVD's that have supported it. The ability to watch a sequence from the director's cut then go back and watch the same sequence as the released version to see which is better - rather than just watching deleted or alternate scenes out of context - is awesome imho.

So yeah, is this not allowed for some reason on HD-DVD or did I completely read that wrong?

It can do seamless branching.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10156451&&#post10156451

For someone who says that they aren't against Blu-ray (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10112443&&#post10112443) you certainly have an odd way of showing it.



No I am against these Blu-Ray fanatics that phew BS all over with un proven facts.
There is no proof of the extra space on a BD disc is adding any kind of superior PQ than HD DVD and It's getting nauseating.
They say "You can't prove it but it's true" so Here we go again..
A BD 50 (gb) disc release of "Finding Neverland" has a less than steller PQ.

Do you get my post now? :rolleyes:

I suppose if I had no interest in buying a high definition player until 2008 I would be fine with the choices BD made.To me if anything should be designed well for the long term it should be a video format. As such I personally care greatly about how well a video format will hold up over the years since it might very well be here 10 to 15 years from now. As such I tend to consider long term advantages to be more important than short term advantages.


No I am against these Blu-Ray fanatics that phew BS all over with un proven facts.
There is no proof of the extra space on a BD disc is adding any kind of superior PQ than HD DVD and It's getting nauseating.By all means if a poster states a personal opinion as a fact than point that out, but there is no reason to be taking this format war so personally.

To me if anything should be designed well for the long term it should be a video format. As such I personally care greatly about how well a video format will hold up over the years since it might very well be here 10 to 15 years from now. As such I tend to consider long term advantages to be more important than short term advantages.


By all means if a poster states a personal opinion as a fact than point that out, but there is no reason to be taking this format war so personally.

Ditto ;) :rolleyes:

Ditto ;) :rolleyes:I was not trying to be rude and I really am just asking that you try rational debate instead of these ridiculing posts.

To me if anything should be designed well for the long term it should be a video format. As such I personally care greatly about how well a video format will hold up over the years since it might very well be here 10 to 15 years from now. As such I tend to consider long term advantages to be more important than short term advantages.

The presumption here is that a format can only offer improvement with unclaimed GB. That's silly, compression techniques, and hardware are improving all the time, HD DVD is already a sweet-looking (and sounding) format. I see no reason to believe it's engineers won't improve on what is already a more solid foundation.

Finding ways of doing more with less is a progressive objective.

To me if anything should be designed well for the long term it should be a video format. As such I personally care greatly about how well a video format will hold up over the years since it might very well be here 10 to 15 years from now. As such I tend to consider long term advantages to be more important than short term advantages.

I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this. Are you saying that the difference between 30 and 50GB capacity will be relevant 15 years from now, because encoding methods and means are likely to become less efficient, or that the BDA's proclivity for "evolving" profiles will allow them the flexibility to adopt new standards in a continuing process of planned hardware obsolescence? It seems to me that if the increased capacity of BD hasn't yet been qualitatively apparent, ( and I would say it hasn't ) it's only less likely to become so, in the future. Fifteen years ago, consumers had never heard of DVD, and the US broadcast standards for HDTV hadn't yet been settled.

The presumption here is that a format can only offer improvement with unclaimed GB. That's silly, compression techniques, and hardware are improving all the time, HD DVD is already a sweet-looking (and sounding) format. I see no reason to believe it's engineers won't improve on what is already a more solid foundation.Actually I wasn't just referring to capacity though personally I prefer having more of it than less of it when it comes to a video format. Obviously I know there are people who do consider 30 GB and 30 Mbps to be enough and honestly believe there is no benefit to having more.


Finding ways of doing more with less is a progressive objective.True, and I am all for the use of advanced video and audio codecs on Blu-ray.


I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this. Are you saying that the difference between 30 and 50GB capacity will be relevant 15 years from now,Just curious but when does a difference in capacity become irrelevant? After all with everything else equal can't you always do more with 50 GB than with 30 GB?


or that the BDA's proclivity for "evolving" profiles will allow them the flexibility to adopt new standards in a continuing process of planned hardware obsolescence?Funny, but I truly do prefer what Blu-ray did in terms of PiP support since it sounds to me like it has the best long term potential. If someone could convince the DVD Forum to make HD PiP decoding mandatory in the HD DVD specs for on disc secondary video streams I would of course reconsider my position.


Fifteen years ago, consumers had never heard of DVD, and the US broadcast standards for HDTV hadn't yet been settled.Okay, but I still have the opinion that the video format that wins this format war could easily last 10 to 15 years. Also just a theory but if it wasn't for HDTV I am not so sure that DVD would be in the process of being replaced and it might have lasted as long as VHS did.

Okay, but I still have the opinion that the video format that wins this format war could easily last 10 to 15 years. Also just a theory but if it wasn't for HDTV I am not so sure that DVD would be in the process of being replaced and it might have lasted as long as VHS did.
If I understand the gist of the paper RDjam noted http://www.people.hbs.edu/aelberse/papers/hbs_07-015.pdf DVD may last for as long as any physical format as there will never be enough buyer interest to move [most] catalog titles to either HD or BD.

No I am against these Blu-Ray fanatics that phew BS all over with un proven facts..........


Actually I'd like to see HD DVD players and discs work again. :(

So here's my question folks. Who will be the third BD CE to go format neutral?

don't want to get in the 2/3 debate but I guess I will answer with a question. What other third rate CEs are left that might think doing a combo player as the only way to sell their stuff?

The only reason I bought a Samsung was that it was there when none of the others were. If the Sony, Pany or Pioneer were out at the time there would have been no way I would have bought it. This is just (like LG) a company that realizes it can’t compete in the single format and hoping that mking a more expensive dual player will help it sell some machines.

Then why not say it was going to be a two disc set? Based on what you're saying here, BD50 isn't enough and we should scrap Blu-Ray too. If we need to scrap HD-DVD for the corner cases, then why not Blu-Ray? Let's just move on to Holographic Storage already ... then we can get Lossless Video too.

jdg345: that is the stupidest comment I heard. Maybe we should stop all movies for home until there is something that can give us lossless video and sound. We should also stop movies in theatres unil we can get holograms.

Oh ... fine then. Would the average consumer have the faintest idea whether or not they are getting lossless or lossy AQ encodes? Would the average consumer have the faintest idea that the disc is 30GB versus 50GB if the PQ is the same? Would the average consumer have the faintest idea if they were seeing a feature encoded in HDi vs BD-J? No, nor would they care. I guess the average consumer doesn't need Blu-Ray after all, thanks for confirming.

here is an other one. The user will know if he is getting lossless or not, it is on the box and in the menu and you can here the difference. Yes he does not care on capacity but capacity does affect everything (including PQ) and that he will feel. I don’t think he can
tell the difference between HDi and BD-J but that just proves how useless HDi is :)


Content Creaters aren't thrilled by the fact that there are several different versions of Blu-Ray hard ware out there because it forces them to code for the LCD. Whereas, with HD-DVD, all the players must certain minimum requirements that allow content creators to do great things that can be accessed by all hardware on the market.

so can you tell me what HD DVDs have MC capabilities? Can you show me what machines have enhanced PiP? Can you show me what players decode and play back lossless? Can you show me what agreement a customer must sign that he must have his HD DVD player connected to the internet at all times under penalty of death or pay 1B$ every time he puts in a disk that was coded with a DL feature?

oh ... :lol: ... I must be tired ... I read your post like 4 times and I was trying to figure out if my post was off base ...

jdg345: for the next time you are tired, the answer is yes they usually are

Well, the issue is that if even BD50 isn't enough and we're just going to have to deal with corner cases anyways, why not go with the more inexpensive alternative? Sure, there might be more corner cases with HD-DVD ... but we're talking about small relative %'s.

jdg345 :

a) it is not less expensive (except for someone that wasted their money on an HD DVD player and is thinking of the added cost of buying a BD player)
b) if some corner cases need more then 50 a lot more corner cases need more then 30
c) people need to stop burying their head in the sand and stop looking at the past only. There has never been a time when content has not grown. DVD went from one single sided disk to many films using two dual sided disks. Yes HD DVD has most movies on a single DL disk, some have already surpassed that need. Some cheated by making them combos with the extras on the other side. Others cheated by making an inferior product. Any way if one assumes today most films fit on one 30GB disk then it is obvious to anyone that has paid attention to media in the past that it won't be enough for long.

