Latest HiDef DVD News - Page 43 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1261 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 04:28 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Jet-X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Health Nut
I would think we would be able to raise the bitrate as high as necessary so that artifacts and quality are NEVER an issue.
I've said it a dozen times before, and others (I believe Sspears backed up my comment)- it isn't just raising the bit rate so there are no artifacts. It doesn't work that way. Every codec has a sweet spot and after that diminishing returns. Running MPEG-2 at 50Mbps vs. 20Mbps isn't going to yield any better of a picture. Period.

Same goes for VC-1 - past 16Mbps, there is no further reduction of artifacts.

Past the sweet spot of any codec, you're just wasting bandwidth both in overall storage space and throughput.

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

(I buried that format finally)

www.16cylinder.com
Jet-X is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1262 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 04:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Health Nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 5,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Same goes for VC-1 - past 16Mbps, there is no further reduction of artifacts.

Past the sweet spot of any codec, you're just wasting bandwidth both in overall storage space and throughput.
Brian, no kidding. Do you actually think my statement is mutually exclusive from what you said? Just previously, I said three times in a row: the minimum bitrate for AVC/VC-9 should be closer to 16 Mbit/sec than simply saying 12-15 as Doherty quoted. Is it so hard to see that my concern is simply that we truly achieve the sweetspot.

Why didn't you quote the person who just asked for 22-26 Mbit/sec VC-9/AVC... You quoted me for some reason of which I have no idea.

Quote:
Running MPEG-2 at 50Mbps vs. 20Mbps isn't going to yield any better of a picture. Period.
Of course. My concern is that we stick closer to 16 Mbit/sec than 12 Mbit/sec... so try quoting other people.

3 hour movies must be able to achieve 16 mbit/sec AVC/VC-9 as well as a minimum of 24/48 Lossless/uncompressed mutichannel PCM, period.
Health Nut is offline  
post #1263 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 05:17 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
amillians's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Bloom County
Posts: 4,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by bwiklem
Doesn't get much clearer than this either...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08..._goes_blu-ray/

Plus: Not "a version" of PS3 - ALL PS3s will have Blu-Ray drives. These will be BD-ROM, not recordable transports.
Since I'm apparently the cynic in residence...

Is this the same Sony that swore up and down that the PSX would support MP3 playback, 24x DVD-RW recording and PlayStation Broadband services, but failed to deliver them when the box debuted?

Is this the same Sony that touted 512MB XDR DRAM for the PS3 as a good thing, then quietly dropped that spec down to 256MB XDR DRAM last month?

Is this the same Sony who's Europe president David Reeves told Europe's official PlayStation web site that the company is considering two different version of the PS3, one adding optional "all singing, all dancing" features?

Is this the same Sony that just last month told EA that 25GB BD-ROM discs for PS3 would cost half of what it costs to manufacture a DVD for PS2? (Ha!)

My point is simply this: given the already over-the-top BOM costs associated with the PS3 (can you say Cell?) and the pre-BD-ROM announcement analyst predicted retail price point of $499/box, adding a BD-ROM drive that is backwards compatible with DVD to every box adds *significantly* to Sony's production costs. It's one thing to sell a, oh, I don't know, $800 box for $500 to make it up on games; it's quite another to eat hundreds more just to push a disc format. The PSX taught Sony that even gadget crazy Japan has limits to what they'll spend on boxes.

But we digress...

Alex doesn't live here anymore
amillians is offline  
post #1264 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 05:23 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
amillians's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Bloom County
Posts: 4,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by dch50
Amillians, I'm sure you've read this already, heres a link you forgot to add but was posted a couple of pages ago. This was announced by Sony on Aug 31 and is the lastest information which shows the progression of blu-ray disc manufacturing.
Creating a cheaper way to make an optical master is nice, but it has nothing to do with efficiently stamping discs, which was my point. There are already numerous cheap HD-DVD mastering options available; if anything, this announcement shows just how far behind BD-ROM really is when compared to HD-DVD. Don't get me wrong, though--it's an impressive technical acheivement.

