Latest HiDef DVD News - Page 22 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #631 of 18952 Old 08-11-2004, 05:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'd like to see either or both of these systems adopt a "no holds video/very good audio" for movies and "no holds audio/very good video for music. Seriously, what's wrong with having a 16.4 system at 24/96 for music? Then downmix to taste and to the number of speakers. That would be a LOT of fun, if there were some semblance of a mixing standard unlike the 5.1 music crap they're putting out now.

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #632 of 18952 Old 08-11-2004, 05:58 PM
Member
 
dch50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Alimental

A-ha. I get it now. You say Blu-ray is better because it's a better "drive". I never said that HD-DVD was a better "drive". I just think it's a more sensible solution for the needs of the A/V community because it better uses existing infrastructure and, despite what is said, I don't trust the idea of having multiple lasers to make Blu-ray backwards compatible. And if they choose better "content" - codecs - they have a better system. If they don't, they have to go on price. And if they use inferior codecs, they suck.

[/quote]


Both formats have to use multiple laser to be backward compatible with dvds.

NEC Developes single head hd dvd drive

"Development was enabled by the following technology:

1.Compatible head technology developed by using two lasers, the blue laser diode and the red laser diode, as the light source, thus enabling both current DVD and HD DVD discs to be played on a single objective lens.
2. Realization of system operation by overcoming the physical format difference between DVD and HD DVD with functional compatibility by developing large scale LSI.
3. On-going development of playback signal processing technology.
4. Realization of system operation by utilizing current DVD drive system functions"

http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0312/1801.html
dch50 is offline  
post #633 of 18952 Old 08-11-2004, 07:41 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Jet-X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Alimental
Because I'm essentially right.

Call IBM and Microsoft and tell them they don't count.


You're essentially wrong - IBM doesn't make consumer electronics and Microsoft (for the umpteenth time) DOES NOT MAKE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS.

It doesn't matter if IBM makes all teh HD-DVD components, if there are no consumer electronics companies that buy them to put them into HD-DVD players, then it's pointless.

So, just in case I wasn't clear: YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY WRONG

Quote:


But at least NEC and Toshiba aren't building product for an unfinished standard!


LMAO - yeah, they plan to have product on the shelves first part of 2005, and they haven't even finished their spec of final audio and video codecs. Yep, absolutely "essentially" right again....

Never mind that Sony and Panasonic have actual product on the store shelves in Japan....yep, you're essentially right again....

Man, you're so "essentially" right all the time, you oughta start a think tank.

-> No longer looking for Hi-Vision LDs <-

(I buried that format finally)

www.16cylinder.com
Jet-X is offline  
post #634 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 12:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 369
[quote]Originally posted by Alimental
Because I'm essentially right.

About nothing, but no matter.

Oh, I see. If you aren't a "brand", you don't count. There's more to bringing out a format than just branding. NEC can deliver HD-DVD subsystems to dozens of smaller brands that aren't supporting Blu-ray, but I suppose they don't count either. Call IBM and Microsoft and tell them they don't count.

As noted, MS and IBM don't count. And suggesting NEC can supply the whole world better that Philips + Sony + LG + Samsung + Matsushita is entirely laughable.

A-ha. I get it now. You say Blu-ray is better because it's a better "drive". I never said that HD-DVD was a better "drive". I just think it's a more sensible solution for the needs of the A/V community because it better uses existing infrastructure and, despite what is said, I don't trust the idea of having multiple lasers to make Blu-ray backwards compatible. And if they choose better "content" - codecs - they have a better system. If they don't, they have to go on price. And if they use inferior codecs, they suck.

You really need to read up on codecs. BluRay has already adopted at tleast one advanced one.

Space is only good if it's USED for something. I've seen no proposal from Blu-ray that indicates it will use said space to provide a superior experience. If they do that, I'm far more swayable.

This is nonsense and you in fact know it. Using the space for more content is sufficient right there. Having space to support whatever comes down the pike is a winner there. Having the space to record HDTV at home is a winner there. Winner, winner, winner, winner. It's never a loser, despite your errant claim it is.