Aroo? LG only formally unveiled their product at this year's CES if I remember correctly.

last year they had two identical none functionning boxes (players) one with an HD DVD logo and onewith a BD one

I believe the reference is to the fact that the BD Secondary Encoder mandates HD whereas the HD-DVD Secondary Encoder mandates on SD.

jdg345: no. BD mandates that both decoders must be able to decode together any combined stream that goes up to 40mbps for any codec. for example a studio could make a movie where at some point the A stream is 30mbps and 10 for the B and at some other point the B is at 30 and the A at 10.


For on disk HD DVD the second stream requires that for AVC/VC-1 the max <4mbps and for MPEG-2 <6mbps.
for DL the second can be as high as 15mbps (if I remember correctly) -not sure on codecs


PS jsut saw Amir talking about PiP swapping. This is one area where BDs rules make it a better idea. If you swap on HD DVD the second stream is SD <4mbps which is worst then DVD. If it is on BD the two streams (for example) can be 20mbps max which will give you an exceptional pic when flipping PiP and main.

I seem to remember reading that the feature I described was possible for both formats. I'll double-check in the insider's thread.
Here's the response from Talk:

Correct; because Blu-ray secondary video supports essentially the same specs on either primary or secondary video (whereas the HD DVD spec mandates far lower resolution/bitrates for secondary video) you could support this quite easily assuming you have enough bandwidth for full-resolution encodes of both primary and secondary video. With typical PiP material (director commentary, etc.) I don't think this would be an issue, but it would certainly be possible to construct video for which this wouldn't be feasible without degrading PQ.

Note that an example was given by Amir for this effect being achieved on HD DVD by switching to a separate encoding of the PiP material as full-screen. I believe the issue here is that would require seamless branching, and to my knowledge bandwidth limits generally preclude you from branching at any arbitrary point; branch points generally have to be carefully planned to ensure a seamless transition. I understand tools are available to help with this, but I've not heard they would allow arbitrary branching at any point the user hits a button.

- Talk
So basically, as long as they can fit everything in the bandwidth allowed, they can do the "swap" function as well.

Thanks to both insiders for taking the time to respond.

PS jsut saw Amir talking about PiP swapping. This is one area where BDs rules make it a better idea. If you swap on HD DVD the second stream is SD <4mbps which is worst then DVD. If it is on BD the two streams (for example) can be 20mbps max which will give you an exceptional pic when flipping PiP and main.
While comparing bitrates to DVD, it might be fair to point out that VC-1 would be used instead of MPEG-2, wouldn't you think?

I'm not saying that BD won't be able to support better video quality for its second stream - they could use HD if they wanted to. I'm just saying that it's not quite fair to compare the max bitrates of HD DVD's second video stream and SD DVD's, when they use vastly different (in terms of efficiency) codecs to encode the video. I would think (though I don't know for sure) that the SD material (blown up to fullscreen) would look pretty decent - at least as good as SD DVD. I don't know - maybe I'm wrong.

Oh ... fine then. Would the average consumer have the faintest idea whether or not they are getting lossless or lossy AQ encodes? Would the average consumer have the faintest idea that the disc is 30GB versus 50GB if the PQ is the same? Would the average consumer have the faintest idea if they were seeing a feature encoded in HDi vs BD-J? No, nor would they care. I guess the average consumer doesn't need Blu-Ray after all, thanks for confirming.


No, the average consumer doesn't need Blu ray, nor do they need HD-DVD. That's why many millions of the players aren't vanishing off the shelves. We have a long way to go until HD optical disc formats become as popular as DVD. To take advantage of HD content, you need an HDTV (obviously), which only 15-20% of Americans have. Many of those that do have HDTVs think they are getting an HD picture when they aren't (digital cable in my area does not yet carry any HD content). A friend of mine recently asked me what the difference between HDTV and SDTV was; I had to do a side-by-side comparison for him to see the difference. All of this is plain as day for people like us who take an avid interest in technology and home theater, but try to start a casual conversation about next-gen disc formats with, say, the person next to you on the subway, and you're liable to be committed to a mental institution. People just don't know about Blu-ray, HD DVD, HDTV, or even how to plug their DVD player into their TV if the cables aren't color coded.

So no, the average consumer, the one who gets suckered into buying a $6000 plasma TV with a picture so awful the salesmen just keep it off on display, will have no idea nor will they care about lossless vs. lossy. They won't see or hear the difference--half of them won't have surround sound systems at home. Which is why product quality will not ultimately determine the outcome of the format war, because the masses of people can't distinguish it. The average consumer is happy with DVD, and will probably remain so for at least a little longer. But then there's us, and there's enough of us in this niche market to demand lossless codecs. The average consumer at this point is not going to buy BD or HD DVD; the people purchasing these players now can see and hear the difference, which, agreeing with AnthonyP this time, is directly affected by capacity. This seems contradictory, so this is pretty much it: quality, both PQ and AQ, is directly affected by the space available for the content needing to be encoded. Lossless encoding is crucial to the short-term success of both formats, because of the client-base currently buying the next-gen formats. As these formats become mainstream, however, quality will not be an important factor, because the consumers at that point in time will not be as distinguishing and will not be able to tell the difference (like $20 Apex DVD players now).

It would be really good for the proponents of lossless/lossy/PCM and 16-24/48 to demonstrate the relative superiority of these things to get a broad consensus on HDM audio and give direction to the studios, and us. Right now it isn't any more than audio-sceptic, audiophile and audio-fantasy opinion. To me it's more distracting than the HD/BD video quality debate since both have very close to the same result.

I don't want to buy a new A/V receiver, or forgo a disk format for no discernible change.

It would be really good for the proponents of lossless/lossy/PCM and 16-24/48 to demonstrate the relative superiority of these things to get a broad consensus on HDM audio and give direction to the studios, and us. Right now it isn't any more than audio-sceptic, audiophile and audio-fantasy opinion. To me it's more distracting than the HD/BD video quality debate since both have very close to the same result.

I don't want to buy a new A/V receiver, or forgo a disk format for no discernible change.
Nobody says you have to buy a new A/V receiver. If you don't feel the upgrade is worth it, don't pay for it. Simple as that.

Why wouldn't you want a 24/48 (or at least 16/48) DTHD or PCM track, assuming that space and bandwidth allow for it? What would be the downside? There's always a backward-compatible option of some sort for those of you who don't want to purchase new hardware.

Oh ... fine then. Would the average consumer have the faintest idea whether or not they are getting lossless or lossy AQ encodes? Would the average consumer have the faintest idea that the disc is 30GB versus 50GB if the PQ is the same? Would the average consumer have the faintest idea if they were seeing a feature encoded in HDi vs BD-J? No, nor would they care. I guess the average consumer doesn't need Blu-Ray after all, thanks for confirming.


I guess I feel I'm not an "average consumer" in that I have 1800 DVDs, I upgrade when better editions come out, I used to buy films and laser disks, and I've had a Sony Hi-def projector for 6 years and a DVDO upconvertor for two. I've collected movies in one form of another since the age of 12, and I'm now 40.

I don't care if my disk is 30GB or 50GB as long as the picture is the same, I don't care if the extras are HDi VS BD-J, and HD audio seems uniformly great be it lossless or not. I may not be a tech-spec fanatic, but I have higher standards than many above average collectors, but I have yet to see anything I would call a downward compromise about what HD DVD has to offer.

Actually I'd like to see HD DVD players and discs work again. :(
I don't have a problem at all :confused:

This following quote Is forwarded to you...

I was not trying to be rude and I really am just asking that you try rational debate instead of these ridiculing posts.


You may find it useful :rolleyes:

Just curious but when does a difference in capacity become irrelevant? After all with everything else equal can't you always do more with 50 GB than with 30 GB?

50 > 30, that's a given, but IMO, this capacity advantage on paper has yet to be demonstrated in > qualitative output. The question then becomes, is it likely to become relevant, given the firmly established trend of increasing encoding efficiencies over time?