Alex doesn't live here anymore
amillians is offline  
post #1265 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 06:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
4K display's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
I honestly can't believe I took the time to answer all that...
ya neither can I but thanks for the book.

All you did was blast my facts with your opinions...who's the troll??
4K display is offline  
post #1266 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 08:15 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
OK, BR=25G or 50G in the specs, but they are working on 100G and 200G. With the new DC projectors coming out (the new Sony LCoS) do you think

1) that 100 or 200 will become Blu-Ray Pro (used for cinema version of the movie)

2) do you think it might influence BR over HD-DVD
AnthonyP is offline  
post #1267 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 08:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Health Nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 5,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I was favoring Blu Ray because of the 50 GB vs HD-DVD 30 GB, all else being equal. Sure the ability of Blu Ray to eventually go to 100 or 200 GB is nice in the lab, but still unproven if it will be a manufacturable process, or at least economically feasable. Someone else brought up the point we'd likely have to buy new players to read additional layers... The point is that another technology may come out in a few years that would surpass Blu Ray... So if Blu Ray can't produce 50 GB BD ROM within the given economics upon release of the format, how long would it take to get 50 GB BD-ROM's to that point?

Now at this point, some people are saying that the 50 GB BD-ROM is not economically feasable... AMillians keeps bringing this up, and I'd like to hear what Mr. Doherty has to say about it...

I'm certainly leaning toward Blu Ray, but until those final specs of HD-DVD and Blu Ray are out, and until I know more about the 50 GB BD-ROM status, what more is there to say?
Health Nut is offline  
post #1268 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 08:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
4K display's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
AHH nevermind you edited that piece out.


And in my Blu-ray facts I forgot to mention the Tri laser head not only plays cds, dvds, and BDs, it also records in all three formats.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200405/04-026E/

Any word on HD DVD machines recording to cd or dvd?
4K display is offline  
post #1269 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 09:32 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
Any word on HD DVD machines recording to anything? My understanding is that playback will precede recording on HD-DVD; Blu-Ray of course already has recorders. Not that it will matter to the studios of course (seriously). But the prospect of a higher-profit sales of recorder-players may convince the CE mfr's to fight a bit harder for Blu-Ray.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #1270 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 10:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,250
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1061 Post(s)
Liked: 539
I'd love to get answers to these burning questions:

What are the bitrate "sweet spots" for VC-1 and MPEG-4 AVC High Profile in order to get artifact free 1920x1080p/60 and true 10 bit, 4:4:4 performance?

What are the bitrate "sweet spots" for VC-1 and MPEG-4 AVC High Profile in order to get artifact free 1920x1080p/30 and true 10 bit, 4:4:4 performance?

What are the bitrate "sweet spots" for VC-1 and MPEG-4 AVC High Profile in order to get artifact free 1920x1080p/24 and true 10 bit, 4:4:4 performance?

What is the bitrate needed for Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) bit-for-bit processed LPCM at 8 discrete channels of 24/192 resolution for each channel?

Now aim for meeting those requirements.

These are performance parameters that should be MINIMAL specs. for high definition video and audio on pre-recorded ROM discs. The storage space of the disc should be optimized to meet these goals in order for an average length movie to fit plus a few "extras."

That's why 50 GB Blu-Ray makes sense more than the other options. Studios are notorious for cramming the hell out of their discs and the A/V quality of the MOVIE suffers greatly (it is, afterall, why most of you bought the disc in the first place, is it not?). You'll find that you quickly start running out of space once you add multiple audio tracks, motion menus, seamless branching, high resolution subtitle fonts, disc structuring and navigation software, etc. etc.