They may do that. But Warner lead the charge for DVD. If the studios say "HD-DVD" for whatever reason, it's HD-DVD. So, until they decide, the "bigger is better" argument is moot. There are actually a few reasons why they might prefer HD-DVD to Blu-ray. And, I don't think HD-DVD is "inferior". If it can provide the same quality, and it can, how is it inferior? Oh, that's right. All that unused space.....

It can't provide the same quality if the bitrate is sufficiently high. 50 is still 30+20, or nearly 2x as much.

I've never said I have an opinion on who will "win" this war. If I had to bet, I'd bet on Blu-ray. Just like SACD seems to be beating (sort of) DVD-A. I just prefer the idea of HD-DVD, assuming it's done well. Remember, up until very recently, Blu-ray wasn't even planning on using MPEG4! So, they've gained some points recently in my eyes. If they go for high-channel count lossless PCM and HD-DVD doesn't, I'll switch sides fast. If I have to pay more, I want better. Not just "potential" for better.

You are now switching your argument entirely. Before, Hd-DVD = good because of these unimportant (to most of us) compatibility edges. Now, BluRay = maybe good if it gives you features. OK, I'm thinking the argument is basically won.

Hey, maybe Ron knows something bad I don't know. So far, the basic spec, short of audio, seems pretty good, but I'm not on the inside. Let's face it, you'll accept anything the BD group tosses at you, I won't. Therefore, I'm on the side of "better BD" and you're on the side of "any BD". I want the best format for the least amount of money. BD needs to do something BETTER than HD-DVD besides raw storage. I can't enjoy "space". BD needs to make a better total product, not just a bigger one.

The point is the product offerings are likely to be equal. But BluRay can always store more and do more than HD-DVD ever could.

Popularity = good. :rolleyes: Well, I'm of the opinion that the dark horse usually tries to put out the better overall product. Because they have to. If they don't, HD-DVD will die. We'll just have to wait to see what the final specs are. But at least NEC and Toshiba aren't building product for an unfinished standard!


They have no content. They probably never will. Their demo-ware was so far from complete at CES that they aren't close to a product regardless of spec.

Thanks for being big enough to move your position. I'll now move mine. You are not so bad after all. :)

Mark

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #635 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 12:54 AM
Senior Member
 
Cipher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 203
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...


Blu-ray Disc Founders Approve Version 1.0 of BD-ROM Physical Specification; Consumer Products Expected to Begin Shipping by Late 2005

HOLLYWOOD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 11, 2004--The Blu-ray Disc Founders have approved Version 1.0 of the BD-ROM physical-format specification and made it available to disc manufacturers and other interested parties.


The Blu-ray Disc Founders approved the BD-ROM physical specification within the general timeframe originally outlined in the BD-ROM development roadmap. The completion of the physical specification is an important step because it provides disc manufacturers with the information they need to prepare their BD-ROM disc production lines.

"Blu-ray Disc (BD) is on schedule for companies to introduce BD-ROM players, drives and prerecorded software to consumers beginning in late 2005," said Maureen Weber, general manager of HP's Optical Storage Solutions Business. "Given the strong support from consumer electronics, PC and media manufacturers for BD, a wide variety of products is expected to eventually be available in every segment of the market."

The Blu-ray Disc Founders group includes 13 leading consumer electronics, PC and media companies, which will give the format a strong worldwide market presence.

Danielle Levitas, director of IDC's Consumer Markets research, added that, "with the rapid growth in high-definition TV, blue-laser technology will be an important step forward in the consumer entertainment experience. The announcement from the Blu-ray Disc Founders indicates they are well on their way toward delivering their format."

Interested parties can obtain the format specification by contacting the Blu-ray Disc License Agent (agent@blu-raydisc.info / fax: +81 3 5769 5727) and executing the required license agreement. Companies interested in developing, manufacturing and selling BD-ROM products must sign a license agreement to comply with the format specifications.

About the Blu-ray Disc Founders: The Blu-ray Disc Founders was formed in May 2002 to pursue broad acceptance of the Blu-ray Disc formats. Members are Dell Inc.; Hewlett Packard Company; Hitachi, Ltd.; LG Electronics Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Panasonic (Matsushita Electric); Pioneer Corporation; Royal Philips Electronics; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Sharp Corporation; Sony Corporation; TDK Corporation; and Thomson. The Web site for the Blu-ray Disc Association is www.blu-raydisc-official.org. In May, the Blu-ray Disc Founders voted to create the Blu-ray Disc Association to give more companies an opportunity to participate in the development and promotion of the Blu-ray Disc format. More than 240 companies attended recent information seminars in Japan and the United States to hear about how they can play a role in the format creation, technology contribution and working level of BDA's operation. Additional information about the Blu-ray Disc Association is available at www.blu-raydisc-official.org.

Blu-ray Disc Founders

-- Dell Inc.

-- Hewlett Packard

-- Hitachi, Ltd.

-- LG Electronics Inc.

-- Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

-- Panasonic (Matsushita Electric)

-- Pioneer Corporation

-- Royal Philips Electronics

-- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd

-- Sharp Corporation

-- Sony Corporation

-- TDK Corporation

-- Thomson
Cipher is offline  
post #636 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 04:20 AM
Newbie
 
Mr J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Maybe this is something you will find interesting, if you haven't seen it before.

"At a press conference in Tokyo, Matsushita demonstrated a recorder capable of recording 50 gigabytes of data on a dual-layer 5" optical disc, more than ten times the 4.7GB capacity of standard DVDs. In April 2003, Sony debuted the world's first Blu-ray disc recorder, a machine capable of encoding a single-layer Blu-ray disc with 23GB of data, or approximately two hours of high-def video.

Equipped with tuners to receive digital broadcasts from satellites and terrestrial transmitters, the recorder will go on sale in Japan on July 31 at a suggested retail of approximately ¥300,000 ($2769 USD). Sony's machine sells for ¥472,500 ($4361 USD), and comes with a tuner for digital satellite broadcasting."

So, a dual layer blu-ray recorder for retail $2769 in Japan. It seems the prices are falling somewhat.
Mr J is offline  
post #637 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 06:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tpigeon2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It seems to me that HP+Dell+PS3=BD victory. I hope the final a/v spec is as good or better than hd-dvd's...
tpigeon2003 is offline  
post #638 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 06:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
scaesare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 4,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by Alimental
Well, I don't know. If I could have 10-bit video or 1080p at 48/60 fps by substituting DTS for lossless, I'm there. However, I'll assume you mean "if it doesn't prevent better video". Remember, lossy audio is a HELLUVA lot closer to perfection than our best video system.
Interestingly enough, these are just the sorts of compromises that having significantly greater storage capacity on the disc will avoid.

Why not enjoy both?

You just shot much of your argument in the foot.

-Steve
scaesare is offline  
post #639 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 08:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
AnthonyP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 17,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Alimental:

[quote]I'm not ignoring anything. I'm staying on point that extra storage is useless if it's not used for higher performance.[./quote]

agree


Quote:
Especially both have plenty of space for movies and "extras"
that is where you are wrong, Michael did the math just above

@16.5

HD-DVD: ~2 hours, 1 minute single layer, ~4 hours, 2 minutes dual layer
Blu-Ray: ~3 hours, 22 minutes single layer, ~6 hours, 44 minutes dual layer

so dual layer HD-DVD does have enough for movie and some extras but 16.5 is not the max these devices can reach now, if we look at that

@ 36

HD-DVD: ~56 minutes single layer, ~1 hour, 51 minutes dual layer
Blu-Ray: ~1 hour, 33 minutes single layer, ~3 hours, 5 minutes dual layer

so at 36 even Blu-Ray dual layer won't be enough to add extras to some movies

(and don't forget that this is approximate time and does not include all the place othjer stuff (like menus and stuff) will take up on the disk


The mistake you are making is saying 30GB=8h, this might be true at todays bitrates (i.e. what we are watching today - DVD), but not at the bitrates that these devices can go to
AnthonyP is offline  
post #640 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 08:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
AnthonyP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 17,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
While I'm not sure how to do the math on the above isn't it the advantage of WM9 that it only needs about 8-10Mb/s to match HDTV quality and MPEG4 being even more efficient, probably more like 5Mb/s (I've heard from a video engineer that it looks shockingly good at 750Kbps).
I work in videoconferencing, and I have seen h.264 in real life. It is a great Codec and is much better then H.263 but in the end of the line it is still a compromise. Take a picture with a digital camera and keep it at its native, then take the same pic and save it as jpeg. Is there a difference? yes

BTW (did the math the 8h comes out if you go at 8Mb/s and no audio codec)

The math is easy

take the capacity (i.e. 30GB) multiply by 1000 (30000MB) multiply by 8 (240,000Mb)

now we are in the same measurements

so 8Mb/s that means that 240000/8 to give the number of seconds or 30000s or (divide by 3600) 8.33 h or 8h and 20m

but like I said , this does not include audio and does not include any storag used for other stuff
BTW if you go to 10Mb/s it is 6.66 so 6h and 40m

-----------------------------------------

now don't forget that H.264 is maleable, you can tell it to work at 8, 10 or 16, 36 or even more. Like you said, both techs are limited to 36, but at 36 HD-DVD does not have enough capacity for a movie while Blu-Ray does. Also like RDoherty said, the limited space is the limiting capacity to what bit-rate can be used
AnthonyP is offline  
post #641 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 08:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
AnthonyP, this was Joel's response to my post:
Quote:
While I'm not sure how to do the math on the above isn't it the advantage of WM9 that it only needs about 8-10Mb/s to match HDTV quality and MPEG4 being even more efficient, probably more like 5Mb/s (I've heard from a video engineer that it looks shockingly good at 750Kbps). So, I'm assuming now that they're quoting ~8 hours for HD-DVD based on MPEG4 compression at ~4Mbps. The question is, then, is more than that needed to get better performance? What's the maximum bitrate for the MPEG4 algorighm?
Joel, I know that's been one selling point of VC9, that you can get HDTV quality at DVD-level bit rates. However, when the fellow from Panasonic said that there were visible improvements at 12-15Mbps for "advanced codecs," I am assuming he meant VC9 and/or H.264. Given that we certainly don't want to compromise video quality right out of the gate, for either of these disc choices, I don't think it's reasonable to select 10Mbps or below as any sort of baseline. We need to make sure there is enough space on these formats so that studios do not feel the pressure to overcompress.

EDIT: Oh, I see you found it AnthonyP. Looks like we posted at the same time.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #642 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 10:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
AnthonyP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 17,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
EDIT: Oh, I see you found it AnthonyP. Looks like we posted at the same time.
I found in fast threads where there is a page or two that have been added sinse the last visite that it is easier to just post while you are reading, makes it it easier then trying to remember what everyone said and then posting a reply to all. Sometimes it does mean that your post might be a bit irrelevent (i.e. it gotr addressed), but still easier
AnthonyP is offline  
post #643 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 10:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by bwiklem
You're essentially wrong - IBM doesn't make consumer electronics and Microsoft (for the umpteenth time) DOES NOT MAKE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS.
So.....an IBM computer which is "electronic" and sold to "consumers" is not "consumer electronics". And, exactly WHAT is X-box?
Quote:

It doesn't matter if IBM makes all teh HD-DVD components, if there are no consumer electronics companies that buy them to put them into HD-DVD players, then it's pointless.
NAD? Denon? Onkyo? Kenwood? Rotel? Harman?
Quote:

So, just in case I wasn't clear: YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY WRONG
Great argument. I'm wrong in what? That HD-DVD and BD have the same capacity for picture quality? [correct] That HD-DVD is a less expensive system to get off the ground? [correct] That the drives will cost less to build? [correct]. You don't even know that IBM and Microsoft make consumer electronics, so I wouldn't be calling anybody "wrong" if I were you.
Quote:

LMAO - yeah, they plan to have product on the shelves first part of 2005, and they haven't even finished their spec of final audio and video codecs. Yep, absolutely "essentially" right again....
And Blu-ray is finished? Not even. But at least HD-DVD group didn't start building systems before the specs were completed. Since HD-DVD drives and discs can be built on current production lines, HD-DVD is far closer than you think.
Quote:

Never mind that Sony and Panasonic have actual product on the store shelves in Japan....yep, you're essentially right again....
I never said they didn't. But these machines won't even be capable of fulfilling the BD spec when it is done.
Quote:

Man, you're so "essentially" right all the time, you oughta start a think tank.
How about posting something when you have something intelligent to say?

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
post #644 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 11:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 187 Post(s)
Liked: 248
Mr. Doherty,

Thanks again for jumping into the fray! :)

I have to second, third, fourth, and fifth the motion that not only should Blu-Ray and HD-DVD provide absolutely stellar, far-better-than-broadcast, full progressive 1920x1080p including 24/25/30/48 fps capabilities (with real 2 million plus pixel depth) at the newest H.264 (High) codec and/or VC-9 codec's optimal bitrates, but also...

MANDATORY ADVANCED, HIGH RESOLUTION UNCOMPRESSED and BIT-FOR-BIT LOSSLESS COMPRESSED SURROUND AUDIO.

With Blu-Ray's ability to go past the 50 GB mark for storage, I feel that the time is right to drop DTS and Dolby Digital lossy compression (or at least relegate them to back-wards compatibility tracks). Even HD-DVD should move to at least high resolution lossless audio encoding.

A minimum capacity of 8 discrete channels of LPCM at resolutions of 24/96 and beyond for each channel must be included with video programs in order to (help) meet the demands of discriminating audiophiles. Not only can we then get master quality movie soundtracks without the need for any compromised matrix encoded channels on state-of-the-art mixes, but very high quality music tracks for concerts, music videos, and the like.

For audio only applications the capability of 10.2 (or more) discrete channels with 24/192 LPCM or advanced Direct Stream Digital (DSD) or IBM's new 32 bit encoding resolutions (the choice of audio codec would be up to the producer) for each channel (and beyond) should be included in the specs. This would end the stalemate between the DVD-Audio and SACD camps and far exceed their limited capabilities.

We should no longer take baby steps when the technology is here to take giant leaps forward in the state-of-the-art.

I hope you and your colleagues will seriously consider the proposals we have put forth.

Thanks again for stopping by and we all hope you'll continue to participate in this lively discussion. :)

Dan

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #645 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by rogo

[correct] About nothing, but no matter.
Okay, so you're saying NOTHING I've said is factual? Okay, you're now arguing in a completely illogical manner. Even BD spokesman says that their equipment is more expensive to build than HD-DVD. But they hope to close the gap. If they're the "winner" in this, I hope they do. I don't need an overkill solution, I just need one that works.
Quote:

As noted, MS and IBM don't count. And suggesting NEC can supply the whole world better that Philips + Sony + LG + Samsung + Matsushita is entirely laughable.
Okay, anybody who isn't signed up for BD doesn't count, my bad. Microsoft and IBM "don't count". :rolleyes: It's not even sane to argue with you if "MS and IBM don't count". IBM is bigger than Sony! They're a $90B/year company!
Quote:

You really need to read up on codecs. BluRay has already adopted at tleast one advanced one.
No, I don't think I do. I was generalizing. I know Blu-ray is doing MPEG4 and have stated that before. Do you ever read someone's reply before you retort?
Quote:

This is nonsense and you in fact know it. Using the space for more content is sufficient right there. Having space to support whatever comes down the pike is a winner there. Having the space to record HDTV at home is a winner there. Winner, winner, winner, winner. It's never a loser, despite your errant claim it is.
I never claimed that BD is a "loser". Who are you arguing with?!? If you think the extra space is worth it, buy a BD. I have ONLY been saying that it seems sensible to use an advancement of existing disc technology rather than starting from scratch. My HD has more storage space than either formats will ever have, so what's your point? I can record HD all I want right now! And what's to say you'll be able to record much of anything with copy-protection in place?
Quote:

It can't provide the same quality if the bitrate is sufficiently high. 50 is still 30+20, or nearly 2x as much.
HUH?!? I can't even make sense of that that comment after rereading it 5 times. Both max out at the same rate, BD can't provide a better image with the same codec. They CAN provide a maxed out image for a longer time period, but not better.
Quote:

You are now switching your argument entirely. Before, Hd-DVD = good because of these unimportant (to most of us) compatibility edges. Now, BluRay = maybe good if it gives you features. OK, I'm thinking the argument is basically won.
No, no I'm not. HD-DVD = good because can provide equal quality for less money. Space really isn't much of an issue for movie playback. So, unless BD offers something more quality, what's the point (unless you can actually enjoy unused GB)?
Quote:

The point is the product offerings are likely to be equal. But BluRay can always store more and do more than HD-DVD ever could.
I guess we'll have to see the retail prices and decide whether space that is *potentially* useful is worth the price tag.
Quote:

They have no content. They probably never will. Their demo-ware was so far from complete at CES that they aren't close to a product regardless of spec.
We don't know that. Admittedly, Sony can whip out a bunch of movies as Columbia is literally bought and paid for. I just happen to believe that BD needs to be all over HD-DVD in video and sound quality to rationalize redoing the entire infrastructure of DVD. So far they're not, and if it weren't for HD-DVD, we'd almost certainly be stuck with an inferior format regardless. BD might have come out without MPEG4. And they certainly have no reason to worry about sound codecs. If HD-DVD does nothing but make Blu-ray a better format, you should be behind what they're doing.
Quote:

Thanks for being big enough to move your position. I'll now move mine. You are not so bad after all. :)
Surprisingly, most people I know find me quite likable :D

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
post #646 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 11:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by scaesare
Interestingly enough, these are just the sorts of compromises that having significantly greater storage capacity on the disc will avoid.

Why not enjoy both?

You just shot much of your argument in the foot.
Because the bitrate on either format almost certainly wouldn't support both. In order to do 60 fps, it wouldn't allow many channels of 24/96 resolution. IOW, BD may not even have the capacity to do anything beyond HD without some sort of major spec revision and, certainly, new players. If they were spec'ing in things that HD-DVD could never do, that's one thing. So far, they're not and likely won't. So, my argument is still intact. Capacity does not equal bitrate.

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
post #647 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 11:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Interestingly, it looks like MPEG4 goes up to 38.4Mbps, though, from what I've read, it's performance/bitrate ratio seems to pretty well peak by about 16Mbps and then levels off. So, I'm willing to buy the argument that BD could offer some longer movies at higher bitrates with potentially better quality *assuming* that companies will do it. Whether or not this would be noticeable at that point would be debateable. However, if BD is willing to commit to a totally scaleable, lossless compression, industry PCM-based standard for audio, I'll convert. That means something like MLP. So, anybody know what BD 1.0 just settled for in the audio domain?

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
post #648 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 11:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Whoops, not to throw water on this, but that's V1.0 of physical specs, but the "logic" version won't be done for awhile. I assume that means audio/video specs are still up in the air?

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
post #649 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 11:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,711
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Can someone point me to the "ignore" function of this forum again??

At any rate, here is another link that talks about BRD-ROM Manufacturing....

http://www.excite.co.jp/world/englis...=JAEN&wb_dis=2
KLee is offline  
post #650 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 12:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
AnthonyP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 17,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Capacity does not equal bitrate.
true and agree 100%, BUT what you are missing something important

here are some examples
___________________________________
if you need 6h 30 minutes

a HD-DVD would force you to a maximum of 10 Mb/s (for sound and video combined, and that means that video will need to be less then 8) while with a Blu-Ray you could fit it while going to 16 Mb/s

what is better 16 or 10?

