Myth II: BD's higher bitrate will NEVER improve PQ (relative to HD) - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 08:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
What'sHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I contend that the higher bitrate will have a benefical impact in two ways:

1. In certain types of (rare but real) scenes where 30Mbps is not enough. Higher bitrate (= headroom) is always better anyways, Imo.

2. When mpeg2 becomes a free codec. Studios could then use BD50s and Mpeg2 to encode movies even though they could potentially fit them within 30GB size and 30Mbps bitrate with advanced video codecs.

For purposes of this particular myth (and thread), its point One that is under discussion.

I say "Never say Never". You may disagree. I prefer to support the format that gives me a fallback in case someday studio compressionists say "Title X (imagine X = your fave movie) really could use higher bitrate in so and so scenes."
What'sHD is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 08:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wnorris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think you are wrong on this topic.

Fact: VC-1, AVC, and MPEG-2 implementations are standards that exist even outside BD/HD-DVD. Each format has a specified maximum bit rate that can be decoded per these standards. The highest bit rate when discussing BD/HD-DVD is 36 Mbs, which is for MPEG-2. The HD-DVD standard specifies that every player is able to transmit 36.55 Mbs, which means it is capable of handling the highest possible bit rate of any of the three compression standards supported by HD-DVD or BD.

Bluray's higher 54 Mbs transfer rate only comes into play for BD games on the PS3, and as a storage medium on the PC (you would be able to read burned BD discs in less time than a burned HD-DVD disc with the same content).

But when it comes to playing movies, there is absolutely no advantage to BD;s transfer rate when compared to HD-DVD. The only myth I know of is the one that says BD's higher transfer rate equals a better picture quality. That is a total myth.
wnorris is offline  
post #3 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 08:44 PM
 
Rob Zuber's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The issue is bandwidth. You may have noticed that there is something called "audio" on these discs. And you may have noticed that there often needs to be more than one audio track, especially for foreign languages. Why the hell should the lower bandwidth / lower capacity format be chosen as the next generation format? There is absolutely no rational reason to do so. It's just that simple.
Rob Zuber is offline  
post #4 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 08:45 PM
Senior Member
 
chokeslam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just FYI, I've watched a few VC-1 BD's that have gone over 30Mbps in spots.
chokeslam is offline  
post #5 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 08:47 PM
 
Rob Zuber's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
wnorris, you are confusing data bit rates with video bit rates. BD has greater bandwidth with respect to playing movies:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post8358387
Rob Zuber is offline  
post #6 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 08:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nataraj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 8,020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Flame Bait.
nataraj is offline  
post #7 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 08:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ILJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by What'sHD View Post

I contend that the higher bitrate will have a benefical impact in two ways:

1. In certain types of (rare but real) scenes where 30Mbps is not enough.

And examples of those "rare but real scenes" are......? (Feel free to name the movie and scenes)

Quote:
Originally Posted by What'sHD View Post

2. When mpeg2 becomes a free codec. Studios could then use BD50s and Mpeg2 to encode movies even though they could potentially fit them within 30GB size and 30Mbps bitrate with advanced video codecs.

Not sure I understand the point here. There are titles like Click that have BD50 and MPEG2 that don't help your argument, if it's the "extra space + extra bandwidth = better PQ" argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by What'sHD View Post

I say "Never say Never". You may disagree. I prefer to support the format that gives me a fallback in case someday studio compressionists say "Title X (imagine X = your fave movie) really could use higher bitrate in so and so scenes."

Many of us have asked for the following...Take a title on HD DVD (especially one like HPGoF, which also has a TrueHD track and IME, therefore lowering the video rate, and should make it even easier for you )....throw more bits at it, with any codec you want, and show the end result having a noticeably better PQ. Should be easy enough to prove or disprove. Or take ANY title and do this! Prove that the extra bandwidth can be used for real benefits...like better PQ, instead of wasting it on kludgy pseudo-PiP.

*************************************************

Still looking for a movie theatre that shows movies the way they're SUPPOSED to be viewed...



...with a bitrate meter and screencaps.
ILJG is offline  
post #8 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 09:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
benwaggoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by What'sHD View Post

1. In certain types of (rare but real) scenes where 30Mbps is not enough. Higher bitrate (= headroom) is always better anyways, Imo.

