Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 74
  1. #41
    Britchie Crazy General Plot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Plymouth, UK
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Toasty
    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.


    Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.4 Ghz | 6 GB DDR3 RAM in Triple Channel | GeForce GTX 285
    2.5 TB Hard Drive Space | Windows 7 Ultimate x64

    Official betatester of PCSX2

  2. #42
    ????????????????????????? Doomulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    ????????????????
    Posts
    8,776
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by General Plot View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by General Plot View Post
    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.
    Atashi wa juu-yon-sai no onna no ko! Atashi no namae wa Miizuki. Yurushiku ne!
    Nani? Atashi o shinjirimasen desu ka? Baka!
    "You're all doomed! Doomed, I say! Hehe... are we approaching the end of the world?"

    shikata ga kaite aru - "the instructions are written above"
    Need to download GoodN64 or instructions to use it? Need to check if it's a good or bad rom?
    Download: Glide64 | Hacktarux's wrapper

  3. #43
    Britchie Crazy General Plot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Plymouth, UK
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    [QUOTE=Doomulation]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 Originally Posted by 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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.

    Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.4 Ghz | 6 GB DDR3 RAM in Triple Channel | GeForce GTX 285
    2.5 TB Hard Drive Space | Windows 7 Ultimate x64

    Official betatester of PCSX2

  4. #44
    Sony battery Toasty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Oregon, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,185
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by General Plot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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. )

  5. #45
    Meh...
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,443
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.
    ....derp...

  6. #46
    ????????????????????????? Doomulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    ????????????????
    Posts
    8,776
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by General Plot View Post
    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!
    Atashi wa juu-yon-sai no onna no ko! Atashi no namae wa Miizuki. Yurushiku ne!
    Nani? Atashi o shinjirimasen desu ka? Baka!
    "You're all doomed! Doomed, I say! Hehe... are we approaching the end of the world?"

    shikata ga kaite aru - "the instructions are written above"
    Need to download GoodN64 or instructions to use it? Need to check if it's a good or bad rom?
    Download: Glide64 | Hacktarux's wrapper

  7. #47
    Britchie Crazy General Plot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Plymouth, UK
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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?

    Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.4 Ghz | 6 GB DDR3 RAM in Triple Channel | GeForce GTX 285
    2.5 TB Hard Drive Space | Windows 7 Ultimate x64

    Official betatester of PCSX2

  8. #48
    ????????????????????????? Doomulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    ????????????????
    Posts
    8,776
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by General Plot View Post
    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! 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.
    Atashi wa juu-yon-sai no onna no ko! Atashi no namae wa Miizuki. Yurushiku ne!
    Nani? Atashi o shinjirimasen desu ka? Baka!
    "You're all doomed! Doomed, I say! Hehe... are we approaching the end of the world?"

    shikata ga kaite aru - "the instructions are written above"
    Need to download GoodN64 or instructions to use it? Need to check if it's a good or bad rom?
    Download: Glide64 | Hacktarux's wrapper

  9. #49
    Britchie Crazy General Plot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Plymouth, UK
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    You can't compare SD-material to HD-material!
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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 ***** 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).
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomulation
    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.

    Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.4 Ghz | 6 GB DDR3 RAM in Triple Channel | GeForce GTX 285
    2.5 TB Hard Drive Space | Windows 7 Ultimate x64

    Official betatester of PCSX2

  10. #50
    ????????????????????????? Doomulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    ????????????????
    Posts
    8,776
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by General Plot View Post
    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 ***** 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 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...
    Last edited by Doomulation; June 3rd, 2007 at 01:52.
    Atashi wa juu-yon-sai no onna no ko! Atashi no namae wa Miizuki. Yurushiku ne!
    Nani? Atashi o shinjirimasen desu ka? Baka!
    "You're all doomed! Doomed, I say! Hehe... are we approaching the end of the world?"

    shikata ga kaite aru - "the instructions are written above"
    Need to download GoodN64 or instructions to use it? Need to check if it's a good or bad rom?
    Download: Glide64 | Hacktarux's wrapper

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •