Latest HiDef DVD News - Page 7 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 10:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 24,141
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)
Liked: 199
Is that why Sony chose 1080p24sF?

To have the res be the same ofr broadcast & bluRay?

Or if HD Dvd is 1080P @ 60, could a scaler (e.g. Lumagen) convert 1080P @ 60 to 1080P24sF without artifacts ( to run on Qualia)?

My Home Theater of the Month- Le Petit Trianon

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 10:19 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
1080p24sf is not some new flash in the pan. JVC projectors have supported it at least since the G150, if not earlier. Of course they have also supported 1080p24 as well. I can't understand why the Qualia didn't support 1080p24 right out of the box, but I'm sure that whatever format Blu-Ray and HD-DVD ends up using, the Qualia will support it, via firmware update if necessary.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #183 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 10:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sspears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Sammamish, WA, USA
Posts: 5,256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
HD Dvd is 1080P @ 60, could a scaler (e.g. Lumagen) convert 1080P @ 60 to 1080P24sF without artifacts ( to run on Qualia)?
Converting 1080p24 to PsF should not be a problem, but 1080p, 1080i60, 720p and 720p30 won't look good. 1080p60 is a common rate that will accomodate all of the formats.

My 720p DLP accepts 1080p60.
sspears is offline  
post #184 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 11:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,718
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Blu-Ray is made up of many companies, PsF support is not up to Sony. I hope for their customers sake that they offer 1920x1080p60 in for the Qualia with an update.

We just purchased the JVC 2k because it does support 1920x1080p60.
Thankfully, JVC is a member of the Blu-ray group and there is even a photo of a prototype JVC Blu-ray recorder in the IGN BR Summit thread so hopefully this bodes well for 1080p/60...
KLee is online now  
post #185 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 11:51 AM
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
All this talk of 1080p is giving me a headache. I sold off my first HDTV because it didn't have DVI. Now my second HDTV only supports up to 1080i. If 1080p succeeds on Blu-ray then I'll need to upgrade again. It's a bit frustrating as everyone knows used AV equipment takes a big loss. :(
nyg is offline  
post #186 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 11:56 AM
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
720p says:

Quote:
All this talk of 1080p is giving me a headache. I sold off my first HDTV because it didn't have DVI. Now my second HDTV only supports up to 1080i. If 1080p succeeds on Blu-ray then I'll need to upgrade again. It's a bit frustrating as everyone knows used AV equipment takes a big loss.
Why sell it? A competently build player would allow you to set the output and scale/deinterlace/interlace etc as necessary.

Cheers,

Contributing Editor & Surround Music Reviewer Widescreen Review
Opinions are mine, not the publication I write for.
John Kotches is offline  
post #187 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 02:20 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
Won't 1080p look quite a bit better than 1080i though? I already think 720p looks better than 1080i.
nyg is offline  
post #188 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 02:30 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
720p:

It will look better. The amount of improvement is subjective :) On e man's "night and day" is another's "modest improvement".

Are you willing to pay the $30K price point that is required to play in the 1080p arena at this time? If not, then standing pat and "making do" with 1080i for the short term isn't a bad choice :D

Cheers,



I

Contributing Editor & Surround Music Reviewer Widescreen Review
Opinions are mine, not the publication I write for.
John Kotches is offline  
post #189 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 02:53 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 John Kotches
Are you willing to pay the $30K price point that is required to play in the 1080p arena at this time? If not, then standing pat and "making do" with 1080i for the short term isn't a bad choice :D
More like $3G. ;) I guess I thought (until recently) that 1080i was as good as consumers were going to get for several years. I'll keep my new TV and be happy with it in the meantime. Thank you for your input. :)
nyg is offline  
post #190 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 04:11 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
As far as future ATSC standards, would you not think they would want to support an advanced codec like VC-9 or H.264 ?? I would think there would be economic incentive to do so.... Bandwidth is money. Why not have VC-9 or H.264 added sooner than later?

