DVD a Next-Gen rival?

[Doomulation]

..To HD-DVD and Blu-ray? A new technology allows for 4 layers now, and in the future, even more. This can yield up to 20 GB of data on a single disc. There are also specifications for 24GB, 30GB, 40GB and 48GB discs.
Unfortunately, as all new technology, this comes at a price. You need a new player to play the contents of these discs (and HD material of course!). However, these new players, which have been announced, are far more cheaper than HD-DVD/Blu-ray, starting at $200 and $250 MSRP! Forget HD-DVD and Blu-ray (and PS3), and get one of these for all your HD needs instead!
I'm sure the movie industries will embrace it seeing as it's very cheap and DVD is a real hit.

Source: http://www.winbeta.org/comments.php?id=6453&catid=1

[Toasty]

But... but... it doesn't use blue lasers! :P I'd venture a guess that normal dual-layer DVDs would probably be perfectly suitable for a good number of HD films, so long as a more modern/efficient codec (IE H.264) were used. But, the entertainment industry likes to assume that all its customers are swimming in money.

[Doomulation]

What prevents them from releasing on DVD as well? That means more money.

[t0rek]

So many next gen shit... I mean stuff... :P anyway... I'm not getting any right now

[General Plot]

Heh. I still think it doesn't compete with currently new media formats. They have better protection against scratching, and are able to yield more data. Besides, when people move on to newer technology, they don't cling to an old format to do it.;)

[Doomulation]

I see no disadvantage to DVD against the new formats, save for maybe, space. Sure, we'll get to those formats in due time, but at this time they're far too expensive and buggy. So let DVD live a little longer I say!

[Toasty]

What prevents them from releasing on DVD as well? That means more money.
I meant for the more expensive HD-DVD and Blu-ray players, not the movies themselves. ;)

[Cyberman]

Ok Guys you should pay a bit of a attention to the stealth trick Divx pulled on the HD people.

What? Huh? Ehh?
You don't need a new (freaking) HD player to play HD content <-- read this several times. Any DVD player that has that Divx thing on there is actually a Divx HD player. So 480p 720p and 1080p encoded Divx movies can play with menus and cutesy add ons just like irregular HD-Blue Splay media do. The difference is it's a regular DVD. You can encode 8 hours regular DVD (720x480) and 2 hours HD content on a single layer DVD. 2 layer DVD of course doubles this. Essentially you can make MUCH better quality media to play in these MUCH cheaper players. :D

Cyb
http://doom9.org
and hit Divx to find out more :D

[smcd]

Given that knowledge, should we expect a BD/HDDVD-2-DVD program sometime? :D That'd be hilarious

[General Plot]

I see no disadvantage to DVD against the new formats, save for maybe, space. Sure, we'll get to those formats in due time, but at this time they're far too expensive and buggy. So let DVD live a little longer I say!
Who says Blu Ray is buggy? So far, standalone players (as well as the PS3) get faster loading times and a better picture compared to HD-DVD.;)

[Doomulation]

Ok Guys you should pay a bit of a attention to the stealth trick Divx pulled on the HD people.

What? Huh? Ehh?
You don't need a new (freaking) HD player to play HD content <-- read this several times. Any DVD player that has that Divx thing on there is actually a Divx HD player. So 480p 720p and 1080p encoded Divx movies can play with menus and cutesy add ons just like irregular HD-Blue Splay media do. The difference is it's a regular DVD. You can encode 8 hours regular DVD (720x480) and 2 hours HD content on a single layer DVD. 2 layer DVD of course doubles this. Essentially you can make MUCH better quality media to play in these MUCH cheaper players. :D

Cyb
http://doom9.org
and hit Divx to find out more :D
Are you really certain? With standalone players, there's usually a limit to the maximum resolution they can decode and output (plus there's no HDMI for Digital Freaks). 1080p is really expensive to decode (well, at least H264), so I am uncertain they can decode it at proper speed.


Who says Blu Ray is buggy? So far, standalone players (as well as the PS3) get faster loading times and a better picture compared to HD-DVD.;)

Ah, you misunderstand me. I meant both HD-DVD and Blu-ray. Both players are still expensive, buggy and lacking features that are in the spec. The discs are small, doesn't usually contain much features, yada yada. In other words, unless you get a PS3 for gaming purposes, the standalone players just aren't worth it right now.
And I shudder to think if something new in the spec would render the old players useless.

[General Plot]

Ah, you misunderstand me. I meant both HD-DVD and Blu-ray. Both players are still expensive, buggy and lacking features that are in the spec. The discs are small, doesn't usually contain much features, yada yada. In other words, unless you get a PS3 for gaming purposes, the standalone players just aren't worth it right now.
And I shudder to think if something new in the spec would render the old players useless.
Have you ever even USED either type of disc? I've already played movies on both formats, and neither one has ever given any inclination that they are "buggy". Seems to me that you like to call anything you don't like "buggy".;)

[Doomulation]

Spare me...
Go read any review out there. These stand alone players aren't exactly "angels." Missing features, expensive, and so on. And remember that movie video compression is not an easy thing. Especially interlacing. What may not show in one movie may show in another movie.
And they're slow, aren't they? Takes long to load.

[gokuss4]

Ok Guys you should pay a bit of a attention to the stealth trick Divx pulled on the HD people.

What? Huh? Ehh?
You don't need a new (freaking) HD player to play HD content <-- read this several times. Any DVD player that has that Divx thing on there is actually a Divx HD player. So 480p 720p and 1080p encoded Divx movies can play with menus and cutesy add ons just like irregular HD-Blue Splay media do. The difference is it's a regular DVD. You can encode 8 hours regular DVD (720x480) and 2 hours HD content on a single layer DVD. 2 layer DVD of course doubles this. Essentially you can make MUCH better quality media to play in these MUCH cheaper players. :D

Cyb
http://doom9.org
and hit Divx to find out more :D

Site doesn't work, but this sounds interesting. I want to find out more. You can actually play DivX videos in HD (720p, 1080i, 1080p) on a regular DVD player that supports DivX? Well.. I'd imagine 1080p taking up a lot more room... but in any case, this sounds like sony or microsoft wouldn't like this so much. Hell, I'd bet there are ways to extract HD-DVD's and BD's and convert them from the opposite of eachother, and put it on a certain disc. The platform wars would go to shit a little bit maybe if that happen.

[Niggy G]

http://www.doom9.org/

The above link works, very good site for video information!

[Doomulation]

You can actually play DivX videos in HD (720p, 1080i, 1080p) on a regular DVD player that supports DivX? Well.. I'd imagine 1080p taking up a lot more room...
Well, space problems aside, decoding HD material takes a lot more processing power and AFAIK, the players weren't designed for it. Most of them anyway.


Hell, I'd bet there are ways to extract HD-DVD's and BD's and convert them from the opposite of eachother, and put it on a certain disc. The platform wars would go to shit a little bit maybe if that happen.

A disc is a disc. Compression is compression. They're utilizing either MPEG2 or MPEG4, so either way, you can rip the contents and watch it on a computer or a DVD player (if it supports MPEG4). Although it might not play H264 material on a DVD player...

[WhiteX]

I think that ppl don´t really need HD for now but i´m only one...

[gokuss4]

Well, space problems aside, decoding HD material takes a lot more processing power and AFAIK, the players weren't designed for it. Most of them anyway.



A disc is a disc. Compression is compression. They're utilizing either MPEG2 or MPEG4, so either way, you can rip the contents and watch it on a computer or a DVD player (if it supports MPEG4). Although it might not play H264 material on a DVD player...

I meant, convert hd-dvd into blu-ray, and then burn that on a blu-ray disc, or convert blu-ray to hd-dvd and burn it on hd-dvd.

[Toasty]

I think that ppl don´t really need HD for now but i´m only one...
No, you're not. :) IMO, even on an HDTV, plain old DVD looks pretty nice.

[Doomulation]

I meant, convert hd-dvd into blu-ray, and then burn that on a blu-ray disc, or convert blu-ray to hd-dvd and burn it on hd-dvd.

Quite possible... the only thing that would set them apart may be... container, layout on the disc and encryptions...
But the movie and sound data itself is according to specs, which both discs support.
Though it's all speculation, I would say it's probably 99% probability that this is true.

