|If the BDF(Not only Sony) was pushing just MPEG2 they would not have gave any other codec a chance.
How do you substantiate that claim? Last I heard the reason for Sony to not include H.264 or VC-9 was because it was cause a significant delay of introduction of Blu-Ray into the market. Also, that with 50 Gig storage, there was storage space to run MPEG-2 at high rates. I.e, no real incentive for Sony to include anything other than a BD product that is already designed and ready to go. On that note, are you sure 36Mbit/sec is able to be sustained? Also, I haven't done the math, but even if you could utilize 36Mbit/sec sustained, would that really give 3 hours?(36Mbit/sec x 3hours not exceed 50 GB storage?)
My impression is that Sony originally had no intention of providing anything other than standard DD and DTS, i.e. no significant audio improvement over what DVD offers now (perhaps full bitrate DTS). Perhaps Sony is reacting to the fact that VC-9 is 250% more efficeint than MPEG-2... which leaves HD-DVD a net 200% increase in relative
storage space over Blu-Ray with MPEG-2. That is such a huge relative increase in storage space that could be used for lossless compressed audio, extras, higher bitrate VC-9, whatever you can think of....
The other impressive point about the HD-DVD group has been their vocal support for DVD-Audio, lossless compressed audio for movies (24/48 was given by a Microsoft representative as an ideal lossless format for movies, which I concur), and 1080p pre-recorded media.
On the other hand, Sony interview (reference interviews with the head of Blu-Ray for Sony, "Widescreen Review") which offered no significant increase in audio quality, nothing guaranteed about 1080p, and providing MPEG-2 only. In general, my impression of that interview about Blu-Ray was very underwhelming compared to the very aggressive interview by the founders of HD-DVD in terms of providing max quality audio and video.
I would love to see an extensive independent review of the various video codecs.
|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.
Well sure it may be better in terms of future development with more layers? Sure it may have more storage space.... but what it comes down to is what the software is going to be like. Sony has control of a Major Studio... so they can also PUSH, yes PUSH for lossless audio compression. Make some claims and TOUT them! Be clear about what Sony is going to provide with Blu-Ray. Sony needs to push the audio and video envelope as much as possible and be agressive in stating what audio and video will be provided. Sony = Columbia/Tristar, so LEAD BY EXAMPLE! The next generation optical format will be almost exclusively about video and audio quality, otherwise there is nothing different than what DVD can provide. Hell, DVD can provide VC-9 HD material now. The battle will be won by whichever the early adopters chose to support... and this forum is the absolute best sample of those people.
|What you are failing to understand is that, MPEG2 @ <= 24mpbs was the codec that provided the best video quality at the time they reviewed them. The test was done side by side with mirrored source material. The reviewers either answered acceptable or not acceptable.
Adequate... ? Ugh! I vote Stacey Spears, Joe Kane, and other experts to do a double blind extensive review of the various codecs at various bitrates. Adequate vs non adequate, now that is extensive... Stacey should be given a large consultation fee and provide an independent report! A report that includes the various strengths, weaknesses, artifacts, etc., and finally overall recommendations.