Now you might say " who needs 6h ?"

I agree (except if you want 6 1h episodes or a season of 1/2h episodes) + there is always some overhead for the menus and other stuff on the disk
-----------------
but let's be a bit more realistic

let's say all you need is 3h (movie + extra)

with HD-DVD you cannot get past 21Mb/s while with Blu-Ray you can go to the max at 36Mb/s
---------------------------------------------

so you see, capacity can easily affect bitrate because as the bitrate increases the need for capacity increases much faster and so capacity can easily a limiting factor
AnthonyP is offline  
post #651 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 12:10 PM
nyg
AVS Special Member
 
nyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by KLee
Can someone point me to the "ignore" function of this forum again??
UserCP, Edit Ignore List - add user's forum handle :)
nyg is offline  
post #652 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 12:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
AnthonyP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 17,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
or click on hisprofile button and then at the bottom of the first table (mauve row) you have (in writing)

Add XXX to Your Buddy List Add XXX to Your Ignore List Visit this user's photo gallery
AnthonyP is offline  
post #653 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 12:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,711
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I was just joking, BTW....guess I should have used the ;) smiley ;)

Yes, of course capacity affects bitrate....the more capacity you have, the less you will have to lower your bitrate to fit longer/higher quality movies on your disk...

These disks are not finite..

Lets say you have a 50GB BRD disk and a 30GB HD-DVD and they both are using similar codecs: the standard version of H.264...

*All things being equal* you could use %40 greater bitrate to fill up a 50GB than a 30GB HD-DVD

Its this simple and obvious!!!!!
KLee is offline  
post #654 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 12:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Because the bitrate on either format almost certainly wouldn't support both. In order to do 60 fps, it wouldn't allow many channels of 24/96 resolution.
Well, I think the way to work it is this. First, let's assume were "stuck" with a 36Mbps peak data rate limit. So we'll have to fit 1080p60 and audio within that limit.

I don't believe that 1080p60 will require twice the bandwidth of 1080i60, because there will be plenty of inter-frame compression savings; so, say, we need 60% more space. If Panasonic is saying 12-15Mbps is good for 1080i60, then perhaps we need only 19.2-24Mbps for the video. Future encoder improvements could keep us at the lower end of this range.

Now that leaves 12-16.8Mbps for audio. If we insist on lossless compression, then you might get 24-33.6Mbps uncompressed, but really let's be conservative and say 20Mbps uncompressed. After all, lossless compression is actually not that great, usually 2:1 or less (though it may be better for multichannel; my experience with it is with stereo). 20Mbps is more than enough to handle 8 channels of 24/96 audio.

I think I've left lots of wiggle room in there for me to be wrong on one number or another, though I don't know for sure. Still, it seems to me that 1080p60 and decent audio is indeed feasible for either of these formats, as long as you have the capacity on board to store reasonable amounts of video.

Incidentally, all this is assuming we actually need 1080p60 support. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have it, but alas I think that there's a lot of inertia to keep video at 1080i60 for now. For film, we're stuck at 24fps for now, but who knows, maybe they'll move to 48fps some day. I'd sure like to see that. But it's not the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray decision process that is keep us from seeing these choices, it's the content creators who are limiting themselves to 1080i and/or 24fps.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #655 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 12:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
AnthonyP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 17,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
These disks are not finite..
think you mean the opposite