[smcd]

Quite possible... the only thing that would set them apart may be... container, layout on the disc and encryptions...


Both use AACS to "protect" content as far as I know.

[General Plot]

Spare me...
Go read any review out there. These stand alone players aren't exactly "angels." Missing features, expensive, and so on. And remember that movie video compression is not an easy thing. Especially interlacing. What may not show in one movie may show in another movie.
And they're slow, aren't they? Takes long to load.
If you don't have first hand experience (actually used one), which I have, then you can't give an honest impression. The only thing you're able to do is use rumors and draw your own conclusions to bash a technology that you have no real knowledge of.;) HD-DVD is slow, very slow (loading a movie on my PC takes about 2 minutes to actually start). Blu Ray is much closer to the speed of loading a standard DVD.

I think that ppl don´t really need HD for now but i´m only one...
I don't really consider it a need, but then, the same could be said for other technologies. Getting right down to it, we don't need DVD, there's still video tape, but DVD is better. We don't need CD-R's, we still have cassettes. The reason for using HD-DVD/Blu Ray is that it is an improvement over DVD (just as DVD is an improvement over video tape). We don't need it, but it is nice.

[Doomulation]

If you don't have first hand experience (actually used one), which I have, then you can't give an honest impression. The only thing you're able to do is use rumors and draw your own conclusions to bash a technology that you have no real knowledge of.;) HD-DVD is slow, very slow (loading a movie on my PC takes about 2 minutes to actually start). Blu Ray is much closer to the speed of loading a standard DVD.
I'm also concerned over the overall speed of the player, the time it takes to access menus, change settings, and so on... As we would have it, some electronics are really slow.


I don't really consider it a need, but then, the same could be said for other technologies. Getting right down to it, we don't need DVD, there's still video tape, but DVD is better. We don't need CD-R's, we still have cassettes. The reason for using HD-DVD/Blu Ray is that it is an improvement over DVD (just as DVD is an improvement over video tape). We don't need it, but it is nice.

They say you need a TV of 40 inch or more to realize the benefit of HDTV. Maybe more. I don't have an HD TV nor a TV of that size so I can't say...
But DVD had more advantages over VHS, as well (like no degradation of quality over time?)... But let's not get into a debate...

[General Plot]

I'm also concerned over the overall speed of the player, the time it takes to access menus, change settings, and so on... As we would have it, some electronics are really slow.
That's the nice thing about both formats: you can access the menus while the movie is playing without having to stop it. This lets you change settings, etc.. without the need to go back to a menu screen.


They say you need a TV of 40 inch or more to realize the benefit of HDTV. Maybe more. I don't have an HD TV nor a TV of that size so I can't say...
But DVD had more advantages over VHS, as well (like no degradation of quality over time?)... But let's not get into a debate...
Well, I'm not sure where you heard that. Even on my 15 inch monitor I can clearly see the difference.

[Niggy G]

Well, I'm not sure where you heard that. Even on my 15 inch monitor I can clearly see the difference.

Yes if you’re up close looking at the monitor for the differences, but if you’re sitting in the lounge watching a normal say 28" TV then you wouldn't be able to see the differences unless your eyesight was excellent (unrealistically excellent). You’d be able to see the differences when you start using a larger TV. Maybe 40"+.

You especially wouldn't notice the differences between 720p and 1080i/p untill you were using a larger TV.

[Doomulation]

Well, I'm not sure where you heard that. Even on my 15 inch monitor I can clearly see the difference.

Well, I suppose that it depends on the distance to your TV and your perception of quality. There are several sites that says you need a big TV for HD to pay off.

[General Plot]

Yes if you’re up close looking at the monitor for the differences, but if you’re sitting in the lounge watching a normal say 28" TV then you wouldn't be able to see the differences unless your eyesight was excellent (unrealistically excellent). You’d be able to see the differences when you start using a larger TV. Maybe 40"+.

You especially wouldn't notice the differences between 720p and 1080i/p untill you were using a larger TV.


Well, I suppose that it depends on the distance to your TV and your perception of quality. There are several sites that says you need a big TV for HD to pay off.
You don't need a big monitor/TV to see that fine details (leaves on trees, blades of grass, strands of hair, etc...) tend to get muddied up with DVD. I think that's a common misconception that alot of people have that believe that HD is only beneficial on large screens. I don't have killer eyesight, I don't sit 3 inches in front of my monitor, I just watch films as I always have, and the difference is astonishing. I'll try to make some comparison shots later on for you so you can see what I'm talking about.

[Doomulation]

Some people just don't give notice to such details. As stated, you need to be one who really craves quality to notice such things. Maybe it's obvious to YOU, but it isn't necessarily to others.
But sure, go ahead and give some shots and let's see if difference is noticable on smaller screens.

[t0rek]

If Plot really take these screenshots here... I smell the giant images coming...

[Doomulation]

Well, HD material must be in HD after all. Downsizing them will lose image detail. But comparing these images as fitting to your monitor should be all needed to compare.

[Doomulation]

What's this I sniffed up?


Interestingly, load times were essentially identical at 40 seconds on each player. That isn't terrible, but this is obviously an area where Sony can make some improvements in the future with a next-generation drive that's faster.

Are they drunk or are they right?
http://tech.uk.msn.com/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4370234&wa=wsignin1.0

[gokuss4]

Some people just don't give notice to such details. As stated, you need to be one who really craves quality to notice such things. Maybe it's obvious to YOU, but it isn't necessarily to others.
But sure, go ahead and give some shots and let's see if difference is noticable on smaller screens.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102&page=1&pp=30

the 2nd page shows better comparison shots. The difference in quality is quite noticeable.

[WhiteX]

But that´s not what a DVD looks here, i can tell you this much.

[Doomulation]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102&page=1&pp=30

the 2nd page shows better comparison shots. The difference in quality is quite noticeable.

From what I see, in the stretched DVD pictures, the details seem washed out, while the HD images aren't. This, I would expect. But then again, this isn't quite a fair test. Why not? Let me explain:

First factor is the screen size. The bigger the screen, the bigger the picture and the more washed out the picture will be. So if you have a small TV, you wouldn't notice as much.
The second issue is that those images aren't stretched to the resolution of the monitor. Considering I've got a big one with HD resolution (1920 x 1200), the results are quite clear. But for those that have less than that - say 1024 x 768, the comparison is unfair. This is because the point above. You wouldn't see HALF the image on your TV. It would be downsized to fit.
We're not discussing if HD is better quality or not, but if the quality is noticeable on smaller TVs (or monitors).
And lastly, the distance to the TV matters. If you're far away, then those details will matter less.
I know it's hard to do a real comparison, but if one takes these factors into mind... then maybe it's a little easier.

A fair test might be to take two samples of a clip. One SD and one HD. Output one first, then the other and compare the results. 'Course, it can also be difficult since to do a real comparison, an HDTV should be had. Otherwise the HD resolution is thrown to waste. And a smaller TV too, would be required.
Or maybe I'm just rambling. Maybe a monitor will do. With images, both HD and SD, scaled to fit the screen size. Though it should have HD resolutions, which isn't quite so available on smaller monitors.

[General Plot]

I know I'm VERY late with this, I had hardware stability issues with my last motherboard which kept me from being able to do anything very demanding on my system (piece of advice: avoid AsRock at all costs.:P). I finally replaced the motherboard and got a more reliable video card. So, better late than never, here's some shots I took from a Blu Ray movie (SWAT). Keep in mind these are in very high quality PNG format and are not recommended for you dial-uppers.:P Size it to your monitor's size and see if you really think that a DVD played back on your PC could deliver this kind of quality (be sure to be honest with yourself).
http://www.hidebehind.com/thumbs3/14/14A9D4.png (http://www.hidebehind.com/14A9D4)
http://www.hidebehind.com/thumbs3/BA/BA76A4.png (http://www.hidebehind.com/BA76A4)
http://www.hidebehind.com/thumbs3/9E/9EAE32.png (http://www.hidebehind.com/9EAE32)

[Doomulation]

But the thing is, all I see is high-def images. If you'd provide the same images on a DVD sample, I could do a better comparison.
But besides that, HD on regular DVD is possible due to the new layer technology. So therefore, HD-DVD or Blu-ray is kinda moot.
Although, an HD-DVD drive for your PC is kind of cheap right now. Affordable. If you have a PC (and a high-def monitor or TV), then you could invest in one if you need HD right now. Otherwise it's still worth waiting.