Funny, but I truly do prefer what Blu-ray did in terms of PiP support since it sounds to me like it has the best long term potential. If someone could convince the DVD Forum to make HD PiP decoding mandatory in the HD DVD specs for on disc secondary video streams I would of course reconsider my position.

Haven't you heard? BD enthusiasts don't care about value-added content. The mantra we keep hearing is: "Just give me the movie." :p

......Also just a theory but if it wasn't for HDTV I am not so sure that DVD would be in the process of being replaced and it might have lasted as long as VHS did.

I think that's an excellent hypothesis. ;)

don't want to get in the 2/3 debate but I guess I will answer with a question. What other third rate CEs are left that might think doing a combo player as the only way to sell their stuff?

The only reason I bought a Samsung was that it was there when none of the others were. If the Sony, Pany or Pioneer were out at the time there would have been no way I would have bought it. This is just (like LG) a company that realizes it can’t compete in the single format and hoping that mking a more expensive dual player will help it sell some machines.

Nice one Anthony. ;)

I didn't know that Samsung was a third rate CE. Someone should let Sony know they partnered with a third rate company for their Bravia LCD panels.

You may find it useful :rolleyes:

As should you as well. :rolleyes:

What ever happened to that LG dual format player? There was discussion at the time that it did not have the required features to meet the HD DVD specs and therefore could not be marketed under that logo. Did that ever get resolved?


it can be marketed LG can say anything they want :) but as far as I know there is still no HD DVD logo

Now the question I have is on a 1080 pixel display where the PiP window will be a small subset of that full resolution, how will 1080 resolution benefit you? The display doesn't have enough pixels to make use of that much resolution in a small overlay window. Is there something I'm missing here?

2CH: because it is a secondary decoder and not a PiP. PiP is the usage so far, but it could be anything else. For example the dirctor might decide "I don't want to be in a box" and so he tapes a full screen image of himself in front of a green screen that is coded as invisible and so you have the director walking all over the screen pointing out soime fun facts (for example the car going through the LOTR film) where his hand points to thge car.

Or it could be, like Amir was discussing in the insider thread where they give you the ability to make the 480 stream full screen and the 1080 a PiP. For example imagine Lucas putting the original SW and the touched up version on the same disk, you can watch either (straight) or watch one as PiP of the other (your choice which one is PiP. Would you like it if one of those versions (the one you want to watch) is SD with more compression artefacts?

Well if you are going to take full resolution/bandwidth rate video to display full screen, why no just encode as a secondary stream and branch to it?

not at all. it was a dual stream scenario. seamless branching can't happen willy-nilly. That is why some count secondary video streaming decoding PiP as a better feature then two distinct videos like DVDs and some BDs have used to have PiP.

witth branching you need branching points and that was not what he was talking about.

I see what you mean, but maybe you are implying something that I've never seen clearly indicated here: Are you saying that a secondary video stream can be scaled to an arbitrarily smaller resolution in a PiP window? I know that the entire output plane can be scaled (i.e. 720 output or 1080). But if a secondary stream is encoded at 1080, can it be scaled to 640x480 for PiP usage on the fly?

Perhaps so... set top boxes and TV's are doing it. If so, then I concede that full-bandwidth secondary decoders make your scenario easier. For non-full-BW decoders, I'd guess you'd have to have an encode for both the PiP window, and then another one at a greater resolution for the "swap" to full-screen.

steve: there is nothing in either specs that the secondary stream bing decoded must be a certain size PiP. The PiPness is in the disk and the authoring that is done, it tells the player what to do. One author could decide you can make the PiP window any size. Some other could decide you can move the PiP window to where you want (like any of the 4 corners or use the direction to move it several pixels at a time). Some other could decide not to make it a PiP but "ghosts" extra video stuff added at places on the screen.....

While comparing bitrates to DVD, it might be fair to point out that VC-1 would be used instead of MPEG-2, wouldn't you think?

Steeb: true, did not mean to imply that. 4MBPS is a lot less then the BW of DVD that is just over 10mbps (all combined). Even if you factoir in the benefits of VC-1/AVC over MPEG-2 it still should be worst. As long as it is 1/4 or 1/9 the screen, it is not a big issue but why did we buy HDOM players and asked for HD content? It was because we did not want over compressed SD. And to me it is obvious that discussing the HD DVD PiP in a swap scenario (or something where it is full screen) is a step backwards not forwards.

Steeb: true, did not mean to imply that. 4MBPS is a lot less then the BW of DVD that is just over 10mbps (all combined). Even if you factoir in the benefits of VC-1/AVC over MPEG-2 it still should be worst. As long as it is 1/4 or 1/9 the screen, it is not a big issue but why did we buy HDOM players and asked for HD content? It was because we did not want over compressed SD. And to me it is obvious that discussing the HD DVD PiP in a swap scenario (or something where it is full screen) is a step backwards not forwards.
You might be right. We'll have to wait until a studio figures out a good way to utilize fullscreen video for the secondary stream before we'll know for sure. Do we have any existing examples of VC-1 encoded SD material?

The presumption here is that a format can only offer improvement with unclaimed GB. That's silly, compression techniques, and hardware are improving all the time, HD DVD is already a sweet-looking (and sounding) format. I see no reason to believe it's engineers won't improve on what is already a more solid foundation.

Finding ways of doing more with less is a progressive objective.

Timy the problem with this is that it is just as true for both formats. If a better encoder is created a studio that buys it could use it on either format. Look at WB they use the exact same encoding on both formats. If a better encoder comes out and you get the same pick at 1mbps less on average will that only apply to the HD DVD and then the exact same encoding will miraculously be 1mbps for BD like the old one?

Nice one Anthony.

I didn't know that Samsung was a third rate CE. Someone should let Sony know they partnered with a third rate company for their Bravia LCD panels.

2CH comme on, you know it is true. I would put them a bit higher then LG but they are not names you associate with higher end (quality) CEs. Even Sony I would not consider 1st rate (at least in most of their A/V buisnesses).

would you buy an LG (or Samsung) Plasma if it was priced the same of the Sony or Panasonic or Pioneer?

2CH comme on, you know it is true. I would put them a bit higher then LG but they are not names you associate with higher end (quality) CEs. Even Sony I would not consider 1st rate (at least in most of their A/V buisnesses).

would you buy an LG (or Samsung) Plasma if it was priced the same of the Sony or Panasonic or Pioneer?

Sony isn't in the plasma business anymore Anthony, but yeah, I'd buy certain Samsung models over some equivalently priced Panasonic units. In fact, I did.

Just to point this out but whether a company is considered 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rate is very subjective. For instance if you took ten CE companies (Akai, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, Vizio, Westinghouse) and asked people about them they would give differing opinions based on both their perception of that company and experiences with their products.


50 > 30, that's a given, but IMO, this capacity advantage on paper has yet to be demonstrated in > qualitative output.That would be a hard demonstration to have since the few studios that are neutral in this format war tend to either use the same encoding or use different encodings with different video codecs. Also personally speaking I think that capacity could be an issue with longer films that have lossless audio and/or PiP.


Haven't you heard? BD enthusiasts don't care about value-added content. The mantra we keep hearing is: "Just give me the movie." :pThere are people on both sides of this format war who really don't care much about extras. Personally I think that interactivity is something that is rather important since it will help differentiate Blu-ray/HD DVD from DVD even with people who buy poor quality HDTVs, who sit to far away from their HDTVs, or who use 480i/p displays.

jdg345: that is the stupidest comment I heard. Maybe we should stop all movies for home until there is something that can give us lossless video and sound. We should also stop movies in theatres unil we can get holograms.