i.e. either

These disks are finite

or

These disks are not infinite
AnthonyP is offline  
post #656 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 01:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Grant
I don't believe that 1080p60 will require twice the bandwidth of 1080i60, because there will be plenty of inter-frame compression savings; so, say, we need 60% more space. If Panasonic is saying 12-15Mbps is good for 1080i60, then perhaps we need only 19.2-24Mbps for the video. Future encoder improvements could keep us at the lower end of this range.
Here's an interesting thing. In theory, if I understand MPEG4 and that fact that it identifies, moves and modifies "objects" in a frame to conserve space while doing essentially the same thing with the background, why wouldn't it be easily possible to produce a real time MPEG4 "doubler" for 1080i to 1080p that took frame/object information and interpolated it, creating 48 or 60fps for a dramatically smoother picture? Sure, it would take some computing power in the playback system, but I would imagine it to be easily possible (perhape pricey at first) and would be probably 80-90% of the performance of something recorded in 1080p/48Hz. I wonder if anyone is working on something like this? That would solve the 1080p issue while not requiring additional space on the disc and would largely satisfy hardcore A/V guys without adding undue cost to the production infrastructure. AND, it would be optional for those with a bigger player budget AND it would allow for a "high-end" BD or HD-DVD.

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
post #657 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 02:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Paul_Seng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Orlando,FL, USA
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
After all of this reading I have come down to the conclusion that the winner will be what the majority of the major studios decide. If most of the studios decide on HD-DVD, then we will have HD-DVD, regardless of what sony and the Blu-ray group want. If Blu-ray is decided then HD-DVD is in the dust.

However, I don't see disc space as an issue. The studios may choose to do what they have been doing with regular DVD: 2 discs. If the movie can reside on one disc with either DD or DTS (sorry Healthnut but I believe that the masses are not going to care if audio gets better than what is already out there), then the extras can go on another disc, and they can charge more for the 2 disc set. I don't see the studios changing their disc structure much except that instead of NTSC we see a HD movie.

Paul Seng
Paul_Seng is offline  
post #658 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 02:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
BTW, folks, don't misunderstand my previous arguments, I understand that as lengths increase, BD has an advantage, that's too obvious to argue over. There have been several things that have come up in the last several days that have me far closer to the fence:

1. A theoretically less expensive way of transitioning to BD
2. The adoption of MPEG4 for BD
3. The fact that the quotes for HD-DVD/BD play time aren't at maximum bitrate, but something more like 8-10Mbps. Thanks to Michael for bringing this up since no one else arguing for BD did. I had assumed that the play time was 5-8 hours at max or close to max bit rate, so most of the comparison charts I've seen between the two are a little misleading.

Therefore, there remains two things that BD needs to do.

1. Publically push for the use of maximum bitrate so as to maximize A/V quality beyond what HD-DVD can do for longer movies. If studios choose to run at low bitrates, there's little or no advantage to BD.

2. Adopt a better audio codec such as and preferably MLP because it is almost infinitely scalable in channel number and resolution. That provides and additional ace. I am somewhat pessimistic about this as you don't see any audiophile companies such as Meridian in the BD group as you do in the DVD Forum, but I'm not going to write it off yet.

That gives producers a lot of options for maximizing the product. If they don't do either, it's still sort of a wash between the products unless BD can prove that they can compete at the same price.

As you can see, I'm not a dogmatist, I just want to hear a better argument than "you're wrong!" or "Microsoft and IBM don't count!" etc, etc.

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
post #659 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Kotches's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Troy, IL USA (St. Louis Area)
Posts: 7,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Michael,

8 channels @ 24/96K translates to about 9-10Mbp/second typical and (obviously) the full 18 Mbits/second during bouts of little to no compression.

The last I knew, soundtrack production was still @ 24/48K, which cuts these requirements by about 40%.

Cheers,

Contributing Editor & Surround Music Reviewer Widescreen Review
Opinions are mine, not the publication I write for.
John Kotches is offline  
post #660 of 18952 Old 08-12-2004, 02:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
John, thanks for the info. Unfortunately, since we have to deal with peak rates, it suggests that we have to make sure 18 Mbits/sec is available at any given time---and at such times, it means that only 18Mbits/sec would be left for the video stream.

Of course, VBR on the video side could help, as could some sort of buffering scheme on the audio side that enables the peaks and valleys of the compression result to be smoothed out. But it definitely complicates matters.

It sounds like 24/48 would be far more reasonable.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Software Media Discussion

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off