[General Plot]

But the thing is, all I see is high-def images. If you'd provide the same images on a DVD sample, I could do a better comparison.
As you said earlier in this thread, all you would need to do is resize the images to your monitor, remember? In case you forgot, check screenshot. As for DVD samples, I don't have this on DVD, but anyone who's watched a DVD on their PC will know it doesn't look nearly as good as this. Would seem to me that would be a fair comparison, since you wouldn't be looking at them in full size, but rather the size it takes to fill your monitor.;)

But besides that, HD on regular DVD is possible due to the new layer technology. So therefore, HD-DVD or Blu-ray is kinda moot.
You still can't get anywhere near as high a bitrate (which really is important with HD) on a standard DVD, no matter what compression techniques are used. It will never look as good as HD-DVD/Blu Ray can.;)


Although, an HD-DVD drive for your PC is kind of cheap right now. Affordable. If you have a PC (and a high-def monitor or TV), then you could invest in one if you need HD right now. Otherwise it's still worth waiting.
For me (and many others), getting the ability to play these back in a PS3 is the way to go now (which is sorta like when many gamers didn't have DVD players, they could rely on their PS2). Add the price of an HD-DVD drive to the price of an X360, and it will match the P3's price. Look for a Blu Ray player at the stores these days, and they will cost the same or more than a PS3 (just like DVD player prices were the same as a PS2 when the PS2 came out).

[Doomulation]

As you said earlier in this thread, all you would need to do is resize the images to your monitor, remember? In case you forgot, check screenshot. As for DVD samples, I don't have this on DVD, but anyone who's watched a DVD on their PC will know it doesn't look nearly as good as this. Would seem to me that would be a fair comparison, since you wouldn't be looking at them in full size, but rather the size it takes to fill your monitor.;)
You're right. I see them fill the screen. But I don't really have anything to compare against. Maybe you could just take any DVD, take a screenshot and put them up for comparison? It's not perfect, but if your point is right, we should see the extra detail on the HD images, should our monitors be able to handle such high resolution.


You still can't get anywhere near as high a bitrate (which really is important with HD) on a standard DVD, no matter what compression techniques are used. It will never look as good as HD-DVD/Blu Ray can.;)
Really? I can do some math for you. When encoding a movie with H264, you will want about 0.2 bits/pixel. That means resolution x FPS x bits/pixel / 1000 = 1080 x 1920 x 30 x 0.2 / 1000 = 12441,6 kbps. That means that about 12500 kbps is enough to encode an HD movie. How much space is that? Let's do some more math. Bitrate / 8 x (length of movie, in seconds) = 12500 / 8 x
10800 (three hours worth of seconds) = 16 875 000 bytes = 16,09325408935546875 GB.
So yes, a good-looking movie will take about 16 GB of space. A 5.1 DTS track takes about 750 MB for a 2h25m movie. Plenty of space? Yes.
And when they can increase that space even more, I think it will be plenty. And we don't need uncompressed audio or lossless video.


For me (and many others), getting the ability to play these back in a PS3 is the way to go now (which is sorta like when many gamers didn't have DVD players, they could rely on their PS2). Add the price of an HD-DVD drive to the price of an X360, and it will match the P3's price. Look for a Blu Ray player at the stores these days, and they will cost the same or more than a PS3 (just like DVD player prices were the same as a PS2 when the PS2 came out).

Unfortunately, yes... The 360 is way overpriced and so is the HD-DVD drive. Heck, any Microsoft accessory to that box is overpriced. $100 for a 20 GB drive, or $180 for 120 GB (I think)?
We much ask why Blu-ray outsells HD-DVD. Is it because Blu-ray sells more players? No. Last I checked, HD-DVD players outsold Blu-ray players. Why then? Because of the PS3. Usually, many would get the PS3 for anything but the Blu-ray (or so I believe), but they get a BD for free... and if you have an HDTV, hey, why not use your player?
But you must also remember that the players haven't matured yet. Managed Copy has just been finished or is being finalized. And the BD spec isn't finished yet either. It makes me wonder if there are movies that won't play on the PS3 one day.
DVD, on the other hand, is a proven format. You buy a multi-layer one and you'll gauranteed it will work. It's my take on the whole anyway.
And one day, the PS3's price will drop. Oh and remember how buggy (or poor video) many complained the PS2's DVD had? Of course I cannot say the same for the PS3 as I don't know, but I do believe that once players on the market mature, they'll be far better than the PS3's player.
But we'll see...

[General Plot]

I see them fill the screen. But I don't really have anything to compare against. Maybe you could just take any DVD, take a screenshot and put them up for comparison? It's not perfect, but if your point is right, we should see the extra detail on the HD images, should our monitors be able to handle such high resolution.
All anyone would need to do is play back a movie (any of their choosing for that matter) and take a screenshot. Almost all DVD playback applications provide a screenshot utility. Then they (including you) could compare it to any movie they like.

And we don't need uncompressed audio or lossless video.
Right there your logic is flawed. The whole point of HD is a lossless quality in both picture and audio. Anyone real videophile would know that.;)

But you must also remember that the players haven't matured yet. Managed Copy has just been finished or is being finalized. And the BD spec isn't finished yet either. It makes me wonder if there are movies that won't play on the PS3 one day.
That's what firmware updates are for.;)

DVD, on the other hand, is a proven format. You buy a multi-layer one and you'll gauranteed it will work. It's my take on the whole anyway.
And one day, the PS3's price will drop. Oh and remember how buggy (or poor video) many complained the PS2's DVD had? Of course I cannot say the same for the PS3 as I don't know, but I do believe that once players on the market mature, they'll be far better than the PS3's player.
But we'll see...
For now, that is just pure speculation. But you'll note that on newer versions of the PS2, DVD video playback is not an issue at all.;)

[Toasty]

Right there your logic is flawed. The whole point of HD is a lossless quality in both picture and audio. Anyone real videophile would know that.;)
Not quite. None of the current HD discs (Blu-ray included) could ever hope to store a full-length HD movie losslessly. (Using lossless compression, a 50GB disc could only store 20-30 minutes of HD video at best.) The point of high-definition is just that - higher definition, characterized by a higher resolution picture.

[General Plot]

Not quite. None of the current HD discs (Blu-ray included) could ever hope to store a full-length HD movie losslessly. (Using lossless compression, a 50GB disc could only store 20-30 minutes of HD video at best.) The point of high-definition is just that - higher definition, characterized by a higher resolution picture.
My point is more compression = less quality. It's that simple. The more you have to squeeze media, the more it loses. You can stretch a DVD (at 720x480) to HD resolutions (1280x720 or 1920x1080), but that doesn't make it HD. It's proven that high bit rates are a necessity when it comes to a good clean HD picture. No amount of super compression can give the quality of a true HD picture.;)

[Doomulation]

Right there your logic is flawed. The whole point of HD is a lossless quality in both picture and audio. Anyone real videophile would know that.;)
No, HD is High Definition, ie more pixels in the video. The new discs tout all that lossless/uncompressed crap due to the increased space. I doubt you would ever see a difference between a good compressed video and an uncompressed/lossless compressed video, unless you look hard and close.
Same goes for audio.


That's what firmware updates are for.;)
Yes... yes, they are.... but firmware upgrades do not gaurantee it to work like it should. Sometimes it requires new hardware. And you can't replace that slow Blu-ray player (drive) with a firmware upgrade - you need a new drive.


For now, that is just pure speculation. But you'll note that on newer versions of the PS2, DVD video playback is not an issue at all.;)
Yes, I admit it's speculation, but it's what I believe.
And you'll also notice that the playback isn't an issue now because the players has matured. That is, a lot of time has gone by since the console was first released and since dvd players became mainstream.
This should happen to HD-DVD/Blu-ray/PS3 in the end too, but it's a little early now.