Quote:
Won't 1080p look quite a bit better than 1080i though? I already think 720p looks better than 1080i.
Let's hope interlaced becomes a thing of the past, sooner than later. I agree that I'd rather have 720p60 instead of 1080i60 any day of the week.
Health Nut is offline  
post #191 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 06:38 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
Chris asks:

Quote:
As far as future ATSC standards, would you not think they would want to support an advanced codec like VC-9 or H.264 ?? I would think there would be economic incentive to do so.... Bandwidth is money. Why not have VC-9 or H.264 added sooner than later?
Other than the fact that all of the HDTV production gear is geared around MPEG-2, the standards have to be amended etc etc etc no reason.

I don't expect ATSC to be updated -- but its successor whatever that might be, could be.

Cheers,

Contributing Editor & Surround Music Reviewer Widescreen Review
Opinions are mine, not the publication I write for.
John Kotches is offline  
post #192 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 08:36 PM
Member
 
Marvelous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am posting this because there are a lot of misconceptions about blu-ray floating around the Internet. It did not bother until after I read the White Papers off of the official blu-ray site and found out for my self the technical aspects of blu-ray. It was really surprising that most of the information about this technology is utterly fallacious. If you are interested in this technology, you should really read the 5 .pdf files on the website. If you choose not to I will give you a summary about this technology.

The only blu-ray format that is complete is BD-RE. This is where people get the, “Blu-ray only allows for mpeg2†statement. The truth is that every service provider company uses an mpeg2 transport stream. To encode an mpeg2 transport stream into a different codec at HDTV resolutions is not an easy task for hardware of today. They would have to start making specialized hardware for such a task, and the resulting picture quality would be inferior because it would have been taken from the mpeg2 transport stream and not the original source. This is the reason why the BDF (Blu-ray Disc Founders) chose mpeg2 for the BD-RE format. Also the BD-RE format is not locked down to just mpeg2 for future versions of the format. For instance, Voom is supposedly going to start using a more efficient codec for transmitting their signal to allow for more channels. If the BDF sees this as a good enough reason to include that codec in the BD-RE format they can if they want, but just because one small company does it doesn’t mean they will jump on the bandwagon.

The BD-ROM format is not complete. The BDF is working close to the studios to complete the format as we speak. If the studios decide that they will only use mpeg2, then blu-ray will hard a hard time justifying including another codec. The early version of this format was to use mpeg2 only because it was the codec that gave the best picture quality at the time. Given that at full data rate of 36mbps on a 50GB disk is just over 3 hours, it is plenty enough for pretty much every movie no matter what codec, so picture quality is the only determining factor. Look at the chart at the end of part3 of the .pdf files. The chart shows that only acceptable picture quality for both mpeg2 and mpeg4 was mpeg2 at 24mbps. Similar test was done with vc-9 and mpeg2 was chosen. This is why mpeg2 was originally the codec for this format as well, but since vc-9 and mpeg4 have made major improvement in PQ the BDF has chosen to give it another chance to be included.

Cost of blu-ray is also becoming more and more of a non-issue. Since TDK developed a new hard-coating and dropped the caddies (I actually liked the idea of caddies) for the BD-ROM format, the BDF has determined that it should cost the same if not less than a dvd5 to produce at mass volumes. The expense will actually come from retooling the equipment, which HD-DVD will also have to do. While the retooling to make blu-ray disk will cost more than retooling for HD-DVD, studios will have to retool all of their mpeg2 equipment to make use of the new codec of HD-DVD. So it’s either spend money on one or the other.

Blu-ray also has advantages in other areas as well.