Up to a certain point, right? Would DVD have looked better at 20 Mbps peak? Better at 30 than 20? I think we can agree there's a point of "enough" beyond which more doesn't make any difference.

The question is what that value is for particular combinations of codec, implementation, and content, and if particuar formats hit that bar for particular scenarios.

You're contending that HD DVD isn't "enough." You're going to have to define the scenario where you think this would be an issue in more detail if we're going to have a useful conversation about it.

Quote:


2. When mpeg2 becomes a free codec. Studios could then use BD50s and Mpeg2 to encode movies even though they could potentially fit them within 30GB size and 30Mbps bitrate with advanced video codecs.

Free codec in what sense?

Digital Media Technology Insider with Microsoft

My compression blog
benwaggoner is offline  
post #9 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 09:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wnorris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Zuber View Post

wnorris, you are confusing data bit rates with video bit rates. BD has greater bandwidth with respect to playing movies:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post8358387

Sorry, you are wrong and you are misrepresenting what was posted in the thread you linked. Or if that is what the poster believed, then they are wrong too.

BD does not have greater bandwidth with respect to video. A few posts later, the poster you are referring to backpedaled, said they would have to check the standard again, and then never reposted on the topic (at least that I could find).

BD and HD-DVD both have to comply with the standards for MPEG-2, AVC, and VC-1, which exist outside of BD and HD-DVD. Basically, the bandwidth is limited to 36 Mbs, 25 Mbs, and 20 Mbs respectively for video. HD-DVD standard says 36.55 Mbs and BD standard says 54 Mbs required.

You do have a point with audio, even though not in the way you mention it (it doesn't matter if there is one or five languages, you only play one at a time, all from the same area of the disc). Technically, a full on MPEG-2 stream (36 Mbs) with a lossless audio track might be more than HD-DVD could handle.

However, the fact that a "new" format can only claim it's "superior" in the area of using a 15 year old encoding codec isn't much to brag about in my book. A 20Mbs VC-1 transfer can look as equally as good as a 36 Mbs MPEG-2 transfer, which actually leaves plenty of room for the lossless track too.
wnorris is offline  
post #10 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 09:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eightninesuited's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto, Republic of Canuckistan
Posts: 4,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnorris View Post

A 20Mbs VC-1 transfer can look as equally as good as a 36 Mbs MPEG-2 transfer, which actually leaves plenty of room for the lossless track too.

Then where are the lossless tracks on HD DVD? To me it seems like bandwidth is a major problem for HD DVD. You know something is up when flagship titles like King Kong and Hulk gets a mere 1.5DD+ (which sounds great still) but why not True HD or PCM? Isn't this the format that claims "the look and sound of perfect"?

It's even more surprising that no one on the HD DVD forums bring this issue up.

No animals were harmed in the creation of this sentence.
eightninesuited is offline  
post #11 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 10:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
What'sHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
wnorris, IF, as you say, the mpeg2 standard has a 36 Mbps ceiling defined, that does not invalidate my point. Btw, can anyone confirm this mpeg2 limitation? thanks

HD bitrate has a max of 30 while BD can go upto 36 for mpeg2, though the standard allows upto 48, IIRC.

The point also stands for advanced video codecs. I cant imagine that the AVC and VC1 specs allow only 20+ Mbps for their encodings. Is that true, Ben and/or Amir? That would be quite a surprise.

Ben, I agree that there is a bitrate at which Only a niche of a niche of a niche audience has equipment good enough to "See AND Hear" the difference between a BD50 encoding vs. a HD30 encoding, each done to their max bitrates.

But, that does not invalidate the claim above. Its the famous "Black Swan" issue. Just because a black swan has not been seen yet, it does not allow one to say "Black swans do not/cannot exist."

Stock investors will appreciate the analogy, I hope.
What'sHD is offline  
post #12 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 10:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
benwaggoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightninesuited View Post

Then where are the lossless tracks on HD DVD? To me it seems like bandwidth is a major problem for HD DVD. You know something is up when flagship titles like King Kong and Hulk gets a mere 1.5DD+ (which sounds great still) but why not True HD or PCM? Isn't this the format that claims "the look and sound of perfect"?