My point is more compression = less quality. It's that simple. The more you have to squeeze media, the more it loses.
That's not always true. It depends on what you do.
New compression techniques may actually preserve more quality and/or compress better and give better quality with more compression! That's because we gain better understanding on how it's done and what our eyes can detect and we invent more complicated, better algorithms for compression that are less lossy then previous.
Like compressing with MPEG2 @ 5000 kbps vs 2500 kbps, you'll lose quality, but not if you compress with MPEG2 @ 5000 kbps vs H264 @ 2500 kbps. In fact, you'll get equal or better quality with H264 despite using more compression!


You can stretch a DVD (at 720x480) to HD resolutions (1280x720 or 1920x1080), but that doesn't make it HD.
This I can agree on.


It's proven that high bit rates are a necessity when it comes to a good clean HD picture. No amount of super compression can give the quality of a true HD picture.;)

I disagree. Does the movies on HD-DVD / Blu-ray look bad, may I ask? If no, then this definetly disproves that theory, because as I mentioned earlier, they're pretty pressed on bitrates for HD material.
High bitrates are not everything! It's the encoder and the compression techniques that makes or breaks the pictures.
There is lots of detail the human eye cannot see, and lossy encoders usually identifies such information and tosses it away. Yet you won't notice a darn thing.

[General Plot]

No, HD is High Definition, ie more pixels in the video. The new discs tout all that lossless/uncompressed crap due to the increased space. I doubt you would ever see a difference between a good compressed video and an uncompressed/lossless compressed video, unless you look hard and close.
Same goes for audio.
If you've ever seen an HDTV capture and then seen the same on a Blu Ray/HD-DVD, you'd know that's not true. The difference is very noticeable.;)
[QUOTE=Doomulation]Yes... yes, they are.... but firmware upgrades do not gaurantee it to work like it should. Sometimes it requires new hardware. And you can't replace that slow Blu-ray player (drive) with a firmware upgrade - you need a new drive.
I'm sure they planned for that.;)

That's not always true. It depends on what you do.
New compression techniques may actually preserve more quality and/or compress better and give better quality with more compression! That's because we gain better understanding on how it's done and what our eyes can detect and we invent more complicated, better algorithms for compression that are less lossy then previous.
Like compressing with MPEG2 @ 5000 kbps vs 2500 kbps, you'll lose quality, but not if you compress with MPEG2 @ 5000 kbps vs H264 @ 2500 kbps. In fact, you'll get equal or better quality with H264 despite using more compression!
Compression only goes so far. You can only squeeze it so much before you start noticing a loss in quality.;)

I disagree. Does the movies on HD-DVD / Blu-ray look bad, may I ask? If no, then this definetly disproves that theory, because as I mentioned earlier, they're pretty pressed on bitrates for HD material.
High bitrates are not everything! It's the encoder and the compression techniques that makes or breaks the pictures.
There is lots of detail the human eye cannot see, and lossy encoders usually identifies such information and tosses it away. Yet you won't notice a darn thing.
It's funny, really. People said the same thing about 128 bit rate MP3's. You wouldn't notice the loss in parts the human ear can't hear, etc.., but funny thing is, people did notice it. Take note that more and more people are going with lossless codecs for this very reason.;)

[Toasty]

No, HD is High Definition, ie more pixels in the video. The new discs tout all that lossless/uncompressed crap due to the increased space. I doubt you would ever see a difference between a good compressed video and an uncompressed/lossless compressed video, unless you look hard and close.
Same goes for audio.
If you've ever seen an HDTV capture and then seen the same on a Blu Ray/HD-DVD, you'd know that's not true. The difference is very noticeable.;)
How does a noticeable difference between two lossily compressed sources prove that lossless compression looks better than lossy? (Sorry, not trying to gang up on you General Plot. :P)

[gokuss4]

in my experience, at least for audio, after a bitrate of 224-256kbit for an mp3, it gets hard to notice a difference in quality. The thing with FLAC though is I hear more boom to the bass and all the instruments don't drown out at certain points, but unless you're an audiophile like me, you won't notice it at all.

Now with HD video, you'll notice how crappy it looks if it's at a bad bitrate when the picture and color doesn't blend very well, and if it doesn't look sharp enough, even at a high res. Either way though, HD still looks better than standard, no matter how you look at it. Sharper, better blending of colors, and better audio quality. I have an HD setup, and there's a hell of a difference between DVD and HD-DVD.

[Doomulation]

If you've ever seen an HDTV capture and then seen the same on a Blu Ray/HD-DVD, you'd know that's not true. The difference is very noticeable.;)
Unfortunately, people are very bad at compressing sources. You will never see a DVD-quality encode out there on the web. If you want one, you'll have to get the DVD itself. This is just sad truth...
Many many people still use XviD/DivX, which is just silly. 1000 kbps is far too low with MPEG4 ASP for any video. 1000 kbps H264 is acceptable quality, close to DVD-quality.
Plus I would imagine that movie companies use one-pass only. In 99% of the cases, this is bad. I can show you a sample of a DVD encode if you have the original DVD that you can compare to.


I'm sure they planned for that.;)
Yes... by selling new revisions of their hardware...


Compression only goes so far. You can only squeeze it so much before you start noticing a loss in quality.;)
In a sense - yes... but there will always be bigger, badder compression techniques that will achieve even better compression. We'll never get rid of compression altogether I would say. Well, not for a long while yet anyway.


It's funny, really. People said the same thing about 128 bit rate MP3's. You wouldn't notice the loss in parts the human ear can't hear, etc.., but funny thing is, people did notice it. Take note that more and more people are going with lossless codecs for this very reason.;)
That's funny, because I do not notice any difference at all between an original MP3 (at whatever quality) to HE-AAC + PS @ 24/32 kbps.
Also keep in mind that every time you encode a file with a lossy codec, quality is lost, no matter how efficient the codec is. Now that is why we use lossless. To recompress/retranscode something without losing quality.

Most people won't know the difference between lossless and lossy (see or hear). For those that do, and unfortunately there are, higher quality would be a good thing. But honestly, is it so bad to listen to lossy music or watch lossy video? Remember, both HD and SD-video is lossy!

[General Plot]

Unfortunately, people are very bad at compressing sources. You will never see a DVD-quality encode out there on the web. If you want one, you'll have to get the DVD itself. This is just sad truth...
Many many people still use XviD/DivX, which is just silly. 1000 kbps is far too low with MPEG4 ASP for any video. 1000 kbps H264 is acceptable quality, close to DVD-quality.
Plus I would imagine that movie companies use one-pass only. In 99% of the cases, this is bad. I can show you a sample of a DVD encode if you have the original DVD that you can compare to.
I'm basing my opinion from seeing The Matrix Triliogy on DVD (and yes original discs, not reencodes) compared to HD-DVD (also originals).

Yes... by selling new revisions of their hardware...
Name me one company that still makes DVD players exactly the same now as they did when it first came out.

In a sense - yes... but there will always be bigger, badder compression techniques that will achieve even better compression. We'll never get rid of compression altogether I would say. Well, not for a long while yet anyway.
I think we're reaching the limits on what can be done in high compression with minimal loss in quality. Larger medium sizes are a must at this point.

That's funny, because I do not notice any difference at all between an original MP3 (at whatever quality) to HE-AAC + PS @ 24/32 kbps.
With low bitrates like that, I'm sure you don't. Compare it to a good FLAC file or the original wave, and you'd have to be deaf not to notice the difference.;)

Also keep in mind that every time you encode a file with a lossy codec, quality is lost, no matter how efficient the codec is. Now that is why we use lossless. To recompress/retranscode something without losing quality.
That's why it's best to not encode to a lossy one (or at least one that doesn't lose much) to begin with.;)

Most people won't know the difference between lossless and lossy (see or hear). For those that do, and unfortunately there are, higher quality would be a good thing. But honestly, is it so bad to listen to lossy music or watch lossy video? Remember, both HD and SD-video is lossy!
In this day and age, I think SD has gone the way of black and white TV's and record players. Some people cling to them (you probably do to), while others are looking for something better. What's wrong with advancements in technology, especially one that improves the entertainment experience?