But isn't one of the prime arguments that while BD50 may not be needed today, it might be needed in the future -- hence 30GB is not enough? If people are going to argue that 30GB might be 'okay' now but not in the future (so BD is better). Then can't the same argument be made for something else? Talk just said that BD50 isn't enough today ... so why bother? Let's just move on to the next next generation. :rolleyes:


here is an other one. The user will know if he is getting lossless or not, it is on the box and in the menu and you can here the difference. Yes he does not care on capacity but capacity does affect everything (including PQ) and that he will feel. I don’t think he can tell the difference between HDi and BD-J but that just proves how useless HDi is :)


How will they know? Will they be able to audibly hear a difference? The point was that Talk said a user will watch the Descent and think they have PiP, they wont care how it was done. The same can be said for lossless, and BD-J. You're saying capacity affects PQ ... show me? Where? Aren't the avg PQ ratings for HD-DVD actually *higher* than the avg ratings for BD?


so can you tell me what HD DVDs have MC capabilities? Can you show me what machines have enhanced PiP? Can you show me what players decode and play back lossless? Can you show me what agreement a customer must sign that he must have his HD DVD player connected to the internet at all times under penalty of death or pay 1B$ every time he puts in a disk that was coded with a DL feature?

I don't know much about MC, so I cannot comment there. The rest of this is just silly banter. *shrug*

jdg345: for the next time you are tired, the answer is yes they usually are

Thank you for the useful commentary. :rolleyes:

The original post wasn't a reply to you. Did I kick your dog or something this morning?

jdg345 :
a) it is not less expensive (except for someone that wasted their money on an HD DVD player and is thinking of the added cost of buying a BD player)


Oh, sorry ... please provide me a link to the store or discount coupon you have that allows me to buy a BD Player for less than I can purchase an HD-DVD player.


b) if some corner cases need more then 50 a lot more corner cases need more then 30


This is just your opinion, correct? I would go with having more corner cases with HD-DVD than BD, but I wouldn't say 'a lot more' considering codecs are getting more and more efficient. The relative number of corner cases is a small % of the market anyways ... so let's take your example. Let's say 1% of titles are corner cases for BD. Even if HD-DVD had 100% more corner-cases, it still amounts to 2% of releases. *shrug*


c) people need to stop burying their head in the sand and stop looking at the past only. There has never been a time when content has not grown. DVD went from one single sided disk to many films using two dual sided disks. Yes HD DVD has most movies on a single DL disk, some have already surpassed that need. Some cheated by making them combos with the extras on the other side. Others cheated by making an inferior product. Any way if one assumes today most films fit on one 30GB disk then it is obvious to anyone that has paid attention to media in the past that it won't be enough for long.

Talk has already told us that even BD50 isn't enough today ... so what should we go buy? Since both formats are already not enough. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to get into this 'cheating' nonsense ... it would get us no where anyways.

jdg345: no. BD mandates that both decoders must be able to decode together any combined stream that goes up to 40mbps for any codec. for example a studio could make a movie where at some point the A stream is 30mbps and 10 for the B and at some other point the B is at 30 and the A at 10.


For on disk HD DVD the second stream requires that for AVC/VC-1 the max <4mbps and for MPEG-2 <6mbps.
for DL the second can be as high as 15mbps (if I remember correctly) -not sure on codecs


PS jsut saw Amir talking about PiP swapping. This is one area where BDs rules make it a better idea. If you swap on HD DVD the second stream is SD <4mbps which is worst then DVD. If it is on BD the two streams (for example) can be 20mbps max which will give you an exceptional pic when flipping PiP and main.

You might want to re-read amir's info ... he goes on to say that HD-DVD actually has more bandwidth when using the secondary decoder. Why would being SL vs DL have any affect on Bandwidth at all? That makes no sense. :confused:

Besides, you yourself stated that most/many HD-DVD's are DL30 anyways ... so most/many would have that 15mbps stream in addition to the 30mbps for the main feature. Let's see ... that's 45mbps ... :D

While comparing bitrates to DVD, it might be fair to point out that VC-1 would be used instead of MPEG-2, wouldn't you think?

I'm not saying that BD won't be able to support better video quality for its second stream - they could use HD if they wanted to. I'm just saying that it's not quite fair to compare the max bitrates of HD DVD's second video stream and SD DVD's, when they use vastly different (in terms of efficiency) codecs to encode the video. I would think (though I don't know for sure) that the SD material (blown up to fullscreen) would look pretty decent - at least as good as SD DVD. I don't know - maybe I'm wrong.

Amir mentioned that even with SD content, using some additional color depth, they could be upconverted. It's in the insider's thread.

[I'd buy certain Samsung models over some equivalently priced Panasonic units. In fact, I did.

for the same size?

I guess I feel I'm not an "average consumer" in that I have 1800 DVDs, I upgrade when better editions come out, I used to buy films and laser disks, and I've had a Sony Hi-def projector for 6 years and a DVDO upconvertor for two. I've collected movies in one form of another since the age of 12, and I'm now 40.

I don't care if my disk is 30GB or 50GB as long as the picture is the same, I don't care if the extras are HDi VS BD-J, and HD audio seems uniformly great be it lossless or not. I may not be a tech-spec fanatic, but I have higher standards than many above average collectors, but I have yet to see anything I would call a downward compromise about what HD DVD has to offer.

My point was just that though ... for all the paper benefits of BD, the average consumer likely won't know the difference -- nor case.

Talk mentioned that The Descent PiP is PiP because the consumer doesn't know any better. If that's the case, and the average consumer cannot tell the difference between lossless and lossy and 50GB and 30GB ... well ... then ... what's the point? Stick with HD-DVD, it's awesome today, it's more inexpensive, and it's more complete. Why not get more bang for your buck? *shrug*

But isn't one of the prime arguments that while BD50 may not be needed today

who said 50 is not needed today? there are many titles that needed it and got it (and some that did need it but did not get it).

The thing is today (for example) most titles don't have HD extras when studios start doing HD extras (instead of including a subset from the DVD) the title will need more space. When studios realize that they cnj release the "European" title in NA and just make one encoding with 5 languages and release it in the US the same way they realized they could do with French and make one US/Canada title instread of a US with DTS and a Canadian with French on DVD and they start all disks with 5 (or more languages) then they need more space. When studios that asked for interactivity strart relasing real interactive titles (not PiP or other stuff so far) they will need more space.


The point is you said we should buy nothing until a format that can offer everythin comes out, that is why you said no one should buy BD. It is totraly different then buying the format that is most prepared for the future

How will they know? Will they be able to audibly hear a difference? The point was that Talk said a user will watch the Descent and think they have PiP, they wont care how it was done. The same can be said for lossless, and BD-J. You're saying capacity affects PQ ... show me? Where? Aren't the avg PQ ratings for HD-DVD actually *higher* than the avg ratings for BD?


they take the remote and go to the menu and pick watch commentary and see a PiP, on the cover it says video commentary. Does the user know how it is done without coming here? if you did not come here and read that BD does not use dual decoders now and that the descent used two streams and using branching would you know what was used? Let’s say someone decided to use the same technique on an HD DVD (after all what is on the disk is up to the guy making it) would you know what kind of PiP was used?

Now when you go to the menu (or on the back cover) and you see DD 5.1, DTS 5.1, Uncompressed 5.1, DTHD 5.1, DTS HD MA do you need to come here to know what audio is available on the disk or what codec is used? if you know DTHD,DTS MA and PCM (uncompressed) is losseless (only needs to be answered once) how can you even imply that there is no way for the user to know?

Talk has already told us that even BD50 isn't enough today ... so what should we go buy? Since both formats are already not enough.
the one that is more, why is that hard? if you are starving and go to the only restaurant for miles and can only afford one burger (even though you want two) do you say "I will rather starve to death because I can only afford one but want two" or do you buy the one you can afford and enjoy it?

You might want to re-read amir's info ... he goes on to say that HD-DVD actually has more bandwidth when using the secondary decoder. Why would being SL vs DL have any affect on Bandwidth at all? That makes no sense.

Besides, you yourself stated that most/many HD-DVD's are DL30 anyways ... so most/many would have that 15mbps stream in addition to the 30mbps for the main feature. Let's see ... that's 45mbps ...

I think you misunderstood

1) HD DVD has a max of 30mbps that includes everything on the disk and any size disk* (audio -several languages, main video, menu data, PiP video, PiP audio, subtitles....)
2) DL can stand for dual layer, but in this context (usually by anyone talking PiP) stands for down load. (not from the disk that can only be 30mbps, but from the internet)

* at CES Toshiba talked about an HD DVD 51GB disk, at the same time they talked about upping the BW.

