I've been hearing a lot about Blu Ray having more bandwidth than HD DVD, but I personally don't know what the maximums are for each format.

Does anyone have any articles that outlines the bandwidths of each format?

I've been hearing a lot about Blu Ray having more bandwidth than HD DVD, but I personally don't know what the maximums are for each format.

Does anyone have any articles that outlines the bandwidths of each format?Blu-ray technical white papers available here (http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-13470/Section-13628/Index.html).

More info on both formats available here (http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11397#iif).

PS: It is Blu-ray (not Blu Ray)

Awesome.....thanks for the links.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats#Technical _details) is an easy side by side (by side) comparison.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats#Technical _details) is an easy side by side (by side) comparison.

Except it says they both support 25p and 50i HD content etc. which I'm not sure is totally true :)

Except it says they both support 25p and 50i HD content etc. which I'm not sure is totally true :)

I believe they do (for legacy PAL) but what is wrong is that BD also supports 1080/30P even though it's not listed.

I believe they do (for legacy PAL) but what is wrong is that BD also supports 1080/30P even though it's not listed.

They say in the Toshiba manual's that they don't currently but will in future. There was supposed to be a firmware update in December 2007 that fixed it. None ever happened. If they supported 1080p25 there would be no reason for Planet Earth to reduce their frame rate and introduce artefacts.
"PAL" is really a 576 visible line format (625 total). 1080p25/1080p50 or 1080i50 isn't really "PAL" but UK/European HD frame rates.

Also are you sure they support 1080p30 on Blu-ray - I thought it was 1080i60 and that 1080p30 itself wasn't supported - any links that confirm it?

...Also are you sure they support 1080p30 on Blu-ray - I thought it was 1080i60 and that 1080p30 itself wasn't supported - any links that confirm it?

There is a long thread about it. Here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9157495#post9157495) is the point where it is confirmed.

There is a long thread about it. Here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9157495#post9157495) is the point where it is confirmed.

Thanks. But there's no official Blu-ray spec sheet or anything that confirms it? Or a disc that has actual 1080p30 content? I'm not saying you are wrong, it's probably right and it does seem a bit of an omission if it says the support 1080i60 and not 1080p30 on that wikipedia page.

A lot of the claimed software specs (other than those that pertain to hw limits such as how fast the disk spins, how fast data can be read, how much data can be packed/layer, what the hdmi ports can output) are never cast in stone.
Actually they are. They have to be. See more below.

cjplay is in a position to know what works and what doesn't, as he does this for a living.
He does, but people only look part of his response, this is the other right above it:
Just an update... Blu-Print supports 1080p30, so Blu-Ray supports it. 480p30 was missing from the list, but per Sony, Blu-Print will support it at some point. My take is they may just reflag it as interlaced in the muxing, or the BD spec posted earlier was not the final version of the video spec.

Cjplay.
He is not saying BD spec allows 30p. Rather that the tool accepts it and he is guessing correctly that it converts it to interlace before it puts it on the disc. As an analogy, we could enable our VC-1 encoder to accept 10,000 by 10,000 pixel input (our free encoder does this already), but that doesn't mean the format supports it because the encoder resizes the video to target spec (i.e. 1080p) before encoding. Likewise, what the Sony authoring tool accept is of little consequence. What the spec does, is key.

And here, NIN had to be encoded in interlace for BD from what I recall, since there was no support for 30p. Stacey has the specifics.


There are also a lot of things not in the spec that the players actually support. For example, AVC encodes HP L4.1 in the spec has to have 3 slices per picture, but if you generate them with a single slice per picture, all the players play them anyway.
Ah, but there is no assurance that will be the case in the future, or that all the corner cases have been tested. The current silicon for HD DVD/BD was designed earlier to decode all the various profiles of these codecs for other applications such as set-top boxes for IPTV/broadcast, etc. Future silicon though, may be in already in design which only focuses on what the BD spec requires to save money or whatever. What that silicon comes out, any content that uses those unsupported features and doesn't play on this silicon, must be recalled. The hardware vendor could make a case that the BD logo cannot be used on those titles.

Now, it is possible to change the spec but there needs to be super careful attention paid, and input gathered from everyone involved that changing it can be retrofit properly everywhere and it won't break anything in progress. If this cannot be assured, then extension profiles must be created to avoid damaging someone's business.

take CD audio, mp3s, flac audios as examples of bandwidth and compression

For the OP (Dr_Kn0w), IIRC, the 1st Gen Pioneer Blu-ray player would support Digital Living Network Alliance. There may be other Blu-ray models/brands that do this. Click here for more (http://www.dlna.org/home) info on DLNA.

Note: DLNA is a feature, not a requirement by BDA.

Just to be technically accurate, all this reference to "bandwidth" of each format is incorrect. What is referenced in each format is the maximum transfer rate, not the maximum available bandwidth.

Maximum bandwidth would be the total amount of data that could be placed on the path from the player to the display ... which is well above (in the Gigabit range) the transfer rate of of the medium.

