Improved BD Poll - Give your Viewpoint

[What'sHD]

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

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


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

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

thanks & cheers,
WHD

[rdjam]

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

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

[WickyWoo]

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

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

[swifty7]

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

[evader45]

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

[rdjam]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

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

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

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

[WickyWoo]

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

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

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

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

[rdjam]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

With MPEG-2, you can capture direct, real time, and get it done in 3...

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

Just say NOooOoOoooo......

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by rdjam

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

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

tell um brother im with you. i think the blu-ray camp is starting to crack. they relize there god almighty format is loseing it grip and the will say anything to feel better about themselves. the fact is sony and others have made some bad mistakes,and are screwing there own followers,whats next sony says drink this special kool aid and everything will be alright, when you get down to it ... its not the end of the world folks,get a grip there far worse things happening in this world then hd and bd

[rdjam]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

...there far worse things happening in this world then hd and bd

Ain't THAT the truth!

[Chris in SD]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

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

lol

[What'sHD]

@rdjam,

I did ask for advanced codecs in my petition

[Forceflow]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

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

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

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

[DESTURBED]

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

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

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

[WickyWoo]

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

Just say NOooOoOoooo......

Thus demonstrating you know absolutely nothing about compression and authoring.

[kdragon]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

tell um brother im with you. i think the blu-ray camp is starting to crack. they relize there god almighty format is loseing it grip and the will say anything to feel better about themselves. the fact is sony and others have made some bad mistakes,and are screwing there own followers,whats next sony says drink this special kool aid and everything will be alright, when you get down to it ... its not the end of the world folks,get a grip there far worse things happening in this world then hd and bd

So, now asking for 40Mbps instead of 30Mbps is the end of the world!? Are you sure you are in the right forum? Definitely not the right thread, I can tell you that.

[What'sHD]

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

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

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

[What'sHD]

Originally Posted by rdjam

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

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

dude, which neutral studio is using Mpeg2? If there is one, cool. As you must have read, I asked for advanced codecs on BD50. Read the original post.

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

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

[rdjam]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Thus demonstrating you know absolutely nothing about compression and authoring.

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

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

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

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

Cheers

[WickyWoo]

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

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

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

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

[rdjam]

Originally Posted by What'sHD

dude, which neutral studio is using Mpeg2?

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

What's HD - sorry if you think the thread is being hi-jacked - not the intention at all. I think that wickii and I are having a healthy discussion about mpeg vs VC1.

Why would you only direct your appeal at neutral studios?

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

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

[nataraj]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Thus demonstrating you know absolutely nothing about compression and authoring.

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

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

[WickyWoo]

dude, which neutral studio is using Mpeg2?

Paramount

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

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

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

[rdjam]

WW,

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

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

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

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

[briankmonkey]

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

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

[WickyWoo]

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

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

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

Yup

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

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

[AnthonyB]

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

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

[Big J]

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

[briankmonkey]

Originally Posted by Big J

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

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

[fa8362]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

You really can't get much better than that.

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