We need the space, and we also should demand the best possible A/V performance, and that again (say it with me now) requires ADEQUATE DISC SPACE. These are not hard to re-create specs. and are easily accomplished with today's technology as long as space isn't a premium luxury.

Dan

P.S. Will there also be 110% seamless layer changes right off the bat this time as well?

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1271 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 10:18 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
I don't believe either format supports 4:4:4, does it?

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #1272 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 10:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,250
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1061 Post(s)
Liked: 539
These are specs. that should be included to the Blu-Ray standard, irrespective of whether they are. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is optimal stuff here.

Of course, a lot of the decision makers in Hollywood are not even close to rocket scientists or even high school students for that matter, so I'm prepared to be somewhat disappointed when the actual specs. are finally carved in stone. :(

For instance, even if the video specs. called for optimised 8 bit color depth and 4:2:2 component at least they'd be able to smooth over the chroma upsampling errors that plague today's DVD format. 4:2:0 should be scrapped. PERIOD.

That's one easy change they could make that wouldn't require a heck of a lot more space for the video.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1273 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 10:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 89
They will do those specs. only if it makes economic sense to them.

To expect otherwise is a bit naive.
wco81 is online now  
post #1274 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 10:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,250
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1061 Post(s)
Liked: 539
At the very least I'd like to see what "advanced" audio codecs they are looking at besides uncompressed 8 channel LPCM, DTS lossy and Dolby Digital lossy.

Is MLP with 8 or more discrete channels and greater resolution being looked at, as one example?

Hopefully other lossy compression formats are off the table. Lossy is old school! Even DTS and Dolby Digital should only be there for backwards compatibility and uncompressed or lossless compressed, high resolution LPCM should be manditory.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1275 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 10:40 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
I tend to agree with Amir R. from Microsoft who says that 4:4:4 is really not all that helpful for a consumer format. because it doesn't compress as well as downsampled chroma formats. So for example, 12Mbps at 4:4:4 looks worse than 12Mbps at 4:2:2 because the extra cost of maintaining 4:4:4 introduces compression artifacts. And honestly, even with extra bandwidth allocated to 4:4:4 to balance things out, I think all of us would be hard pressed to tell the difference between 4:4:4 and, say, 4:2:2 at reasonable viewing distances---that is, of course, if 4:2:2 is properly obtained.

But I agree 100%, that whatever chroma format is selected, they need to build upsampler compliance into the spec, to make sure we don't repeat the horrors of SD-DVD.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #1276 of 18952 Old 09-06-2004, 10:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,250
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1061 Post(s)
Liked: 539
Michael,

This is true, I just wish they'd allocate the space necessary to improve beyond 8 bit limits. If the space was available (at 50 GB and above I'm sure it is) I'd think they could have 10 bit/4:4:4 performance without the problems Amir talked about.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1277 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 08:07 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 Michael Grant
Steve, I don't know what the true story is concerning the yield and costs of the dual-layer discs. But I do know that one of the HD-DVD folks was spreading some serious FUD. In fact, he was claiming that the 50GB disks didn't exist and would never exist, despite the fact that they have already been produced, with the first one being demoed in March I believe.
Yeah, I've been follwoing this thread, and saw the claim, but was interested in seeing if anybody had anything substantive to support it.

Of course, having a few 50GB demo discs is one thing, but mass-production is another. That having been said, I firmly believe that 50GB is doable now, and 100GB is likely in the next 18-24 months. I'm talking about prodcution-level capability.

Go BluRay!

-Steve
scaesare is offline  
post #1278 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 11:03 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
We're not going to see 100GB video ROMs any time soon. That would require a new standard, and the capacity increase alone isn't going to justify a new standard. When 100GB discs come out, I'm guessing they will be for data storage only at first.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #1279 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Why are we comparing the single layer 25GB BRD disk to the 30GB HD-DVD disk, which, I believe is dual layer.....

Shouldn't we be comparing either SL 25GB BRD to SL 15GB HD-DVD or DL 50GB BRD to DL 30GB HD-DVDs???