Does the user know how it is done without coming here? if you did not come here and read that BD does not use dual decoders now and that the descent used two streams and using branching would you know what was used? Let’s say someone decided to use the same technique on an HD DVD (after all what is on the disk is up to the guy making it) would you know what kind of PiP was used?


Well I guess you would have to wonder why choosing the PIP mode during the movie causes the movie to start over again? After all, a second encode of the movie would have to be started in the BD example you stated. As for the HD DVD version, the pop-up menu system generally lets you pick the extra stuff 'on the fly' without stopping the movie.

who said 50 is not needed today? there are many titles that needed it and got it (and some that did need it but did not get it).

The thing is today (for example) most titles don't have HD extras when studios start doing HD extras (instead of including a subset from the DVD) the title will need more space. When studios realize that they cnj release the "European" title in NA and just make one encoding with 5 languages and release it in the US the same way they realized they could do with French and make one US/Canada title instread of a US with DTS and a Canadian with French on DVD and they start all disks with 5 (or more languages) then they need more space. When studios that asked for interactivity strart relasing real interactive titles (not PiP or other stuff so far) they will need more space.


So are you suggesting that when BD50's become the 'majority', then the PQ and AQ scores of titles will begin to exceed that of HD-DVD scores? Because right now, even with 30GB, you seem to get more additional content with HD-DVD than you do with Blu-Ray. And when Blu-Ray does add that extra content, we end up with 75GB Releases (as per Talk and PoTC).


The point is you said we should buy nothing until a format that can offer everythin comes out, that is why you said no one should buy BD. It is totraly different then buying the format that is most prepared for the future


No, the point I was trying to make was that the BD Proponents say that 30GB isn't enough today, so we should buy BD. If 50GB isn't enough today either, what's the point? How can you say it's most prepared for the future if they are already releasing BD50+? I'm just going by what Talk stated regarding PoTC.


they take the remote and go to the menu and pick watch commentary and see a PiP, on the cover it says video commentary. Does the user know how it is done without coming here? if you did not come here and read that BD does not use dual decoders now and that the descent used two streams and using branching would you know what was used? Let’s say someone decided to use the same technique on an HD DVD (after all what is on the disk is up to the guy making it) would you know what kind of PiP was used?


Nope ... but when I use PiP on HD-DVD and have full access to the menus and options, and then I go to Blu-Ray and use PiP and get limited functionality by comparison ... I'm going to notice that and wonder why that is.


Now when you go to the menu (or on the back cover) and you see DD 5.1, DTS 5.1, Uncompressed 5.1, DTHD 5.1, DTS HD MA do you need to come here to know what audio is available on the disk or what codec is used? if you know DTHD,DTS MA and PCM (uncompressed) is losseless (only needs to be answered once) how can you even imply that there is no way for the user to know?


You're comparing what's on the box, I'm comparing the actual experience. Will the user be able to tell a difference in the actual experience of PiP in The Descent and an HD-DVD title's PiP? Absolutely yes! Will the averageuser be able to tell an audible difference between lossless and lossy on his HTIAB? Likely, no. Do you really believe that the average consumer looks at the back of a case to see what encoding is used for audio tracks? From the anecdotal evidence here, and from my own personal experiences, most people just like a the title and perhaps if it's Full Screen or Wide Screen. Beyond that, they don't really care if it's anamorphic 2.35 or 1.87 or LCPM or DD+.


the one that is more, why is that hard? if you are starving and go to the only restaurant for miles and can only afford one burger (even though you want two) do you say "I will rather starve to death because I can only afford one but want two" or do you buy the one you can afford and enjoy it?

Huh? Buy the one that is more because it is more? Is that the only reason? Why should I buy two burgers when one fills me completely? No need for gluttony. *shrug*

Amir mentioned that even with SD content, using some additional color depth, they could be upconverted. It's in the insider's thread.

but if all you want is upconverted SD why buy anything other then DVD?

Funny how HD DVD insider says “you don't need better then DVD Audio take what HD DVD offers” and all the zealots come here preaching “you might not hear a difference, it is not needed, DVD audio was better then us sinners deserve”

Now asking for real HD is too much and us sinners should not ask for HD video and upconverted SD that is worst then DVD is good eough.

If all I wanted was SD I would not have bought anything and stuck with my DVD player, you know you can buy them for less then 30$ and the disks cost much less as well.

but if all you want is upconverted SD why buy anything other then DVD?

Well, this was in reference to the PiP component only ... where I don't really see a huge need to actually 'swap' them with the main feature anyways -- it was just being discussed as to whether or not it would be technically possible. Considering the whole screen is 1080, a smaller window can be ultra crisp and clear using a much smaller number of pixels.

Well I guess you would have to wonder why choosing the PIP mode during the movie causes the movie to start over again? After all, a second encode of the movie would have to be started in the BD example you stated. As for the HD DVD version, the pop-up menu system generally lets you pick the extra stuff 'on the fly' without stopping the movie.

no it won't

2CH comme on, you know it is true. I would put them a bit higher then LG but they are not names you associate with higher end (quality) CEs. Even Sony I would not consider 1st rate (at least in most of their A/V buisnesses).

would you buy an LG (or Samsung) Plasma if it was priced the same of the Sony or Panasonic or Pioneer?

Soo ... when they were exclusive, it was okay to say, "Look at all the Superb CE Backing Blu-Ray Has: Sony, Samsung, Philips, Pioneer, LG, etc. All HD-DVD has is Toshiba and some second rate garbage Chineese players [maybe]."

Then, CE's go neutral, and they are lumped into second tier all of a sudden?

There's way more spin here in this thread than the washing machines at a laundramat. :rolleyes:

but if all you want is upconverted SD why buy anything other then DVD?

Funny how HD DVD insider says “you don't need better then DVD Audio take what HD DVD offers” and all the zealots come here preaching “you might not hear a difference, it is not needed, DVD audio was better then us sinners deserve”

Now asking for real HD is too much and us sinners should not ask for HD video and upconverted SD that is worst then DVD is good eough.

If all I wanted was SD I would not have bought anything and stuck with my DVD player, you know you can buy them for less then 30$ and the disks cost much less as well.

How are you going to get 1800x1200 pixels in a window that is smaller than the overall 1800x1200 main dislpay?

no it won't

no what wont? :confused:

no it won't
I don't know how it works on the Descent, but with Crank, if you're watching the movie and choose the "Cranked Out Mode" (aka the faux PiP) it starts the movie over.

So are you suggesting that when BD50's become the 'majority', then the PQ and AQ scores of titles will begin to exceed that of HD-DVD scores? Because right now, even with 30GB, you seem to get more additional content with HD-DVD than you do with Blu-Ray. And when Blu-Ray does add that extra content, we end up with 75GB Releases (as per Talk and PoTC).


no BD already has better PQ and AQ


No, the point I was trying to make was that the BD Proponents say that 30GB isn't enough today, so we should buy BD. If 50GB isn't enough today either, what's the point? How can you say it's most prepared for the future if they are already releasing BD50+? I'm just going by what Talk stated regarding PoTC.

are we going to do an Abbot and Costelo routine? who's on first?

let's try one more time

if 50 is not enough 30 is even less and even more not enough. Let's put it this way Smallville is on 5 HD DVDs 5*30=150=50*3 so it could be on 3 BDs instead of 5

15GB is not used so HD DVD is only 30GB. On the other hand if 25/30 is enough then SL BD is enough, if not then BD has the 50GB disk.

Nope ... but when I use PiP on HD-DVD and have full access to the menus and options, and then I go to Blu-Ray and use PiP and get limited functionality by comparison ... I'm going to notice that and wonder why that is.

that is not how it works. You can have full access of menus on BD as well

You're comparing what's on the box, I'm comparing the actual experience.

not at all. I just used that to show how stupid what you said was. Even if you want to be delusional like most HD DVD supporters and assume there is no difference between lossless and lossy the user can still know what he is using just by looking at the menu. When I watched warriors of heaven and earth last night and it started in Mandarin with English subtitles I did not need to look at the menu to know that it was not the English, but when I went to change it to English audio it was there in the menu that I was in Mandarin. You said if J6P does not know what PiP they also won't know what audio it is, I just pointed out that it was insane because there is no way of knowing for one (PIP) and only one way not to know for the other (audio) and that is because the person is a complete moron.

so most/many would have that 15mbps stream in addition to the 30mbps for the main feature. Let's see ... that's 45mbps ... :DJust my opinion but it doesn't seem very fair to be against Blu-ray player profiles and than turn around and promote an optional feature of HD DVD which may not even be supported on any of the current HD DVD players.