Well, you answered your own question in large part by pointing out that 1.5 Mbps DD+ sounds great .

The biggest part is that there really isn't an audible gap between 1.5 Mbps DD+ and lossless for movie soundtracks. And from a workflow perspective, using a constant bitrate codec is easier, since you know what the bitrate is in advance, unlike with a VBR audio like TrueHD or DTS-MA.

But there are plenty of HD DVD discs with lossless audio, so it's not like it's impossible, or even hard.

Digital Media Technology Insider with Microsoft

My compression blog
benwaggoner is offline  
post #13 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 10:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
What'sHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post

Free codec in what sense?

When the patents run out and encoding studios dont have to pay royalties anymore for the use of mpeg2. Anyone know what the approximate date will be?
What'sHD is offline  
post #14 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 10:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
benwaggoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by What'sHD View Post

When the patents run out and encoding studios dont have to pay royalties anymore for the use of mpeg2. Anyone know what the approximate date will be?

Ah.

I'm not sure of the date. But the advanced codecs aren't that expensive. See:

http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_06-08-17_pr.pdf

MPEG-2 is actually more expensive per disc right now:

http://www.mpegla.com/m2/m2-agreement.cfm

And that's the per-disc fee. The actual encoders and operation of them is likely to cost a lot more per title than all the per-disc fees.

Digital Media Technology Insider with Microsoft

My compression blog
benwaggoner is offline  
post #15 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 10:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
What'sHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ben, agree but a penny saved and all that.

Btw, is it true that VC1 has a 20Mbps ceiling?
What'sHD is offline  
post #16 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 10:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
WickyWoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


When the patents run out and encoding studios dont have to pay royalties anymore for the use of mpeg2. Anyone know what the approximate date will be?

20 years from the date of filing, unless this falls under the terms of a design patent, in which case 14 years

Quote:


The actual encoders and operation of them is likely to cost a lot more per title than all the per-disc fees

Except the encoders were likely paid off quite awhile ago, and are multipurpose (creating broadcast/cable versions for instance), whereas you're not counting the hardware required for VC-1 encoding, nor the massive man hours that are put into doing so (reports from authors I know are "up to 6 passes at 8 hours a pass using 4 high-end PCs in parallel")

So it still is likely cheaper to them because they can do MPEG-2 in real time and only 3 passes. Maybe you've gotten a lot faster since them, but I doubt you're even close to 6 hours per movie.
WickyWoo is offline  
post #17 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 11:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Michael Mullis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Abingdon, MD
Posts: 3,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Many of us have asked for the following...Take a title on HD DVD (especially one like HPGoF, which also has a TrueHD track and IME, therefore lowering the video rate, and should make it even easier for you )....throw more bits at it, with any codec you want, and show the end result having a noticeably better PQ. Should be easy enough to prove or disprove. Or take ANY title and do this! Prove that the extra bandwidth can be used for real benefits...like better PQ, instead of wasting it on kludgy pseudo-PiP.

Batman Begins would be the reference title for this. It has TrueHD and PiP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eightninesuited View Post

Then where are the lossless tracks on HD DVD? To me it seems like bandwidth is a major problem for HD DVD. You know something is up when flagship titles like King Kong and Hulk gets a mere 1.5DD+ (which sounds great still) but why not True HD or PCM? Isn't this the format that claims "the look and sound of perfect"?

Why are you blaming the format for decisions made by the studios? Superman Returns had lossless audio, the full movie, and the 90 minutes worth of extras (albeit not in HD), and did not seem to have a problem with bandwidth or space.

Why spend the time and energy to work on a lossless track when DD+ 1.5 would be more than sufficient for home use?


Sigh, this thread is another one that is based on variable information. Something that can be proven quite easily on both sides. And so therefore a wash. Almost like the OP is just looking for a little more attention.
Michael Mullis is offline  
post #18 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 11:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnorris View Post

The highest bit rate when discussing BD/HD-DVD is 36 Mbs, which is for MPEG-2.
...
Sorry, you are wrong and you are misrepresenting what was posted in the thread you linked. Or if that is what the poster believed, then they are wrong too.