[Doomulation]

I'm basing my opinion from seeing The Matrix Triliogy on DVD (and yes original discs, not reencodes) compared to HD-DVD (also originals).
You can't compare SD-material to HD-material! :happy: Since the matrix was authored on DVD, I very very much doubt it is actual HD-material. Unless film companies shoot at 7680x3268 and downsample it.


Name me one company that still makes DVD players exactly the same now as they did when it first came out.
Now, you're getting that entirely backwards!
The whole point was that with time newer revisions that are better than the old ones come out. With improvements with players that supports more layers and faster reading speeds!
Such things that cannot be achieved with firmware upgrades.
That's why I propose we wait.


I think we're reaching the limits on what can be done in high compression with minimal loss in quality. Larger medium sizes are a must at this point.
Are we really? I sincerely doubt that.
Most compression techniques is limited by the available computer power. Once we get hybrid CPU+GPU, we'll probably see a faster compression technique available soon. MPEG5 maybe.


With low bitrates like that, I'm sure you don't. Compare it to a good FLAC file or the original wave, and you'd have to be deaf not to notice the difference.;)
I can't hear a difference between HE-AAC + PS @ 96 (5.1) (16 kbps per channel) kbps vs. original DTS (5.1) track!
I'll gladly do a listening test if you send me a lossless (or point me to a source) audio file compared to against HE-AAC + PS @ 24/32 kbps.


That's why it's best to not encode to a lossy one (or at least one that doesn't lose much) to begin with.;)
You're right in that we should use lossless until the final recode/transcode, to which we then use lossy.


In this day and age, I think SD has gone the way of black and white TV's and record players. Some people cling to them (you probably do to), while others are looking for something better. What's wrong with advancements in technology, especially one that improves the entertainment experience?
Not clinging to them... I just don't find HD much better. Of course I'm all for advencement, but since it requires an expensive new TV + player, it kind of makes it a little difficult.
And I don't care much for lossless audio.

[General Plot]

You can't compare SD-material to HD-material! :happy:
The whole point of this thread was that you made it seem that you couldn't notice the difference between the two, so why can I not compare them now?

Since the matrix was authored on DVD, I very very much doubt it is actual HD-material. Unless film companies shoot at 7680x3268 and downsample it.
The HD-DVD's were encoded using the original film used during the shooting of the movie, and not upscaled from the DVD.;)

Now, you're getting that entirely backwards!
The whole point was that with time newer revisions that are better than the old ones come out. With improvements with players that supports more layers and faster reading speeds!
Such things that cannot be achieved with firmware upgrades.
That's why I propose we wait.
My point is you like to bitch about Sony doing what every other electronics manufacturer does. It's the Sony basher in you though, you can't help it (trust me I understand your type).

Are we really? I sincerely doubt that.
Most compression techniques is limited by the available computer power. Once we get hybrid CPU+GPU, we'll probably see a faster compression technique available soon. MPEG5 maybe.
I really do think so. Data (no matter how intelligent the compression scheme is) will show a loss in quality the more that's taken from it.

I can't hear a difference between HE-AAC + PS @ 96 (5.1) (16 kbps per channel) kbps vs. original DTS (5.1) track!
I'll gladly do a listening test if you send me a lossless (or point me to a source) audio file compared to against HE-AAC + PS @ 24/32 kbps.
This I can't help you with. Just do a rip form any CD in your collection in both formats and see for yourself.;)

You're right in that we should use lossless until the final recode/transcode, to which we then use lossy.
My point was the final encode should be as lossless as possible.

Not clinging to them... I just don't find HD much better. Of course I'm all for advencement, but since it requires an expensive new TV + player, it kind of makes it a little difficult.
And I don't care much for lossless audio.
I'm sure nothing new matters to you, and you're willing to settle for yesterday's technology, which is fine for people that don't want the best. The rest of us prefer the best in our music, movies and games, and that's why HD is taking off like it is.;)

[Doomulation]

The whole point of this thread was that you made it seem that you couldn't notice the difference between the two, so why can I not compare them now?
The point of this thread is that there may be a new medium for HD-material - DVD instead of HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
:erm: Maybe I misinterpreted something before... In this case, you are right... Comparing the same movie in different resolutions would be an ideal test.
Hehe, sorry about that. We all make mistakes...


The HD-DVD's were encoded using the original film used during the shooting of the movie, and not upscaled from the DVD.;)
I get that - but what is the original resolution?


My point is you like to bitch about Sony doing what every other electronics manufacturer does. It's the Sony basher in you though, you can't help it (trust me I understand your type).
Yes, I do bash Sony... but I'm not buying an HD-DVD either for the same reason I won't buy a Blu-ray (well, one of them anyway).
The more revisions there will be, the better quality, less bugs and less loading times! Or so I am inclined to believe. Then I'll probably guy a hybrid player if any. I don't want to settle for the wrong format but I do honestly hope HD-DVD wins.


I really do think so. Data (no matter how intelligent the compression scheme is) will show a loss in quality the more that's taken from it.
You're forgetting something...
We will get better compression schemes, but that's not just to say for lossy. But for lossless as well. There's also a very heavy lossless codec out there that devliers good compression at terrible speeds. With more crunching power, we'll get better compression techniques. And the better the compression, the less bitrate we can use for the same material. So if we just upped the bitrate a little, we'd get better quality.
And a very intelligent compression will get you compression from which you can't tell apart from lossless. Such a solution already exists...
High bitrates and a good matrix will give you incredible results. Compression will just get better in the future. It has to. As we pump up resolution, we'll need better compression to store it.
And you'll bet all those TV stations will love compression to save precious bandwidth.
Point is: though it may remove data, we can still make it so it isn't noticable. It simply requires the correct knowledge and tools.


This I can't help you with. Just do a rip form any CD in your collection in both formats and see for yourself.;)
Fair enough, I guess... I could do that. Let me just rip a song and I'll update my post.
EDIT: Actually, ahaha, I seem to be missing the few CDs that I do have. Now where could they have gone? *shrug*
EDIT2: I found one CD, made a lossless rip via WMA, then to uncompressed WAV and finally to AAC. Tested both 24 and 32, and you know what? I couldn't hear a difference between the three.
Yes, there was some slight problem at the beginning of the AAC, but the rest was perfect. I'll keep the files for a while in case you want to do a listening test too.


My point was the final encode should be as lossless as possible.
And on this we agree :happy: Only the final encode should be lossy - and fine tuned as much as possible for best possible quality!


I'm sure nothing new matters to you, and you're willing to settle for yesterday's technology, which is fine for people that don't want the best. The rest of us prefer the best in our music, movies and games, and that's why HD is taking off like it is.;)

Don't be all too sure... I like technology. But sometimes I can't see the point. Like HD - it isn't all that hyped up like everyone wants it to be. To me, HD is a way to make sure movies don't look horrible on your new 100 inch TV.
I just don't care too much about small details...

[t0rek]

Well, Plot will be very happy in some years...

http://www.dailytech.com/NHK+Demonstrates+Ultra+HD+Signal+16+Time s+Better+Than+HDTV/article7466.htm

Good luck! You should buy a new one house for your new 200" TV setup for this Ultra HD stuff :P

[BlueFalcon7]

4000 frames per second, wow! That might actually be good for the movie industry, and billboards. Besides that, I dont see much use for one of those...

Personally, I think the next HD format will be 1440p/i 1440 x 2560, just think about computer monitor standards with width. The highest signal we can currently run with a DVI port is 2560 across.

[Doomulation]

The HD standard has nothing to do with our current monitor resolution...In fact, I would say the computer resolution will catch up with the HD resolution.
7680x4320@4000... when that comes around, computers will cry.

[Toasty]

7680x4320@4000... when that comes around, computers will cry.
Yeah, at that point we'll have to start measuring decoding speed in SPF.

[t0rek]

The HD standard has nothing to do with our current monitor resolution...In fact, I would say the computer resolution will catch up with the HD resolution.
7680x4320@4000... when that comes around, computers will cry.

Yeah but... is supposed that for noticing the difference between 1080p and 720p you need a thing bigger than 50". So how much size you will need to actionally notice the difference with this Ultra HD thing? Computer monitors will be able to achieve this resolution but you will notice the difference with a 19"?