Well, this was in reference to the PiP component only ... where I don't really see a huge need to actually 'swap' them with the main feature anyways -- it was just being discussed as to whether or not it would be technically possible.From what I have read there are two usage scenarios (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10300751&&#post10300751) the studios discussed in which HD PiP would be useful.


How are you going to get 1800x1200 pixels in a window that is smaller than the overall 1800x1200 main dislpay?If you are referring to HD PiP than Keith has explained (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10299775&&#post10299775) how that would be possible.

no it won't


I am curious as to how this works then. The disk magically goes from one encode of the movie to the other without stopping or stuttering????????

Well, this was in reference to the PiP component only ... where I don't really see a huge need to actually 'swap' them with the main feature anyways -- it was just being discussed as to whether or not it would be technically possible. Considering the whole screen is 1080, a smaller window can be ultra crisp and clear using a much smaller number of pixels.

but there is no PiP there is just a secondary stream. If it is used for a PiP or not it is up to the studio.

Like I asked before(because it is a good example that I am sure we would all love), if Lucas decided to put both streams of SW 4 concurently (the original and the touched up changed version) so that you can watch A, B A with B as PiP and B with A as PiP and you can flip through all three on the fly, would you say "I like the original better and want to see Han Solo shoot first, but because Lucas thinks the remake deserves 1080p I don't mind watching it in SD". Because PiP should not be HD and Lucas though of the original on PiP

You said if J6P does not know what PiP they also won't know what audio it is, I just pointed out that it was insane because there is no way of knowing for one (PIP) and only one way not to know for the other (audio) and that is because the person is a complete moron.

Anthony, If you've discovered a direct correlation between intelligence and hearing acuity that has somehow escaped scientists conducting research in the field of human sensory perception, I'm sure they'd greatly appreciate it if you'd be willing to share your data. ;)

Soo ... when they were exclusive, it was okay to say, "Look at all the Superb CE Backing Blu-Ray Has: Sony, Samsung, Philips, Pioneer, LG, etc. All HD-DVD has is Toshiba and some second rate garbage Chineese players [maybe]."

Then, CE's go neutral, and they are lumped into second tier all of a sudden?


no, show me when I ever said either was more then third tiere before. Many did not buy the Samsung and waited for one of the others to come to market. Some spinned that dual players was because they lost confidence in BD and I just pointed out that it was most likely the opposite and it was them trying to give people a reason to buy their BD player. Like others have pointed out the LG is not even a real HD DVD player (no logo, doesn't have all the features mandated) the whole "it is a BD player that can play HD DVD as well" is trying to give a small benefit to their player to try and get someone to buy

I am curious as to how this works then. The disk magically goes from one encode of the movie to the other without stopping or stuttering????????


no, there can be two ways.

1) branching that means you can add the PiP at some given points (i.e. either going to the start of a branching point or waiting for a branching point) neither necessarily mean at the start of the movie like you said

2) use two concurrent streams. When you flip languages is there an issue when you flip? no. With 40mbps for video if the movie is not more then 20mbps you can mux both of them at the same time and the menu choice picks if you are decoding the only movie stream or the Movie+PiP stream, the same way the menu picks what language is used

each has its pros and cons. But there is no reason but an authors choice how the menu works.

Anthony, If you've discovered a direct correlation between intelligence and hearing acuity that has somehow escaped scientists conducting research in the field of human sensory perception, I'm sure they'd greatly appreciate it if you'd be willing to share your data.

no, but I did between fanboys and the rest. Their blind faith makes them look dumber. Where did I say acuity had anything to do with intelligence. I just said if someone wanted to know what they are listening to all they need to do is look at what is selected in the menu. So saying there is no way for someone to know if it is lossless or not (the same way as knowing how PiP is done) assumes someone is a moron.

no BD already has better PQ and AQ


According to the averages posted by 2Channel, that seems hardly the case. Do you have some additional information you'd like to share?


are we going to do an Abbot and Costelo routine? who's on first?

let's try one more time

if 50 is not enough 30 is even less and even more not enough. Let's put it this way Smallville is on 5 HD DVDs 5*30=150=50*3 so it could be on 3 BDs instead of 5


Really? You might want to get on the phone with the BBC tomorrow. You see, the HD-DVD Version of Planet Earth is (4) Discs: 4*30=120 ... that can be done on (3) BD's instead of (4) HD-DVDs ... yet ... they chose to go with (4) Blu-Ray discs too. Hmmm ... Why?


15GB is not used so HD DVD is only 30GB. On the other hand if 25/30 is enough then SL BD is enough, if not then BD has the 50GB disk.


15GB is not used at all? 25 <> 30, so if we're comparing the Most Popular HD-DVD Media Type to the Most Popular BR Media Type, HD-DVD actually has more space.


that is not how it works. You can have full access of menus on BD as well


As someone else mentioned, this is definitely not the case with Crank ... and I believe The Descent suffers from the same issue. Perhaps I'll give it a rent and see for myself.


not at all. I just used that to show how stupid what you said was. Even if you want to be delusional like most HD DVD supporters and assume there is no difference between lossless and lossy the user can still know what he is using just by looking at the menu. When I watched warriors of heaven and earth last night and it started in Mandarin with English subtitles I did not need to look at the menu to know that it was not the English, but when I went to change it to English audio it was there in the menu that I was in Mandarin. You said if J6P does not know what PiP they also won't know what audio it is, I just pointed out that it was insane because there is no way of knowing for one (PIP) and only one way not to know for the other (audio) and that is because the person is a complete moron.

Why are HD-DVD supporters delusional? You believe there is an audible difference between lossy and lossless. I don't. So, since I don't agree with you, I'm delusional? :rolleyes:

You're comparing English vs. Mandarin to Lossy vs Lossless ... isn't that just grasping at straws here? I believe just about anyone can tell if they are listening to a language they want. I don't believe anyone can tell if they are listening to lossy vs lossless audio. They're going to insert the disc, press play, and if it's in English -- they're going to listen. How many 'average consumers' go through the trouble of selecting audio setup on their DVD's? I don't know of many. Even subtitles can easily be turned on/off via the remote control button.

Just my opinion but it doesn't seem very fair to be against Blu-ray player profiles and than turn around and promote an optional feature of HD DVD which may not even be supported on any of the current HD DVD players.


Fair point. I guess I'm just tired of this BD50 is better because it's most space argument even though there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that on the average. Since the BDA is throwing the first adopters under the bus with obsolesence, I'm really starting to think Toshiba should do the same and release TL51 with a higher spinrate and bandwidth. Then that talking point will go away and we'll be left with just 'Studio Support' and 'CE Support'. Though, any CE's that go Neutral will suddenly be 'crappy' anyways. :rolleyes:


From what I have read there are two usage scenarios (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10300751&&#post10300751) the studios discussed in which HD PiP would be useful.


Right, the first scenario was the 'swap' scenario ... and yes, I agree that would be a case where HD content would be useful ... but then don't you need to double the BW? In the case of the second scenario, wouldn't the bandwidth need to be doubled there too?


If you are referring to HD PiP than Keith has explained (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10299775&&#post10299775) how that would be possible.

Understood, this is like the first scenario though. I was just noting that if 'swaping' isn't enabled or isn't an option, then having all those extra pixels seems like a waste, no?

no, but I did between fanboys and the rest. Their blind faith makes them look dumber.

Um yeah, Anthony, I agree that those individuals who spend inordinate amounts of time raising their post count to ludicrous levels by defending their own format, and attacking the other, likely qualify for membership in the fanboy fraternity. :eek:


Where did I say acuity had anything to do with intelligence. I just said if someone wanted to know what they are listening to all they need to do is look at what is selected in the menu. So saying there is no way for someone to know if it is lossless or not (the same way as knowing how PiP is done) assumes someone is a moron.