BD does not have greater bandwidth with respect to video. A few posts later, the poster you are referring to backpedaled, said they would have to check the standard again, and then never reposted on the topic (at least that I could find).

BD and HD-DVD both have to comply with the standards for MPEG-2, AVC, and VC-1, which exist outside of BD and HD-DVD. Basically, the bandwidth is limited to 36 Mbs, 25 Mbs, and 20 Mbs respectively for video. HD-DVD standard says 36.55 Mbs and BD standard says 54 Mbs required.

Where did you get this stuff about the video being limited to 36, 25 and 20Mbps? MPEG-2 itself isn't limited to 36Mbps. Even VC-1 isn't. "Flight Plan" in VC-1 on Blu-ray hits 40Mbps. Not counting buffers, HD DVD has a total mux rate of about 30Mbps (about 6Mbps less than 36Mbps for overhead), which includes all audio tracks, subtitles, and PiP that can play during the movie (whether it is being played or not). Blu-ray has a total mux rate for those things of 48Mbps, but limits the video to 40Mbps. That isn't an MPEG-2, VC-1, or AVC/MPEG-4 limit. It is 40Mbps for each.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnorris View Post

You do have a point with audio, even though not in the way you mention it (it doesn't matter if there is one or five languages, you only play one at a time, all from the same area of the disc).

You seem to think that only the language that is getting played counts against the mux rate. If that is what you believe, then you really don't understand how this works. Those count whether currently being played or not. Same as the way DVD has worked from the beginning. Amir didn't understand this in the past (like back when he was pushing lossless audio inclusion for HD DVD), told some of us that we were wrong about it, but ended up apologizing after he learned the truth.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #19 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 11:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
benwaggoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by What'sHD View Post

Ben, agree but a penny saved and all that.

Then why are we seeing the more expensive MPEG-2 being used now ?

Quote:


Btw, is it true that VC1 has a 20Mbps ceiling?

Nope. Plenty of titles in both formats use higher peak rates than that.

Digital Media Technology Insider with Microsoft

My compression blog
benwaggoner is offline  
post #20 of 70 Old 01-07-2007, 11:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
benwaggoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by WickyWoo View Post

Except the encoders were likely paid off quite awhile ago, and are multipurpose (creating broadcast/cable versions for instance), whereas you're not counting the hardware required for VC-1 encoding, nor the massive man hours that are put into doing so (reports from authors I know are "up to 6 passes at 8 hours a pass using 4 high-end PCs in parallel")

Most encoders aren't multi-use in practice, for any codec. A live encoder is all about 1-pass CBR real-time "best effort." A disc encoder is all about 2-pass VBR with tweaking.

And, no, A-list encoders are replaced before they're fully amortized. They get upgraded often, especially in HD.

Quote:


So it still is likely cheaper to them because they can do MPEG-2 in real time and only 3 passes. Maybe you've gotten a lot faster since them, but I doubt you're even close to 6 hours per movie.

Increasing numbers of studios are moving to VC-1 because they feel the quality gains are worth it for them.

Maybe for "long-tail" titles, a real-time encoder might have some value, but it's not like most studios are using real-time encoders for DVD even now. They're still sweating the details with mutliple encode passes for A-list titles.

Our encoder can work in an automated hands-off, scratch speed mode if desired (still beating MPEG-2 at a given bitrate), but for A-list titles, studios are willing to put in a lot more time if it can help make a great looking title.

Digital Media Technology Insider with Microsoft

My compression blog
benwaggoner is offline  
post #21 of 70 Old 01-08-2007, 12:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
What'sHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post

Then why are we seeing the more expensive MPEG-2 being used now ?


Nope. Plenty of titles in both formats use higher peak rates than that.

I am guessing cos Sony is not willing to spend too much time encoding, since that is a cost too. Its a trade off as usual and anyways, since their AVC tools were apparently not ready in time, mpeg2 was the only choice left.

I am not justifying it, just explaining it as I see it. Too bad VC1 was not an option for Sony since you guys could have helped with the encoding, but such is life.


thanks. So, wnorris seems to have been mistaken.
What'sHD is offline  
post #22 of 70 Old 01-08-2007, 12:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,918
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:


Superman Returns had lossless audio, the full movie, and the 90 minutes worth of extras (albeit not in HD), and did not seem to have a problem with bandwidth or space.