Apples to apples, right?
KLee is offline  
post #1280 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 12:13 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
amillians's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Bloom County
Posts: 4,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by rogo
If Sony is intending to own something that actually gives it industry concentration -- and I'm just not even a little persuaded that the studio side of MGM really is such a thing (but I'll reserve judgment until I see the concentration index data -- then that could actually be a problem.
I'll agree, but stress that Sony's not helping the studio anti-trust issues with quotes like this, especially in light of reports that TWX is already quietly pre-shopping the "studio" side of MGM to others...

"Sony Corp. Chief Financial Officer Katsumi Ihara said the company needs to buy studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. to expand its own film unit...'(t)he deal is necessary for our pictures business to grow in the longer term,' Ihara, 53, said in an interview from Sony's Tokyo headquarters....'(a)cquiring MGM will help our pictures business grow even more rapidly' because of the film library and rights to produce new films, Ihara said."

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...top_world_news

Quote:
Originally posted by 4K display
All you did was blast my facts with your opinions...who's the troll??
No, I "blasted" your opinions with facts, and where we have no facts to work from, opinions that run contrary to your opinions. You seem to assume that everything that spews forth from your keyboard is fact...it's not.

Quote:
Originally posted by Health Nut
Now at this point, some people are saying that the 50 GB BD-ROM is not economically feasable... AMillians keeps bringing this up, and I'd like to hear what Mr. Doherty has to say about it...
Feasible is a wobbly word, so let's pick a less obtuse one. 50GB BR-ROM isn't economically attractive given 25GB BD-ROM, especially given the inclusion of VC-1 in the forthcoming final spec. If the 1.0 spec didn't have a 25GB BD-ROM varient, the BDA would most definitely go to market with 50GB BD-ROM, proving it's economically feasible, damn the costs, and then I'd argue that they probably wouldn't have bothered with VC-1, or even AVC. But they *did* bother with VC-1, even after rejecting it earlier as unnecessary, precisely because they needed royalty leverage against AVC, because the predicted cost premium of 50GB BD-ROMs make 25GB BD-ROMs the sensible first move. Prove me wrong, Sony, Matsushita, DADC...a press release or a formal quote would put the issue to rest for us all...it's been 6 days since the Entertainment Media Expo wrapped! :)

Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Grant
Any word on HD DVD machines recording to anything? My understanding is that playback will precede recording on HD-DVD; Blu-Ray of course already has recorders.
The DVD Forum approved the v0.9 physical spec for HD-DVD Rewritable (AKA HD DVD-RW in some circles) in February 2004. 20GB single layer and 40GB dual layer varients are specified. Book 1 has been available for a while, Book 2 (the file system) is forthcoming. Toshiba is definitely playing catch up on this one, but The DVD Fourm has promised complete specs for everything HD-DVD (including ENAV or better) by February 2005. I seriously doubt that they will be able to delivery everything by that date, since they're already behind schedule and still figuring out how to deal with the "BDA effect" on the Steering Committee.

Quote:
Originally posted by scaesare
Yeah, I've been follwoing this thread, and saw the claim, but was interested in seeing if anybody had anything substantive to support it.
Exactly what proof would you like? Sony/DADC have been talking up improved cycle times, better yields, attractive costs for 25GB BD-ROM in the press since May 2004, with only one sentence issued about the one year projected costs for 50GB BD-ROMs, a sentence that all but "proves" that they are having yield, and thus cost, issues. Again, Sony, Matsushita, DADC, tee up some press releases, show us progress like the HD-DVD replicators did from day one, prove the doubters wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by scaesare
I firmly believe that 50GB is doable now, and 100GB is likely in the next 18-24 months. I'm talking about prodcution-level capability. Go BluRay!
Of course 50GB BD-ROM is "doable" now, but the economics of replication create a broad chasm between doable and actually being able to deliver a cost friendly product vis a vis other products in the portfolio (i.e., 25GB BD-ROM). Michael is the Undisputed Voice of Reason (TM), and even he understands that you're not going to see 100GB+ BD-ROM specs anytime soon. The 1.0 spec has been published and delivered to disc manufacturers and line equipment vendors, you have 25GB BD-ROM and 50GB BD-ROM, that's all she wrote. Beyond the fact that there's zero demand from the studios (or gamers) for 100GB+ BD-ROMs, the replication yield issues alone make delivering a cost friendly 50GB BD-ROM look like a cake walk.