1. Since blu-ray was made from ground up and not based on existed DVD technology, multiple layers are easier to do. DVD9 of today are basically a double-sided DVD that can be read from one side. It is extremely hard and expensive to create a true double-layered DVD, and since 2 layers on one side is extremely hard you rarely find a double-sided, double-layered DVD. With blu-ray this is not the case. TDK has developed a true quad layered blu-ray that is 100gb, and it would have no trouble doing that on a double-sided disk to increase it’s capacity to 200gb. Since HD-DVD is based on old DVD technology, it suffers from more that two layers so it is hard to get past the 30GB limit. This

2. Blu-ray was made for a rewriteable format first and foremost, so it is easier to use this technology as you would a VCR or a floppy disk. This convenience is truly a plus for the format, and combined with a capacity of 50-200GB on a single disk, it really a killer format for PC use.

3. Fast cost dropped is also a great possibility since blu-ray is strongly rumored to be used in the ps3. With millions of blu-ray drives and billions of disks being produced just for ps3, blu-ray can have a mass-market appeal rather quickly if marketed correctly.

4. 13 of the biggest CE companies backing it, enough said.

Also, no company beside CTS has officially backed any format.
Marvelous is offline  
post #193 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 09:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cmont's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 1,514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvelous
The truth is that every service provider company uses an mpeg2 transport stream. To encode an mpeg2 transport stream into a different codec at HDTV resolutions is not an easy task for hardware of today.
That has nothing to do with encoding an HD transfer of a film from its master. You are talking about codecs and how they relate to the broadcast industry. Two different subjects entirely.
cmont is offline  
post #194 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 09:19 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
Hey Mr Sony, I mean Marvelous:

If you can deliver lossless compressed audio along with 1080p for Hollywood movies, you have a good chance. But what about discrete side channels, etc.. ? The bottom line to me is audio quality and video quality. You keep talking about visual quality... I see nothing about audio quality.... So what the hell gives?
Health Nut is offline  
post #195 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 10:36 PM
Member
 
Marvelous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by cmont
That has nothing to do with encoding an HD transfer of a film from its master. You are talking about codecs and how they relate to the broadcast industry. Two different subjects entirely.
Of course I was talking about 2 different subjects, that was my point. Everyone is bashing blu-ray because it is mpeg2 only for BD-RE, BD-RE is not BD-ROM. The BDF have not decided the codecs for the final BD-ROM format.

I was just trying to point out that just because BD-RE was using mpeg2, which is the right thing to do because its the only thing they broadcast, BD-ROM can use another codec.

Quote:
Hey Mr Sony, I mean Marvelous:

If you can deliver lossless compressed audio along with 1080p for Hollywood movies, you have a good chance. But what about discrete side channels, etc.. ? The bottom line to me is audio quality and video quality. You keep talking about visual quality... I see nothing about audio quality.... So what the hell gives?
If you read closely and not being so closed-minded to my post by thinking im a Sony lover, when blu-ray is backed by 12 other CE gaints, then you would have understood what I have said. The techinal papers on blu-ray points out that at 24mbps or lower, mpeg2 was the only codec that satified all the reviewers picture quality standards. That was back when they first reviewed the codecs. Since then, MS has made an improvement to VC-9, so the BDF is looking at that codec again.

So at 24mbps that leaves about 12mbps to have your lossless audio. At the full data rate of 36mbps and 50GB disk, that is just above 3 hours of movie time.
Marvelous is offline  
post #196 of 18952 Old 06-21-2004, 10:43 PM
Member
 
Marvelous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
PS. I can care less about how efficient a codec is as long as the picture quality is better than mpeg2 at 24mbps.
Marvelous is offline  
post #197 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 04:45 AM
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:
PS. I can care less about how efficient a codec is as long as the picture quality is better than mpeg2 at 24mbps.
That is the exact argument given in the petition in my sig file below. On that matter, it would be great to have a thorough objective and subjective analysis of the various codecs... I don't think anyone published any credible information on this matter. I do agree wholeheartedly with your statement, of course, 200-250% gain in efficiency is hard to sneeze at if the overall quality is the same. Would love to see a thorough evaluation published on this matter... In general, I would agree with your statement about quality being the most important goal for both audio and video. 24/48 kHz true lossless is absolutely adequate for movies, although my estimate is that would take 5Mbit/sec (24/96 aka DVD-Audio takes approx 10 Mbit/sec I think, so dropping the sample rate in half, halves the data). Is anybody here interested in further development of the basic 5.1/6.2 surround formats? Is anybody here interested in at least having 7.1 (discrete side channels) or 8.1 (discrete side channels in addition to 6.1 discrete rear center) ? What about development of a discrete mix/discrete channel for tactile feedback which is beoming more and more commonplace? (a discrete tactile channel from 1-500 Hz takes no significant bandwidth or storage, yet would drastically change the reality and excitment of movies).
Health Nut is offline  
post #198 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 06:54 AM
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
Marvelous, if you're going to drink the Koolaid, start off with a sippy cup, not a pitcher... :)