[General Plot]

The point of this thread is that there may be a new medium for HD-material - DVD instead of HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
:erm: Maybe I misinterpreted something before... In this case, you are right... Comparing the same movie in different resolutions would be an ideal test.
Hehe, sorry about that. We all make mistakes...
You know how you made that mistake? Your hatred for Sony blinded you to the truth for a bit until you realized what you had said was a mistake.

I get that - but what is the original resolution?
Being actual analog film, the resolution it's digitally encoded to is practically infinte.;)

Yes, I do bash Sony... but I'm not buying an HD-DVD either for the same reason I won't buy a Blu-ray (well, one of them anyway).
The more revisions there will be, the better quality, less bugs and less loading times! Or so I am inclined to believe. Then I'll probably guy a hybrid player if any. I don't want to settle for the wrong format but I do honestly hope HD-DVD wins.
Current sales have Blu Ray moving at a 5:1 ratio compared to HD-DVD, so sorry to burst your bubble.

You're forgetting something...
We will get better compression schemes, but that's not just to say for lossy. But for lossless as well. There's also a very heavy lossless codec out there that devliers good compression at terrible speeds. With more crunching power, we'll get better compression techniques. And the better the compression, the less bitrate we can use for the same material. So if we just upped the bitrate a little, we'd get better quality.
And a very intelligent compression will get you compression from which you can't tell apart from lossless. Such a solution already exists...
High bitrates and a good matrix will give you incredible results. Compression will just get better in the future. It has to. As we pump up resolution, we'll need better compression to store it.
And you'll bet all those TV stations will love compression to save precious bandwidth.
Point is: though it may remove data, we can still make it so it isn't noticable. It simply requires the correct knowledge and tools.
You have to consider that while PC's have alot of processing power, stand alone players will never compare to them in terms of processing ability. Thus, there is a limit as to how much of an exotic algorithm can be used before they require more power than the stand alone player is capable of delivering. This is also a major factor to consider in how deep the compression can go.

And on this we agree :happy: Only the final encode should be lossy - and fine tuned as much as possible for best possible quality!
Read what I said again, I said lossless, not lossy.;)

Don't be all too sure... I like technology. But sometimes I can't see the point. Like HD - it isn't all that hyped up like everyone wants it to be. To me, HD is a way to make sure movies don't look horrible on your new 100 inch TV.
I just don't care too much about small details...
Again, it doesn't take a 100" screen to see the difference. Let me remind you that you can open those HD images on your PC's monitor and compare them to an image from a DVD being played on your PC. Unless you have an outrageously big monitor, that will prove the point I've been trying to make all along.;)

[Toasty]

Read what I said again, I said lossless, not lossy.;)
You said "as lossless as possible". If it's not completely lossless, it's lossy, plain and simple. I think it's a little much to say that Doom's hatred of Sony has "blinded" him to the truth. Four-layer DVDs are a promising (and potentially inexpensive) alternative to the other two formats, even if they are showing up a little late. 20GB is plenty for an HD movie using H.264, and if 4-layer DVDs can get on track quickly, it could save HD adopters a lot of cash.

[General Plot]

You said "as lossless as possible". If it's not completely lossless, it's lossy, plain and simple.
You'll note in my original post here (http://emutalk.net/showpost.php?p=381096&postcount=49) that I stated "as lossless as possible", where Doom is making it sound as if I'm ok with with an exorbiant amount of loss.

My point was the final encode should be as lossless as possible.
I only restated that word because I was clarifying it to Doom.;)

I think it's a little much to say that Doom's hatred of Sony has "blinded" him to the truth. Four-layer DVDs are a promising (and potentially inexpensive) alternative to the other two formats, even if they are showing up a little late. 20GB is plenty for an HD movie using H.264, and if 4-layer DVDs can get on track quickly, it could save HD adopters a lot of cash.
I'd bet anything that it will have the same results as the DCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Compact_Cassette) did when it came out just as CD burning became a reality. Too little too late.

[Toasty]

I'd bet anything that it will have the same results as the DCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Compact_Cassette) did when it came out just as CD burning became a reality. Too little too late.
Probably so, but we can always hope it will take off. I can dream, can't I? :P

[Doomulation]

Yeah but... is supposed that for noticing the difference between 1080p and 720p you need a thing bigger than 50". So how much size you will need to actionally notice the difference with this Ultra HD thing? Computer monitors will be able to achieve this resolution but you will notice the difference with a 19"?
I don't know... 100 inch? You'll hardly notice any difference on a 19 inch, I'd say.


You know how you made that mistake? Your hatred for Sony blinded you to the truth for a bit until you realized what you had said was a mistake.
Actually, I only realized that what you were writing was an extension of what was written before. I suggested comparing the same movie SD to HD, which apparently you did... Only I did not notice you had or should because we'd gotten off track!


Being actual analog film, the resolution it's digitally encoded to is practically infinte.;)
That's absurd. Who would store their film in analog format?


Current sales have Blu Ray moving at a 5:1 ratio compared to HD-DVD, so sorry to burst your bubble.
Format war isn't over yet ;)


You have to consider that while PC's have alot of processing power, stand alone players will never compare to them in terms of processing ability. Thus, there is a limit as to how much of an exotic algorithm can be used before they require more power than the stand alone player is capable of delivering. This is also a major factor to consider in how deep the compression can go.
*cough* PS3 anyone? *cough*
No seriously, there will always be stand-alone to take care of the decoding. And remember that decoding is far less intensive than encoding.
Is there a limit as to how far you can compress something? Maybe. But I seriously doubt it. There's always these little details we haven't thought of.


Read what I said again, I said lossless, not lossy.;)

My point was the final encode should be as lossless as possible.
There you see. As "lossless" as possible. Yes, the more you compress something, the more lossy it becomes. So pretty much, doing all the pre-steps lossless and then lossy makes it as lossless as possible. You didn't write that the final encode so be entirely lossless. so hah!


Again, it doesn't take a 100" screen to see the difference. Let me remind you that you can open those HD images on your PC's monitor and compare them to an image from a DVD being played on your PC. Unless you have an outrageously big monitor, that will prove the point I've been trying to make all along.;)
Point being that if you have a 100 inch TV, you'll want nothing but HD since SD will look awful (it will so washed out!).


I'd bet anything that it will have the same results as the DCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Compact_Cassette) did when it came out just as CD burning became a reality. Too little too late.

Probably so, but we can always hope it will take off. I can dream, can't I? :P

Maybe... maybe not. I believe it's here to stay... for a while. DVD is well-known and cheap to make. Who's to say it won't be as popular as dual layer? The normal user won't know the difference at all, I believe.... They'll probably market it as a HD-player to play HD DVDs (NOT HD-DVD!).
At least until HD-DVD and Blu-ray start to take off. This is what I believe...

[BlueFalcon7]

Is there a limit as to how far you can compress something? Maybe. But I seriously doubt it. There's always these little details we haven't thought of.

Infinite lossless compression is a mathematical impossibility. There are only so many ways that any given value can be represented. While we can abbreviate some values, not all values can be. Now It can be compressed to a level of reasonable quality loss, and then it can be mathematically compressed. You know the drawbacks to both, that both can only go so far.

[General Plot]

I don't know... 100 inch? You'll hardly notice any difference on a 19 inch, I'd say.
I'll repeat myself. My monitor is a mere 15 inches in size, and I can notice a significant difference between a DVD and HD-DVD/Blu Ray.

That's absurd. Who would store their film in analog format?
All of Hollywood's movies are stored on original analog film reels.;)

Format war isn't over yet ;)
Neither is the console one, but you've taken it upon yourself to decide on a winner there.

*cough* PS3 anyone? *cough*
No seriously, there will always be stand-alone to take care of the decoding. And remember that decoding is far less intensive than encoding.
Is there a limit as to how far you can compress something? Maybe. But I seriously doubt it. There's always these little details we haven't thought of.
Decoding a 1080p video itself is already a stressful process. Add an extremely compressed codec into the mix, and that will ensure that stand alone players never come down in price by much.;)

Point being that if you have a 100 inch TV, you'll want nothing but HD since SD will look awful (it will so washed out!).
I can't stand to watch TV on the 27 inch we have because of how horrible it is.