Just to be technically accurate, all this reference to "bandwidth" of each format is incorrect. What is referenced in each format is the maximum transfer rate, not the maximum available bandwidth.

Maximum bandwidth would be the total amount of data that could be placed on the path from the player to the display ... which is well above (in the Gigabit range) the transfer rate of of the medium.

Using your logic the bandwidth of 384Kbps DD is actually 6.9Mbps.:confused:

Amir I think you know better than this. BD supports 1080p30 just fine as long as it has pulldown flags. This is how the NiN disc is encoded. If you want to call it interlaced then you also need to label all HDDVDs as interlaced since they use the same method for 24p.

So this means that it can be encoded on BD at 30p but will only output at 60i (interlaced with each frame into 2 fields?) or can BD output 30p?

I thought pulldown flags only were for 24P content in 60i streams?

Didnt know that you could extract 30P from 60i? (2:2 pulldown)

I thought pulldown flags only were for 24P content in 60i streams?

Didnt know that you could extract 30P from 60i? (2:2 pulldown)

Don't you mean 60i from 30p?;)

Using your logic the bandwidth of 384Kbps DD is actually 6.9Mbps.:confused:

Incorrect .... since the audio is imbedded in what is read from the medium it is still the maximum transfer rate off of each format. These formats are no different than any other device that is read (DvD, HDD, Flash, etc.).

What would be correct is to state that for X data that is transferred from disc, the DD track consumes 384K bandwidth of that stream. However, the full stream is limited to what can be transferred off of disc and is its transfer rate.

As I stated, bandwidth is the maximum amount of data that can be placed on the path from source to receiver. Transfer rate is how much data the source can supply to the path (and subsequently, the receiver). In other words, suppose you have a GigE network at your house. The theoretical available bandwidth is 1Gb/s provided all wiring (or fiber) meets GigE specs. However, all your network devices are FastE. The transfer rate of each device is theoretically 100Mb/s, which is a portion of the total bandwidth available on the path. Bandwidth must always be greater than transfer rate.

If the total bandwidth from source to receiver was taken as stated, then you simply could not take a path limited for HD DvD maximum transfer rate and use the same path for BD without dropping information if the BD transfer rate exceeded the HD DvD transfer rate.

Bandwidth of a given signal only really applies to imbedded streams, whereby stream X is eating up bandwidth Y of maximum transfer rate Z.

He is not saying BD spec allows 30p. Rather that the tool accepts it and he is guessing correctly that it converts it to interlace before it puts it on the disc. As an analogy, we could enable our VC-1 encoder to accept 10,000 by 10,000 pixel input (our free encoder does this already), but that doesn't mean the format supports it because the encoder resizes the video to target spec (i.e. 1080p) before encoding. Likewise, what the Sony authoring tool accept is of little consequence. What the spec does, is key.

I have not looked at any of these streams, but I would assume that streams can still have every macroblock of every picture be encoded as frame picture frame motion and then flagged as interlaced with 2:2, the same way HD DVD would handle 24p as interlaced 2:3, so the only thing relevant is what the player decides to do with that 30p pictures that has this 2:2 flag. If it decides to repeat each frame twice in a 60p hdmi output it would be correct, if it decides to send alternate odd and even lines in each field for a 60i output, I assume that would be correct too. I don't see why this limits the output capability of the player.

What I mean about specs is that they were put in for several reasons. In your example, it's clear that 10kx10k cannot be decoded by any of the chips today, and is not a mode defined for today's HDTV, meaning there's no way any player can decode or display such resolutions anyway.

My example is simpler. Microsoft has a WMV9 encode of a 1920x1080 Elephant Dreams. This stream peaks at around 50Mbps for 11seconds+, according to the BD specs, it should not play since the limit on peak bitrate is 40Mbps, yet both the PS3 and Panasonic players play it easily when formatted as a BDMV/AVCHD. Otoh, the same stream when formatted as EVOB on a HV_VIDEO structure for a HD DVD structure would not play on a HD-A1 since the HD-A1 can't read that data fast enough, or the software running in the HD-A1 didn't expect to see such a data rate.

If I take a 60Mbps peak (>2s) AVC stream and do the same BDMV/AVCHD encode and play it on a PS3/Panasonic it would stutter as well since in this case, the players can no longer read the data fast enough (or the bitrate was too far beyond spec that something broke and the playback stutters).

That's what I mean as software specs being flexible as opposed to hardware specs being inflexible (since how fast the drive spins is a hard limit for both), when a spec in the feature is easily handled with margin, it's easy for the box implementer to just exceed the spec as long as he knows his box's hardware can handle it. Same thing like some of the best early DVD players that handle out of spec encodes and disks quite elegantly, because they had better safety margin.

Didnt know that you could extract 30P from 60i? (2:2 pulldown)Your notation in this case should be 2:2, there is no pulldown.

Incorrect .... since the audio is imbedded in what is read from the medium it is still the maximum transfer rate off of each format. These formats are no different than any other device that is read (DvD, HDD, Flash, etc.)...