What in the world do you expect them to say in their marcom, er, I'm mean tech, documents? The reality is that Sony et all failed to submit their spec in toto to The DVD Forum, knowing full well what the consequences/outcome would be...a format war. Imagine that. Sony clings to the myth that high data rate MPEG2 is good enough...not for the sake of picture quality, but for the sake of money. Qualitative tests tell the truth.

Alex doesn't live here anymore
amillians is offline  
post #199 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 10:59 AM
Member
 
Marvelous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by amillians
What in the world do you expect them to say in their marcom, er, I'm mean tech, documents? The reality is that Sony et all failed to submit their spec in toto to The DVD Forum, knowing full well what the consequences/outcome would be...a format war. Imagine that.


Why would Sony along with the other 12 companies submit blu-ray to the DVD forum? Blu-ray is not DVD, it would be like having the submit DVD to the VHS or CD forum if there was such a thing. The format war is not the fault of the BDF, I put it on the DVD Forum trying to milk every dollar out of their existing product. Do I blame them? No. But Toshiba and NEC could just as easily went Blu-ray and we would not be in this situation.

Quote:
Sony clings to the myth that high data rate MPEG2 is good enough...not for the sake of picture quality, but for the sake of money. Qualitative tests tell the truth.
I really don't understand this statement, the BDF done test with the various codecs. I don't know if they was blind test, but at the end of the day MPEG2 at 24mbps was the best. However, VC-9 has now improved and they are testing it again, so I see no validity in your statement. If the BDF(Not only Sony) was pushing just MPEG2 they would not have gave any other codec a chance.

But one of my points was if the Studios will not use anything but MPEG2, what would be the point of including any other codec? I doesn't matter if VC-9 at any bitrate looks better, it's up to the studios. I would love to have the best picture quality, but if the studios decides on MPEG2 it would stupid for the BDF to include anything else for the BD-ROM format. People will still blame Sony for what the studios decide, but what else do you expect from those type of people?
Marvelous is offline  
post #200 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 11:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
What in the world do you expect them to say in their marcom, er, I'm mean tech, documents? The reality is that Sony et all failed to submit their spec in toto to The DVD Forum, knowing full well what the consequences/outcome would be...a format war. Imagine that.
sony distinctly does NOT want the "DVD" stamp on their disc at all. Submitting it would have negated their whole reason for dreaming it up in the first place. That's the whole point...to keep the royalties for themselves.

they compromised (financially) with the current DVD standard and they don't want to do it again.

I don't agree with them, but that's their primary motivation with BluRay disc.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is offline  
post #201 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 11:26 AM
Member
 
Adam_H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Johnston, IA
Posts: 175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Why would Sony along with the other 12 companies submit blu-ray to the DVD forum? Blu-ray is not DVD, it would be like having the submit DVD to the VHS or CD forum if there was such a thing. The format war is not the fault of the BDF, I put it on the DVD Forum trying to milk every dollar out of their existing product. Do I blame them? No. But Toshiba and NEC could just as easily went Blu-ray and we would not be in this situation.
err... If they would have submitted BD to the DVD forum it could have become HD-DVD. Of course Blu-ray is not DVD, but neither is HD-DVD, it just carries the DVD name because that is the spec that the DVD forum approved. It's NOTHING like submitting DVD to a VHS or CD forum. The DVD forum was looking for a HD optical disc technology to approve. Blu-ray had a chance to be it if it was submitted.