Alex doesn't live here anymore
amillians is offline  
post #1281 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 12:56 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
Alex, I feel for you.
I don't understand why everything we hear about for BDF is set in stone, while HD-DVD is supposed to be a wash.
People, argue all like. Are you trying to get everybody on this forum to think like you and have the same opinions?
Face it, HD-DVD is a viable format. So is blu-ray. To think otherwise is just full of you know what. After reading over and over the postings here, I think most of you have made up your minds on what you want regardless of any "facts" that come up.
Fact 1: blu-ray's only true plus is storage capacity.
Fact 2: Blu-ray's supporters have more CE makers.
Fact 3: Nobody knows how much it will cost to produce dual layer BD discs one year from now.
Fact 4: HD-DVD is now cheaper to make than blue ray (given the approximate storage capacity).
Fact 5: Sony is ready with over 1500 titles (same can be said for all studios)
Fact 6: Those same titles can easily be pressed onto HD-DVD (since now the codec specs are basically the same)
Fact 7: HD-DVD will be supported by MS's Longhorn
Fact 8: Disney and 20th Century Fox joined DVD Forum after HD-DVD was approved (do you guys think they are there to try to promote the 2-X speed DVD-R optional specs version 4.0?)
Fact 9: As of today, Sony is still the only studio backing Blu-ray.
Fact 10: Your opinions mean nothing to the guys in charge of deciding which format gets 80% of the movies.

Paul Seng
Paul_Seng is offline  
post #1282 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 01:25 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
I believe over time 50GB and even 100GB disc will be mass produced at economicaly viable levels. Maybe not for use for pre-recorded movies at first, witch is the studio's decision, but they will be produced for pc storage aplications. I know hd-dvd has memory tech demonstrating hddvd disc replication times, but blu-ray disc have been for sale in japan now for over a year with no less than seven manufactures for producing them. http://www.blu-ray.com/media/ I believe by time blu-ray makes it way here next year that they will have improved the efficiancy and yeild times, and give us the ture next generation format that we need instead of dvd dics with a blue laser. :eek:
dch50 is offline  
post #1283 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 01:45 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:
Why are we comparing the single layer 25GB BRD disk to the 30GB HD-DVD disk, which, I believe is dual layer.....

Shouldn't we be comparing either SL 25GB BRD to SL 15GB HD-DVD or DL 50GB BRD to DL 30GB HD-DVDs???

Apples to apples, right?
we did the 50-30, but someone said that there is problems with producing dual layer disks and that even when they are produced they are much more expensive and so the first generation of BR disks you will buy will probably be single layer. And so the 50 disk is more hypothetical than real.

This is why a few others and I are arguing that even if the first disks are only single layer

1) at 25/30 the difference is too small to be interesting (i.e. output will be less then 25 and the same can be put on both formats)

2) if someone needs between 30 and 50 then it will fit on one dual layer BR but will need two HD-DVD disks, so production and packaging of one BR will probably be cheaper then production and packaging of two HD-DVDs

3) sooner or latter yield of the 50G BR will go up and production cost down to the point that all disks will be dual layer, the players can already support this format so all it means is that we will buy better BR disks when they are available (more features or better quality)
AnthonyP is offline  
post #1284 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 02:50 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Jet-X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Fact 1: blu-ray's only true plus is storage capacity.
You forgot throughput as well...