Maybe... maybe not. I believe it's here to stay... for a while. DVD is well-known and cheap to make. Who's to say it won't be as popular as dual layer? The normal user won't know the difference at all, I believe.... They'll probably market it as a HD-player to play HD DVDs (NOT HD-DVD!).
At least until HD-DVD and Blu-ray start to take off. This is what I believe...
Yeah, the cassette was also known very well. And what do people remember it as now? Even when they made DCC, the thought of a cassette scared the masses away from it. Just watch, the same will happen with this desparate attempt to keep an old format alive.;)

[Cyberman]

I know that there has been much ado about new HD formats etc. However some of the compression formats are SCALABLE. Keep that in mind. In particular some have the ability to show detail with the same bit rate from 480P to 1080P.

Genplot you have the issue in hand that is in order to produce 1920x1080x60fps OR 125MPPS there would be some nasty number chrunching going on (think about 10 instructions per pixel or more need to be executed then multiply the number of pixels need and you see how much processing power is needed), this however is an embarassingly parallel problem, so more processors can easily fix the problem (IE it is easy to break up the data between processors). 720P Video makes my 3ghz computer cough furballs. That is with high performance compression. If the HQ high compression is NOT used things are a bit different. Basically the amount of processing goes down because the stream has more 'easy' data to process so a lower power processor can handle it. HD-DVD and BLUE RAY use nothing but MPEG2 streams and thus fit under the catagory of LOW quality compression and high stream bandwidth. In other words they just use more bandwidth and data to increase the resolution instead of better compression.

The only truely scaleable method I'm aware of is a non standard one involving fractal compression which is far more asymetric than any of the MPEG standards. It gives excelent compression (significantly better than MPEG standards using DCT and frame twiddling) and has a theoretical infinite scalability (it doesn't because of the numbers used to represent transformations aren't infinitately acurate). If you want to discuse that in another thread I can explain why it is scaleable.

Cyb

[t0rek]

I'll repeat myself. My monitor is a mere 15 inches in size, and I can notice a significant difference between a DVD and HD-DVD/Blu Ray.


I have prefect sight. What I am missing then? In another of these "HD-DVD vs Blu Ray, Sony quality debate and Plot vs Doom" threads, someone posted a link of a guy giving scientific reasons explaining that the difference between 720p and 1080p is onlly noticed by the human eye with screens bigger than 50". I still have a 15" CRT monitor, so I know that's true. Someone please search one of those threads to look for that article.

About Cyberman post, it makes sense and sounds good, I'm agree with him, but I don' have any idea of what he talks abouts :P

[General Plot]

I know that there has been much ado about new HD formats etc. However some of the compression formats are SCALABLE. Keep that in mind. In particular some have the ability to show detail with the same bit rate from 480P to 1080P.

Genplot you have the issue in hand that is in order to produce 1920x1080x60fps OR 125MPPS there would be some nasty number chrunching going on (think about 10 instructions per pixel or more need to be executed then multiply the number of pixels need and you see how much processing power is needed), this however is an embarassingly parallel problem, so more processors can easily fix the problem (IE it is easy to break up the data between processors). 720P Video makes my 3ghz computer cough furballs. That is with high performance compression. If the HQ high compression is NOT used things are a bit different. Basically the amount of processing goes down because the stream has more 'easy' data to process so a lower power processor can handle it. HD-DVD and BLUE RAY use nothing but MPEG2 streams and thus fit under the catagory of LOW quality compression and high stream bandwidth. In other words they just use more bandwidth and data to increase the resolution instead of better compression.

The only truely scaleable method I'm aware of is a non standard one involving fractal compression which is far more asymetric than any of the MPEG standards. It gives excelent compression (significantly better than MPEG standards using DCT and frame twiddling) and has a theoretical infinite scalability (it doesn't because of the numbers used to represent transformations aren't infinitately acurate). If you want to discuse that in another thread I can explain why it is scaleable.

Cyb
Indeed. I'm sure the compression scheme behind what HD-DVD and Blu Ray use is definitely as "processor friendly" as possible (to keep the cost of standalone players down), which is why in their case, the more storage, the better, since they will show a loss in quality as the file size goes down. This is also why I think this new hybrid 4 layer DVD, whatever it is with super compression, etc.. won't work. If it relies on a power demanding decoder to be played back, it won't find much support in standalone players.

I have prefect sight. What I am missing then? In another of these "HD-DVD vs Blu Ray, Sony quality debate and Plot vs Doom" threads, someone posted a link of a guy giving scientific reasons explaining that the difference between 720p and 1080p is onlly noticed by the human eye with screens bigger than 50".
Please take a moment te reread my statement. I clearly said the difference between a standard DVD and a Blu Ray and/or HD-DVD is very substantial. I never compared 720p and 1080p in any of my posts.;)

[gokuss4]

I have prefect sight. What I am missing then? In another of these "HD-DVD vs Blu Ray, Sony quality debate and Plot vs Doom" threads, someone posted a link of a guy giving scientific reasons explaining that the difference between 720p and 1080p is onlly noticed by the human eye with screens bigger than 50". I still have a 15" CRT monitor, so I know that's true. Someone please search one of those threads to look for that article.

Not only does it depend on screen size, but the distance away from your TV. Here's a good link http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5108580-2.html

I've watched a 1280x720 movie on my computer (Equilibrium), and watched it on DVD on my SDTV here, and I can see a difference in detail on the faces, and clarity. Of course the winner is the higher resolution part. To me the difference in detail is almost mind blowing between DVD and HD-DVD/Blu-ray. I could care less about the compression methods or whether or not quality was actually lost. I just know HD looks a shitload better.

Now Doom, I'm not trying to call you poor, or even try to attempt to make fun of your finances, cause I have no idea, but... if you really had the money, would you honestly get an HD setup? Honestly for me I could've done without it, but my bro likes staying up with technology, and he's 24 and still lives with me and my dad, lol. So really, would you?

[Cyberman]

Those players that say "DVIX" on them support the DIVX HD standard. If they have the progressive scan/component output and can display on an HD display (IE monitor HD-TV et al) at 720P. Special STANDARD sized DVD (IE 1 or 2 layer) can be played in HD (with full detail) with this format. I believe it's 2 hours for 1 layer and 4 for 2 layer.

More details? Try here (http://www.divx.com/hd/).

Do note the processor and computational requirements as well not huge, but for consumer appliances high end. I've seen suitable players for about 150 US however. These mostly use DSP's and hardware stream decoders, which reduce the loading significantly. The big cost in HD-DVD and BLU-RAY are the disk and optical systems they use.

Cyb

[General Plot]

Those players that say "DVIX" on them support the DIVX HD standard. If they have the progressive scan/component output and can display on an HD display (IE monitor HD-TV et al) at 720P. Special STANDARD sized DVD (IE 1 or 2 layer) can be played in HD (with full detail) with this format. I believe it's 2 hours for 1 layer and 4 for 2 layer.

More details? Try here (http://www.divx.com/hd/).

Do note the processor and computational requirements as well not huge, but for consumer appliances high end. I've seen suitable players for about 150 US however. These mostly use DSP's and hardware stream decoders, which reduce the loading significantly. The big cost in HD-DVD and BLU-RAY are the disk and optical systems they use.

Cyb
I don't know why, but that sounds alot like what people did when they were burning Video CD's before DVD burning became a reality. And once burning DVD's was possible, Video CD dropped massively in popularity.

[Doomulation]

Infinite lossless compression is a mathematical impossibility. There are only so many ways that any given value can be represented. While we can abbreviate some values, not all values can be. Now It can be compressed to a level of reasonable quality loss, and then it can be mathematically compressed. You know the drawbacks to both, that both can only go so far.
Yes, until we find another way to do it. Meth is a complex matter and not all ways yields results. However, another way may yield a result where the previous one couldn't.
It's almost endless possibilities I say.


I'll repeat myself. My monitor is a mere 15 inches in size, and I can notice a significant difference between a DVD and HD-DVD/Blu Ray.
DVDs look perfect to me. Unfortunately, I have no HD movies to compare to. When comparing images, one in SD and one in HD, yes the HD is superior.


All of Hollywood's movies are stored on original analog film reels.;)
Prepostrous. I don't see how they can do that. The storage will eventually fade away and degrade quality.