While the term bandwidth may be incorrect usage (BDA uses it here (http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-13470/Section-14003/Section-14006/Index.html)), the OP was not asking what was going through his HDMI/DVI but what is the maximum transfer rate or maximum stream rate (is that mo'correct :D) for each format.

While the term bandwidth may be incorrect usage (BDA uses it here (http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-13470/Section-14003/Section-14006/Index.html)), the OP was not asking what was going through his HDMI/DVI but what is the maximum transfer rate or maximum stream rate (is that mo'correct :D) for each format.

much mo' betta.

Everything builds on everything else, and understanding that the transfer rate of each HDM format is no different than any other reference to a "read" medium I felt was important. I have never heard of a disk drive, memory, or any other data storage medium referenced as "bandwidth" for transfer rate, and thus the mixing of the terms adds to the confusion.

Why they suddenly chose to mix the two (or substitute bandwidth for transfer) I have no idea.

EDIT: Ahhh - after having read the reference I understand what they are (incorrectly) trying to do. This is the statement in question:

With High Definition video with a resolution of up to 1920x1080 and up to a 54 Mbit/sec bandwidth (roughly double that of a normal HDTV broadcast), no other format can match Blu-ray Disc's video quality.

That statement somehow tries to infer that because of the maximum transfer rate of BD, it will have much better quality than OTA broadcasts due to the bandwidth (which I believe is ~19.4 Mb/s) allocated by the FCC to each broadcast channel. Remember though, OTA is ulitmately an analog wave and as such, is allocated specific frequencies (or bands) for transmission. However, its rather intellectually dishonest to make that direct comparison. Stored data read off of medium and OTA broadcasts are fundamentally two different things, loosely correlated at best.

That statement somehow tries to infer that because of the maximum transfer rate of BD, it will have much better quality than OTA broadcasts due to the bandwidth (which I believe is ~19.4 Mb/s) allocated by the FCC to each broadcast channel.The TS data rate is 19.39 Mbps, the video rates are CBR (one or more channels that share the 19.39) and the audio is Dolby Digital® at a max of 448 kbps. Now compare that with the numbers available to Blu-ray and it is easy to see why the statement was made.


Remember though, OTA is ulitmately an analog wave and as such, is allocated specific frequencies (or bands) for transmission. However, its rather intellectually dishonest to make that direct comparison. Stored data read off of medium and OTA broadcasts are fundamentally two different things, loosely correlated at best.Data is data, either you get it error free or you don’t. You do know phone modems, cable modems, DirecTV, etc. transmit (and receive) their data via a carrier process don’t you. ATSC data via 8VSB is no different.

The TS data rate is 19.39 Mbps, the video rates are CBR (one or more channels that share the 19.39) and the audio is Dolby Digital® at a max of 448 kbps. Now compare that with the numbers available to Blu-ray and it is easy to see why the statement was made.


Data is data, either you get it error free or you don’t. You do know phone modems, cable modems, DirecTV, etc. transmit (and receive) their data via a carrier process don’t you. ATSC data via 8VSB is no different.

I have no idea what any of your reply has to do with mine other than being derogatory, misleading, and trying to incite a worthless argument. But since you brought it up ... tell me how it is intellectually honest to now magically call a transfer rate "bandwidth" and then compare it directly to a stream that must be compressed heavily due to regulation of air space?

And you are contradicting yourself by stating that "it is easy to see why the statement was made" then you go on to state that "data is data, either you get it error free or you don't". By your statement there should be no quality difference whatsoever between OTA and BR given that all of the "data is data" arrives error free. Please.

So now I am to believe that these formats offer a much better experience than I can get from a V.42 modem? Or maybe not since all "data is data - either you get it error free or you don't" Which is it again?

BTW ... I started in Network Engineering and Comm when a 9.6 Codex modem was considered cutting edge in data transmission, and a DS-1 mux was used between metropolitan areas for phone calls. So yeah ... pretty familiar.
What illustrious Engineering background do you have?

The TS data rate is 19.39 Mbps, the video rates are CBR (one or more channels that share the 19.39) and the audio is Dolby Digital® at a max of 448 kbps. Now compare that with the numbers available to Blu-ray and it is easy to see why the statement was made.
Don't forget the move from MPEG-2 to advanced codecs.

And particuarly don't forget that most ATSC is encoded by old real-time encoders and don't give the full available bandwidth to video.

ATSC is extremely limited compared to HD DVD/BD, but most ATSC isn't even close to as good as it could be even within those limitations. I've created quite a lot of hand-crafted ATSC encodes for use in Sencore playout servers, and you'd be surprised how good you can make 1080p24 content compared to the blocky nightmares most broadcast/DBS MPEG-2 is today.

The problem with engineers is they get too anal about terminology. Most insiders refer to it as bandwidth too. Get over it.

I'm sorry ... I thought this was a science forum.
I'll be happy to get over the fact that most insiders refer to it incorrectly.

:)