Everyone is trying to milk every dollar out of existing and future formats. I agree with David that the reason Blu-ray was not submitted to the forum is because the Blu-ray group members hope to keep a larger share of the royalties.
Adam_H is offline  
post #202 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 12:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kraigk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 1,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Question: Will the players for either of these formats be backward compatible playing our existing DVD's? If yes would one player be cheaper to produce than the other with or without backward compatibility?

-kraig
kraigk is offline  
post #203 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 01:09 PM
Member
 
Marvelous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Adam_H
err... If they would have submitted BD to the DVD forum it could have become HD-DVD. Of course Blu-ray is not DVD, but neither is HD-DVD, it just carries the DVD name because that is the spec that the DVD forum approved. It's NOTHING like submitting DVD to a VHS or CD forum. The DVD forum was looking for a HD optical disc technology to approve. Blu-ray had a chance to be it if it was submitted.

Everyone is trying to milk every dollar out of existing and future formats. I agree with David that the reason Blu-ray was not submitted to the forum is because the Blu-ray group members hope to keep a larger share of the royalties.
Submitting Blu-ray to the DVD Forum would be exactly like submitting DVD to a CD forum if they had such a thing. They could have called it SuperDuper-CD or what ever, but DVD is based on completely different technology than CDs. The same applies to blu-ray, blu-ray is based on a completely different technology than DVD. On the other hand HD-DVD is basically DVD with a blue laser. I, like the BDF, would be foolish to submit my technology to a organization that didn't help create it when I could make my own organization to handle it.

ps. I also think that Blu-ray was being worked on before the DVD Forum was looking for a HD movie format, because it was developed and had no intention to submit it to the DVD forum.
Marvelous is offline  
post #204 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 01:14 PM
Member
 
Marvelous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by kraigk
Question: Will the players for either of these formats be backward compatible playing our existing DVD's? If yes would one player be cheaper to produce than the other with or without backward compatibility?
Yes, both will support DVD playback. While it is not mandatory for blu-ray to do so, the companies already said that their players will support dvd playback.
Marvelous is offline  
post #205 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 01:22 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
The whole point of using the DVD acronym is because the consumers already know that DVD means movies. Look at how well SACD and DVD-Audio are doing. They are not as lucrative as they would like because most customers don't understand the acronym. Consumers are beginning to understand HD and they already know DVD which the DVD forum knows will be a big marketing push as opposed to a brand new label of blu-ray.

Paul Seng
Paul_Seng is offline  
post #206 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 01:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,588
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 501 Post(s)
Liked: 785
How exactly is Sony so evil here when the consortium it put together is an absolute who's who while Toshiba and NEC have, well, no one?

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. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)
rogo is offline  
post #207 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 01:49 PM
Member
 
Marvelous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul_Seng
The whole point of using the DVD acronym is because the consumers already know that DVD means movies. Look at how well SACD and DVD-Audio are doing. They are not as lucrative as they would like because most customers don't understand the acronym. Consumers are beginning to understand HD and they already know DVD which the DVD forum knows will be a big marketing push as opposed to a brand new label of blu-ray.
But this has nothing to do with the superiority of either format. Beside, keeping the DVD name can have a negative marketing impact if the BDF plays its cards right. It will be hard to convince Joe Sixpack why his DVD player can't play this HD-DVD especially if he has a HDTV. The blu-ray companies can play on the fact that DVD is OLD technology and BD is the real next generation technology. There was an article about a Top Person in Toshiba saying that Blu-ray was truely a better format, but it would be too expensive. I bet he feels like crap now because the BDF has found ways to get the cost down to DVD levels and prehaps lower.