Neither is the console one, but you've taken it upon yourself to decide on a winner there.
I haven't declared a winner yet. Obviously right now, Nintendo is winning, and Sony is doing poor, but my logic tells me Sony isn't dead yet. They'll be back later.


Decoding a 1080p video itself is already a stressful process. Add an extremely compressed codec into the mix, and that will ensure that stand alone players never come down in price by much.;)
A GPU @ 600 MHz can decode H264 1080p, so tell me how it's so hard? Our problem these days are that CPUs are not very good at number crunching. we need GPU-type of processors for that. But GPUs aren't very good at performing general-task work, so we need a CPU for that.
Anyway, the Cell is just an example of what future processors will look like. And with cores rampaging plus GPUs becoming more general purpose we'll have more crunching power than we've ever dreamed of in the future.


I can't stand to watch TV on the 27 inch we have because of how horrible it is.
So you see my point there ;)


Yeah, the cassette was also known very well. And what do people remember it as now? Even when they made DCC, the thought of a cassette scared the masses away from it. Just watch, the same will happen with this desparate attempt to keep an old format alive.;)
Well then, let's just watch and see on that, shall we?


7HD-DVD and BLUE RAY use nothing but MPEG2 streams and thus fit under the catagory of LOW quality compression and high stream bandwidth. In other words they just use more bandwidth and data to increase the resolution instead of better compression.
That's just not true... HD-DVD and Blu-ray now uses H264 compression. That's the most advanced lossy compression today AFAIK. Container and compression is not the same thing.
Blu-ray DID use MPEG2 for a while, but now they're using H264 as well. And as far as calculation methods go, I did prove that there's no way to put a HD movie on a disc about 20-25 GB without the use of H264 (MPEG2 quality wouldn't be near the quality of today's DVD if they had to use it).


Indeed. I'm sure the compression scheme behind what HD-DVD and Blu Ray use is definitely as "processor friendly" as possible (to keep the cost of standalone players down)...
I doubt it. They use the most advanced compression available today AFAIK and they really need it because of the small storage of the discs today.


...which is why in their case, the more storage, the better, since they will show a loss in quality as the file size goes down. This is also why I think this new hybrid 4 layer DVD, whatever it is with super compression, etc.. won't work. If it relies on a power demanding decoder to be played back, it won't find much support in standalone players.
Again, I must argue that 4-layer DVD has about the same storage as HD-DVD, which means they use the same compression method: H264. In other words, it's a demanding system - for all 3 discs.
But hold on - potentially more layers will be added in the future to match the size of BD and HD-DVD, so there's little compelling reason to go with those discs. DVD is still the cheapest.


Now Doom, I'm not trying to call you poor, or even try to attempt to make fun of your finances, cause I have no idea, but... if you really had the money, would you honestly get an HD setup? Honestly for me I could've done without it, but my bro likes staying up with technology, and he's 24 and still lives with me and my dad, lol. So really, would you?
Yeah, I would... that means a bigger TV to boot! So yes, it would be awesome. When I cover such costs.

But so again, when we're talking about specific hardware, you find specialized processors in them. Slap in a few processors in there and the hardware will be incredibly expensive. I wonder why we aren't seeing typical DVD players at at a minumum of $200. Cyberman has a point there.
And as far as I know, the HD players are just incredibly expensive because they're new. Lots of effort has gone into researching and designing these players. Not the actual cost of the material. HD-DVDs are not much more expensive than DVDs to produce.

[General Plot]

DVDs look perfect to me. Unfortunately, I have no HD movies to compare to.
When you finally do see one, you will notice the difference IMMEDIATELY. I guarantee it.;)

Prepostrous. I don't see how they can do that. The storage will eventually fade away and degrade quality.
Is that a fact? Do some reading on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_production#Post-production).

In the film workflow, the cut list that describes the film-based answer print is used to cut the original colour negative (OCN) and create a colour timed copy called the colour master positive or interpositive print. For all subsequent steps this effectively becomes the master copy. The next step is to create a one-light copy called the colour duplicate negative or internegative. It is from this that many copies of the final theatrical release print are made. Copying from the internegative is much simpler than copying from the interpositive directly because it is a one-light process; it also reduces wear-and-tear on the interpositive print.

A GPU @ 600 MHz can decode H264 1080p, so tell me how it's so hard? Our problem these days are that CPUs are not very good at number crunching. we need GPU-type of processors for that. But GPUs aren't very good at performing general-task work, so we need a CPU for that.
Anyway, the Cell is just an example of what future processors will look like. And with cores rampaging plus GPUs becoming more general purpose we'll have more crunching power than we've ever dreamed of in the future.
My overclocked Core 2 is steadily under 30-40% load while watching a Blu Ray movie. If the GPU could really take that much stress off, I'm inclined to believe that with my 7900GTX (with 512 MB video memory by the way), that's a rather high load. I think there's more processing requirement than you realize. And keep in mind, the PS3 may have a Cell processor, but standalone players are not going to come with as much horsepower as a next gen game console.;)

[Doomulation]

When you finally do see one, you will notice the difference IMMEDIATELY. I guarantee it.;)
Well, it's a long way off, but if I do see two films, one in SD and one in HD, I will tell you what I think. I *have* seen HD movies (on the computer), but I wasn't perticularly impressed. And I did not have any SD clip to compare to.


My overclocked Core 2 is steadily under 30-40% load while watching a Blu Ray movie. If the GPU could really take that much stress off, I'm inclined to believe that with my 7900GTX (with 512 MB video memory by the way), that's a rather high load. I think there's more processing requirement than you realize.
Actually, the Geforce 8800 GTS has a 500 MHz clock speed and will fully decode any HD movies. The reason your CPU load is 30-40% is that 7900GTX does not fully decode the whole movie. Why? Because the drivers (and the card firmware) doesn't support it! It can only accelerate specified proportions. All this is AFAIK. Even if that does not ring true, the Geforce 8XXX series will fully decode H264 with only 500 MHz core speed.


And keep in mind, the PS3 may have a Cell processor, but standalone players are not going to come with as much horsepower as a next gen game console.;)

Maybe you haven't heard? But the Cell processor was designed in mind for media applications and Sony (and other companies AFAIK) is already putting the Cell processor into their HD players.

[YourNobody]

Okay, some of you are getting a little bit too hot over this and you're becoming irrational. I'll sort through some of this.

Issue #1: HD-DVD/BD offers nothing new in quality on a standard TV.
This is true. If you have a normal TV, don't bother with either of the "next-gen" formats. You will feel ripped off. If you have an HDTV, then okay. I would still recommend waiting a while before investing in one, though. Why? For the same reason you wait after a new console comes out. Let them weed out the bugs and glitches first.

Issue #2: Neither HD-DVD or BD offer lossless support.
Where the hell did you hear this? Of course they do!

My own thoughts:
To be honest, I will not be rushing out to buy any new player any time soon. The DVD has plenty life in it yet and I don't see HD going standard any time soon, either. I own a regular TV and I'm plenty happy with my DVD player. I don't need to go out blowing my money on a player that may not pan out in the long-run.

The differences between DVD and both BD and HD-DVD are not enough to warrant spending so much money on. Look at how much better DVD was compared to VHS. The difference was huge! Most people do not and will never notice a difference, unless they own an HDTV. In most cases, they don't.

Maybe in five years, enough people will own HDTV's that it'll become standard. By then a better format than BD or HD-DVD will be out. My own conclusion, save your money. Neither player is worth it. In the long-run, you'll be wishing you hadn't bought them.

[Toasty]

Issue #2: Neither HD-DVD or BD offer lossless support.
Where the hell did you hear this? Of course they do!
They both support lossless audio, but AFAIK neither specification supports lossless video. (There is a way to have lossless H.264 video, but I don't think Blu-ray or HD-DVD specifications support that encoding profile. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Not a big letdown though, as a losslessly encoded HD movie would never fit on either medium with current compression techniques.

[Doomulation]

...Not a big letdown though, as a losslessly encoded HD movie would never fit on either medium with current compression techniques.

Nail on the head I think. Lossless is huge and neither format has enough space to fit one. Maybe when they go up in space, they'll have enough space for lossless SD in H264, but never HD.