And given that it also:

- has all the same codecs as HD-DVD
- supports uncompressed PCM audio (up to studios to support)

...makes it better than HD-DVD.

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

(I buried that format finally)

www.16cylinder.com
Jet-X is offline  
post #1285 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 03:00 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:
I believe over time 50GB and even 100GB disc will be mass produced at economicaly viable levels. Maybe not for use for pre-recorded movies at first, witch is the studio's decision, but they will be produced for pc storage aplications.
Let's be clear. The hurdle for adopting 100GB discs for storage applications is far lower than for pre-recorded video. There is no way that studios are going to start using the 100GB format when the market is full of BD-DVD players that only play 25GB and 50GB discs. With storage applications, this isn't a big deal, because only the people that really want the extra capacity will buy quad-layer capable drives. But for movies, no way---the studios aren't going to force consumers to buy new BD-DVD players; they would much rather those same people spend that same money on more content.

So in the off-chance that they need more than 50GB to store the content they want to sell, they will just go to 2 or more discs---not quad layers. As it is, we find ourselves talking about the possibility that they'll stick with single-layer discs at the outset. There is, of course, a big difference: 50GB is in the standard, 100GB is not. So even if we don't see dual-layer to start with, at least the first consumer players will support them when they do arrive.

So I hope nobody has it in mind that we'll ever see an evolution to 100GB discs for pre-recorded content. We'll see higher capacity only when the studios have a reason to introduce a brand new logical format, and my gosh, by then, who the heck knows what the market will look like. Maybe we'll be completely done with physical distribution by then.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #1286 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 03:21 PM
Member
 
kpup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Has anyone actually given proof yet that they are having troubles producing dual-layer Blu-Ray discs in mass quantities?

I know that in the .pdf file that was posted earlier they stated that they have produced over half a million single layer and over 100,000 dual layer discs. Is that where people are citing the problems with production?
kpup is offline  
post #1287 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 05:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Health Nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 5,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Why are we comparing the single layer 25GB BRD disk to the 30GB HD-DVD disk, which, I believe is dual layer.....

Shouldn't we be comparing either SL 25GB BRD to SL 15GB HD-DVD or DL 50GB BRD to DL 30GB HD-DVDs???

Apples to apples, right?
It depends. If HD-DVD can pump out 30 GB dual layer ROM's = or less than the Sony 25 GB, then I'd say no. So the answer is it depends. Personally, I'd rather pay a little more to have 50 GB, knowing that the movies, extras, and accompanying software would be better than if constrained to 25-30 GB.
Health Nut is offline  
post #1288 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 05:57 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
Agreed. If it ends up something like this

HD-DVD 15GB <= Blu-Ray 25GB <= HD-DVD 30GB <= Blu-Ray 50GB

then Blu-Ray wins, IMO. If on the other hand

HD-DVD 15GB <= HD-DVD 30GB <= Blu-Ray 25GB <= Blu-Ray 50GB

then Blu-Ray is at a distinct disadvantage which must be made up for in other ways.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #1289 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 06:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Blue Ray has to be at PRICE parity or PRICE superiority with HD-DVD. Give up margins if necessary to prevent HD-DVD from getting established.

The BR companies should have greater manufacturing, distribution and marketing capabilities than HD-DVD.

BR hardware must be around the same price while offering the recording capabilities. If HD-DVD players are $200, BR players must be $200 and BR recorders must be no more than $250, or $225 preferably.

Of course we know that whichever format has the most content wins. But BR content can't cost more than HD-DVD content.
wco81 is online now  
post #1290 of 18952 Old 09-07-2004, 06:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Health Nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 5,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
For starters, I'd like to calculate 16 Mbit sec VC-9/AVC + 6 channels of 24/48 uncompressed PCM x 3 hours... just to get a grip on some basics again....
Health Nut is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Software Media Discussion

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