I honestly think that most people don't understand SACD or DVD-Audio because they haven't seen it advertised anywhere besides AVS and other a/v forums.
Marvelous is offline  
post #208 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 02:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,558
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1282 Post(s)
Liked: 625
To get quality MPEG-2 at 1080p/24 and 1080p/30 without artifacts (I'm talking frame rates here, not frequency rates as these discussions get confusing) you have to eat up a hell of a lot of space. Then there's the audio. I think most people here would LOVE high resolution 24/96 bit-for-bit lossless audio with the capacity for at least 8 discrete channels. That takes up some space too.

Basically, at the end of it all the larger capacity of BR-ROM is fairly well negated by using MPEG-2.

However, if real world tests can prove that VC-9 (as an example) can provide just as good or better 1080p/24 and 1080p/30 performance at a lower bitrate, you'd still have room for really high quality audio, and perhaps have a bit of breathing room to spare (for even better video and/or audio) given a dual layered HD-DVD disc not crammed to the gills with extras.

Blu-Ray MAY be able to provide greater than 50 Gigs of space in a few years time, however if Sony gets the ball rolling with only MPEG-2/1080i and DTS or Dolby Digital audio then it may take quite some time for them to switch over to an efficient video codec with full 1080p support and lossless high rez. audio. You would have push for a retool of all the newer Blu-Ray players and consumer surround decoding equipment (receivers, pre-amps, etc.) to support these new improvements. We know how long that can take.

So far it looks as if Sony has put their eggs into such a basket, whereas HD-DVD has still (at least in the press) talked up 1080p and better audio from the start.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #209 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 02:39 PM
Member
 
Marvelous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Hitchman
To get quality MPEG-2 at 1080p/24 and 1080p/30 without artifacts (I'm talking frame rates here, not frequency rates as these discussions get confusing) you have to eat up a hell of a lot of space. Then there's the audio. I think most people here would LOVE high resolution 24/96 bit-for-bit lossless audio with the capacity for at least 8 discrete channels. That takes up some space too.

Basically, at the end of it all the larger capacity of BR-ROM is fairly well negated by using MPEG-2.

However, if real world tests can prove that VC-9 (as an example) can provide just as good or better 1080p/24 and 1080p/30 performance at a lower bitrate, you'd still have room for really high quality audio, and perhaps have a bit of breathing room to spare (for even better video and/or audio) given a dual layered HD-DVD disc not crammed to the gills with extras.

Blu-Ray MAY be able to provide greater than 50 Gigs of space in a few years time, however if Sony gets the ball rolling with only MPEG-2/1080i and DTS or Dolby Digital audio then it may take quite some time for them to switch over to an efficient video codec with full 1080p support and lossless high rez. audio. You would have push for a retool of all the newer Blu-Ray players and consumer surround decoding equipment (receivers, pre-amps, etc.) to support these new improvements. We know how long that can take.

So far it looks as if Sony has put their eggs into such a basket, whereas HD-DVD has still (at least in the press) talked up 1080p and better audio from the start.
What are you talking about? Mpeg2 at 24mbps was accepted as good enough image quality by studio and blu-ray experts. So even if BD-ROM uses MPEG2 only, this leaves 12mbps for lossless audio. I have read that some lossless codecs reduces sizes up to 50%, so even 24mbps uncompressed audio can be squeezed into that 12mbps stream. If you didn't know, the DVD forum did not make it neccessary to include a lossless codec, so I don't know why you are touting that for HD-DVD because it is completely optional. Studios can also include lossless audio for blu-ray as well, because it is optional.

Also I'm pretty sure that blu-ray will support the best picture quality and audio that the studios are willing to provide.
Marvelous is offline  
post #210 of 18952 Old 06-22-2004, 02:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rdwalt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kennesaw, GA
Posts: 1,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Has anyone heard about Sony possibly buying MGM?

"If this deal pans out, Sony gains access to Hollywood's largest library of films for exclusive release on Blu-ray Disc, giving their high-definition format an even greater edge (than it already has) in the brewing battle with HD-DVD"

"If you never did, you should. These things are fun and fun is good."- Dr. Seuss
rdwalt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
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