What if they're using the analog outs in pure direct mode?

but there is no PiP there is just a secondary stream. If it is used for a PiP or not it is up to the studio.

Like I asked before(because it is a good example that I am sure we would all love), if Lucas decided to put both streams of SW 4 concurently (the original and the touched up changed version) so that you can watch A, B A with B as PiP and B with A as PiP and you can flip through all three on the fly, would you say "I like the original better and want to see Han Solo shoot first, but because Lucas thinks the remake deserves 1080p I don't mind watching it in SD". Because PiP should not be HD and Lucas though of the original on PiP

Even if it's a secondary stream ... if it's being used for the purpose of displaying PiP, in a window, which is a subset of the main display ... and there is no ability to swap ... then why waste the pixels?

Now, in your case, if you swap between the two, then they should both be in HD ... but how would that be accomplished? Seamless branching? Because you're likely not going to encode full versions of each and expect it to fit on a single disc ... not even a BD50. And if it's going to be done with branching, HD-DVD can probably do it just as well. Maybe I'll take this scenario to the Insider's Thread and see what folks come back with.

no, show me when I ever said either was more then third tiere before. Many did not buy the Samsung and waited for one of the others to come to market. Some spinned that dual players was because they lost confidence in BD and I just pointed out that it was most likely the opposite and it was them trying to give people a reason to buy their BD player. Like others have pointed out the LG is not even a real HD DVD player (no logo, doesn't have all the features mandated) the whole "it is a BD player that can play HD DVD as well" is trying to give a small benefit to their player to try and get someone to buy

Would you say that Philips is 2nd tier? Third? How would you rate the Blu-Ray CE's then? Tier-wise?

And, LG is supposedly releasing an HD-DVD logo'd player before EOY.

Even if it's a secondary stream ... if it's being used for the purpose of displaying PiP, in a window, which is a subset of the main display ... and there is no ability to swap ... then why waste the pixels?

Now, in your case, if you swap between the two, then they should both be in HD ... but how would that be accomplished? Seamless branching? Because you're likely not going to encode full versions of each and expect it to fit on a single disc ... not even a BD50. And if it's going to be done with branching, HD-DVD can probably do it just as well. Maybe I'll take this scenario to the Insider's Thread and see what folks come back with.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I though Amir already addressed this question with an affirmative answer.

no, there can be two ways.

1) branching that means you can add the PiP at some given points (i.e. either going to the start of a branching point or waiting for a branching point) neither necessarily mean at the start of the movie like you said

2) use two concurrent streams. When you flip languages is there an issue when you flip? no. With 40mbps for video if the movie is not more then 20mbps you can mux both of them at the same time and the menu choice picks if you are decoding the only movie stream or the Movie+PiP stream, the same way the menu picks what language is used

each has its pros and cons. But there is no reason but an authors choice how the menu works.

Neither of these options were used for Crank ... and for option 2, for that to work, 20mbps of bandwidth would then have to be plenty for the movie alone. How would that be possible if HD-DVD's bandwidth is already crippled, and is more than 20mbps?

no, but I did between fanboys and the rest. Their blind faith makes them look dumber. Where did I say acuity had anything to do with intelligence. I just said if someone wanted to know what they are listening to all they need to do is look at what is selected in the menu. So saying there is no way for someone to know if it is lossless or not (the same way as knowing how PiP is done) assumes someone is a moron.

I'm curious ... do you have an HD-DVD player? I assume you have a Blu-Ray player.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I though Amir already addressed this question with an affirmative answer.

Thank you ... I'll see if I can find the post and link it to an edit. ;)

EDIT: This response?


No, we don't need seamless branching because there is by definition a seam when you go from the movie, to PiP playing by itself.

And if you think about this a bit more, you realize that you have far less bandwidth than HD DVD to allocate to the PiP track. We have combined bandwidth of 60 mbit/sec for HD DVD scenario. Hey, we can have lossless audio for our full screen PiP. And even 5-6 secondary audio tracks. Yes, even dubbed tracks could be in lossless! Can you do all of this with what is left out of the main movie bandwidth? See, two can play the bandwidth and audio quality game .

In addition, the SD PiP in HD DVD uses the richer 709 color space and by using VC-1, it can be artifact free. As such, we can upscale it and have even a better experience than DVD upscaled today. So tell me how many people would demand more than this for their PiP experience.

EDIT: This response?

Yes, but I'm still not clear on exacly what he meant, though it sounds like on the fly switching of the PiP window isn't possible at full resolution.

Really? You might want to get on the phone with the BBC tomorrow. You see, the HD-DVD Version of Planet Earth is (4) Discs: 4*30=120 ... that can be done on (3) BD's instead of (4) HD-DVDs ... yet ... they chose to go with (4) Blu-Ray discs too. Hmmm ... Why?

can’t say why peopole make stupid decisions. WB has made many of them, like they could fit PCM on SM but chose not to. My guess they either did not put in an order for BD50 early enough or they simply decided to go with the simpler use the LCD and when they made the movuies used the same content per disk as HD DVD.


As someone else mentioned, this is definitely not the case with Crank ... and I believe The Descent suffers from the same issue. Perhaps I'll give it a rent and see for myself.


if someone decided not to include menus on an HD DVD will that mean that menus can’t be included?


Why are HD-DVD supporters delusional? You believe there is an audible difference between lossy and lossless. I don't. So, since I don't agree with you, I'm delusional?


yes? Because there are facts that make opinion useless :). But that is not the point you said there is no way for a customer to know what he is listening to when it is as easy as just looking at the menu or at the box before buying. That is the delusional part.


You're comparing English vs. Mandarin to Lossy vs Lossless ... isn't that just grasping at straws here? I believe just about anyone can tell if they are listening to a language they want. I don't believe anyone can tell if they are listening to lossy vs lossless audio. They're going to insert the disc, press play, and if it's in English -- they're going to listen. How many 'average consumers' go through the trouble of selecting audio setup on their DVD's? I don't know of many. Even subtitles can easily be turned on/off via the remote control button.

I don’t know how many do. Richard said there is absolutely no way for someone to know if the PiP they are seeing is from two streams being decoded at once. You said that the same is true for audio, I pointed out that evenb if someone believes something wrong that you can’t tell the difference in audio by listening you can always tell the difference by looking at what is used. I used the menu but it could be the player or the receiver (depending on equipment used). The point is there is no way that you can tell for PiP and I pointed you how easily and even a death person can tell what he is listening to.

2CH comme on, you know it is true. I would put them a bit higher then LG but they are not names you associate with higher end (quality) CEs. Even Sony I would not consider 1st rate (at least in most of their A/V buisnesses).

would you buy an LG (or Samsung) Plasma if it was priced the same of the Sony or Panasonic or Pioneer?

Well as rto said, Sony is out of the plasma business (for over a year now). We're straying a bit off topic, and I really don't want to get into a display war discussion, because that's a whole different argument.

In Plasma, I'd seriously consider Pioneer, but I'd also look at Panasonic and Samsung.

In LCD, I'd seriously consider Sharp, but I'd also look at Sony and Samsung.

LG actually does a huge business in panels providing them to other manufacturers. Sony and Samsung have a joint venture to produce LCD panels that both companies use.

http://www.marketnews.ca/news_detail.asp?nid=2273

Leading the pack by units was LG Electronics, the only company to show a market share gain, with 27 per cent growth. By revenue, Matsushita (Panasonic) was on top for the third time over the last four quarters. On a unit basis, LG was No. 1 at 42-inch ED, 42-inch HD, and 60-65-inch HD; while Matsushita led at 50-inch HD and 1080p. Rounding out the top five were Samsung (23.2 per cent market share; 16 per cent growth); FHP (8.9 per cent market share; 0 per cent growth); and Pioneer (4.8 per cent market share; three per cent growth).

In short Samsung has become a premium player in my mind. LG is not at that same tier yet. I see them as being where Samsung was about 8 years ago. They may rise to that same level though if they continue to innovate and make a name for themselves.

can’t say why peopole make stupid decisions. WB has made many of them, like they could fit PCM on SM but chose not to. My guess they either did not put in an order for BD50 early enough or they simply decided to go with the simpler use the LCD and when they made the movuies used the same content per disk as HD DVD.