Umm, perhaps you missed all the banding artifacts in the water scenes. Or the pro/user reviews who had comments like "easily the softest HD title I have" etc?

HD DVD has hit the capacity wall, period.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #23 of 70 Old 01-08-2007, 01:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
benwaggoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by What'sHD View Post

I am not justifying it, just explaining it as I see it. Too bad VC1 was not an option for Sony since you guys could have helped with the encoding, but such is life.

We'd be happy to help Sony with VC-1 whenever they're ready to use it, FWIW.

Digital Media Technology Insider with Microsoft

My compression blog
benwaggoner is offline  
post #24 of 70 Old 01-08-2007, 01:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
benwaggoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

Umm, perhaps you missed all the banding artifacts in the water scenes. Or the pro/user reviews who had comments like "easily the softest HD title I have" etc?

HD DVD has hit the capacity wall, period.

Did the BD version look better?

I haven't seen that master, but it was shot digitally, and I'm told it's a pretty accurate presentation of the mater.

Digital Media Technology Insider with Microsoft

My compression blog
benwaggoner is offline  
post #25 of 70 Old 01-08-2007, 01:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,918
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:


Did the BD version look better?

No, because Warner did not re-encode it from the initial VC-1 encode from the HD DVD. Some 20GB of space went unused.

Quote:


haven't seen that master, but it was shot digitally, and I'm told it's a pretty accurate presentation of the mater.

I saw it twice theatrically: IMAX 3D and DLP. It wasn't soft.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #26 of 70 Old 01-08-2007, 01:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
What'sHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I concur. The Theater version looked rather sharp.
What'sHD is offline  
post #27 of 70 Old 01-08-2007, 02:43 AM - Thread Starter
 
What'sHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ben, what do you think of the extra bitrate of HD50?

Do you look forward to using 45Mbps or more on a VC1 title?
What'sHD is offline  
post #28 of 70 Old 01-08-2007, 03:41 AM
Member
 
ptran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Point 1 is absolutely valid. Video compression is highly program material dependent. A 24fps Peter Greenaway film (lots of static shots, some panning) will compress fine with a low bitrate, but a 60fps high octane music or concert video with strobe lights and fast, epilepsy-inducing edits will consume bitrate like crazy. Bitrate is as important to digital media as SNR is to analog. More is always better.

Point 2 is irrelevant. MPEG-2 is outdated and should be put out to pasture by the studios.
ptran is offline  
post #29 of 70 Old 01-08-2007, 06:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kschmit2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 2,224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptran View Post

A 24fps Peter Greenaway film (lots of static shots, some panning) will compress fine with a low bitrate, but a 60fps high octane music or concert video with strobe lights and fast, epilepsy-inducing edits will consume bitrate like crazy. Bitrate is as important to digital media as SNR is to analog. More is always better.

1080p60 is neither part of the BD specs, nor of HD DVD specs, so your example is not very good.

Both HD DVD and BD should have enough bitrate for 720p60 though (which is part of the specs).
kschmit2 is offline  
post #30 of 70 Old 01-08-2007, 06:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
wnorris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightninesuited View Post

Then where are the lossless tracks on HD DVD? To me it seems like bandwidth is a major problem for HD DVD. You know something is up when flagship titles like King Kong and Hulk gets a mere 1.5DD+ (which sounds great still) but why not True HD or PCM? Isn't this the format that claims "the look and sound of perfect"?

It's even more surprising that no one on the HD DVD forums bring this issue up.

Well, movies like King Kong are an exception as very few movies are rarely that long (3 hours or more). However, also consider that TrueHD is a format that only Warner seems to implement currently (and they don't implement it on BD for some reason...hmmm). The two titles you mentioned are non-Warner titles, so you will need to ask Universal why they have used TrueHD on 0 of their releases.

It's likely possible for them to do so if the demand is there. With the new TL discs, it shouldn't be a problem even for 3 hour films like Kong.
wnorris is offline  
Reply 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