Or maybe BD50 was too expensive? Or maybe it just wasn't needed? You're saying Smallville 'could be' done in 3 discs ... it doesn't mean they would. And if they don't, is it really still an advantage? If what 'could be', never 'is', then what is the advantage of it?


if someone decided not to include menus on an HD DVD will that mean that menus can’t be included?


It's not that menu's were or were not included; it's that it seems to be a whole separate encode of the move with the PiP window as part of the feature. That is not the same experience as one gets with HD-DVD, by a long shot -- and therefore, the consumer would notice. Don't you think?


yes? Because there are facts that make opinion useless :). But that is not the point you said there is no way for a customer to know what he is listening to when it is as easy as just looking at the menu or at the box before buying. That is the delusional part.


There are no facts that exist that lossy 'sounds better' than lossless that I'm aware of. And I stand by my point, you're assuming the average consumer is looking for audio encodes on the box. you're also assuming they go through the menu's to select their audio preferences and don't just "Insert Disc; Press Play". Of course, I'm not talking about people that read these forums, I'm talking about mass market consumers. And, let's just assume they go through the menu, or read the box ... and they click the 'Lossless PCM' track. Are they listening to lossless? or lossy? I'm guessing that would depend on how their gear is connected, and since the average consumer is likely listening to this via their TV speakers or their HTIAB ... well ... you get the idea.




I don’t know how many do. Richard said there is absolutely no way for someone to know if the PiP they are seeing is from two streams being decoded at once. You said that the same is true for audio, I pointed out that evenb if someone believes something wrong that you can’t tell the difference in audio by listening you can always tell the difference by looking at what is used. I used the menu but it could be the player or the receiver (depending on equipment used). The point is there is no way that you can tell for PiP and I pointed you how easily and even a death person can tell what he is listening to.

Again, I disagree ... sure they can look at the menu and see what is being output, but they still likely won't know what they're actually listening to. What if they've connected to their reveiver via analog ports? or optical? Are they still hearing lossless just because the menu displays that's what they're getting?

Right, the first scenario was the 'swap' scenario ... and yes, I agree that would be a case where HD content would be useful ... but then don't you need to double the BW? In the case of the second scenario, wouldn't the bandwidth need to be doubled there too?

Let's do some math (I know people hate it because there is no way to prove HD DVD is as good as BD with it:) )

30mbps (HD DVD) let's say 8mbps audio and other stuff, 4mbps PiP that leaves 18mbps for the main feature.

BD has 48mbps let's say 8mbps audio and other stuff (just like the HD DVD), that leaves 40mbps for the two other and 20mbps for the main and 20 for the PiP. Still better then HD DVD :)

Understood, this is like the first scenario though. I was just noting that if 'swaping' isn't enabled or isn't an option, then having all those extra pixels seems like a waste, no?
agree, but that is the good thing about choices. BD specs say the player must offer it. Not that movies must use it. If the studio prefers to do a PiP they should just use 1/4 the resolution if they want a 1/4 screen and 1/9 if they want 1/9.

The same way HD DVD fanboys say it is nice to require PiP (and I agree-just not that it makes current players obsolete) requiring that players support anythingf the guy making the disk will want is a plus as well. And one I think well worth the wait. I am not at all interested in PiP commentaries nor PiP featurettes. For commentaries I never have and never will use them (the same way I did not even realize Crank had a PiP commentary) as for featurettes I would prefer like Resident evile where it uses branching.

I hope the second stream is used for more intresting stuff that enhance the movie (like the SW example) or something revolutionary like a dual perspective movie (imagine a thriller where the movie is shot through the eyes of the victims and those of the killers, you can watch either movie, PiP one or the other and switch at any time.

Neither of these options were used for Crank ... and for option 2, for that to work, 20mbps of bandwidth would then have to be plenty for the movie alone. How would that be possible if HD-DVD's bandwidth is already crippled, and is more than 20mbps?

20 is just for video and no PiP on the BD HD DVD has a max of 30 for all. If you want PiP it is now down to 26, add 3 1.5 audio tracks and you are down to 21.5 add the subtitles and you are around 20

Let's do some math (I know people hate it because there is no way to prove HD DVD is as good as BD with it:) )

30mbps (HD DVD) let's say 8mbps audio and other stuff, 4mbps PiP that leaves 18mbps for the main feature.

BD has 48mbps let's say 8mbps audio and other stuff (just like the HD DVD), that leaves 40mbps for the two other and 20mbps for the main and 20 for the PiP. Still better then HD DVD :)


Ahhh ... but HD-DVD can give you lossless in less than 8mbps of Audio using TrueHD, can't it? Whereas PCM is more of a pig. Even if we discount that though, you're saying that 18mbps for HD-DVD Main Feature is 'not enough', but 20mbps for Blu-Ray main feature is? :confused:


agree, but that is the good thing about choices. BD specs say the player must offer it. Not that movies must use it. If the studio prefers to do a PiP they should just use 1/4 the resolution if they want a 1/4 screen and 1/9 if they want 1/9.

The same way HD DVD fanboys say it is nice to require PiP (and I agree-just not that it makes current players obsolete) requiring that players support anythingf the guy making the disk will want is a plus as well. And one I think well worth the wait. I am not at all interested in PiP commentaries nor PiP featurettes. For commentaries I never have and never will use them (the same way I did not even realize Crank had a PiP commentary) as for featurettes I would prefer like Resident evile where it uses branching.

I hope the second stream is used for more intresting stuff that enhance the movie (like the SW example) or something revolutionary like a dual perspective movie (imagine a thriller where the movie is shot through the eyes of the victims and those of the killers, you can watch either movie, PiP one or the other and switch at any time.

The thriller thing is a cool idea. ;)

no BD already has better PQ and AQ
snip........


Purely a personal opinion, or do you base it on reviews of titles and/or players? I haven't seen reviewers or the trade rags express that opinion. In fact Scott Wilkinson (who's reviewed every major BD player) in The Perfect Vision had the following to say in his conclusion to his recent XA2 review.

"Despite the major improvements in Blu-ray discs and players lately, I have to say that, based on my experience with the Toshiba HD-XA2, I still think HD-DVD looks better. Not that Blu-ray looks bad these days - far from it - but after reviewing several Blu-ray players, I found myself being drawn more deeply into the HD-XA2'a high-def image. There's no notable difference in audio quality, especially between Dolby TrueHD from HD DVD and PCM from Blu-ray - all the players I've listened to sounded great."

20 is just for video and no PiP on the BD HD DVD has a max of 30 for all. If you want PiP it is now down to 26, add 3 1.5 audio tracks and you are down to 21.5 add the subtitles and you are around 20

Subtitles take 1.5mbps? Wow ... And do most HD-DVD's have 1.5mbps audio tracks? I thought only the original language was done at full and the others were like 640kbps?

And if Blu-Ray has 8 languages in full PCM ... isn't that just going to slurp up the bandwidth advantage pretty quickly?

We'd be better served to grab real world examples rather than make up stuff on the fly. *shrug*

Right, the first scenario was the 'swap' scenario ... and yes, I agree that would be a case where HD content would be useful ... but then don't you need to double the BW? In the case of the second scenario, wouldn't the bandwidth need to be doubled there too?Well that depends a lot on the PiP video that is used but even in scenarios where HD PiP would be useful 720p might be used instead of 1080p because of bandwidth. I would point out that 720p does have a lot more pixels than 480p and for the two scenarios that have been mentioned would be more useful than 480p.


Understood, this is like the first scenario though. I was just noting that if 'swaping' isn't enabled or isn't an option, then having all those extra pixels seems like a waste, no?If the PiP stream is only to be used for a small portion of the screen than SD video would make the most sense.


I don’t know how many do. Richard said there is absolutely no way for someone to know if the PiP they are seeing is from two streams being decoded at once.Just to make this clear but I think that Anthony is referring to another poster. From what I have heard there is an easy way to tell if the PiP is hard coded or a secondary video stream since with a secondary video stream you can turn it on and off while watching the movie.