Sony uses MPEG-2 on BluRay

[hpn]

Sony says that it will only support MPEG-2 codecs for next-gen Blu-ray ;)

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28053

[bond]

Sony says that it will only support MPEG-2 codecs for next-gen Blu-ray ;)

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28053hehe how crappy. still the specs allow the useage of mpeg-2 on bluray, so sony doesnt break anything by doing so


"Advanced (formats) don't necessarily improve picture quality," said Don Eklund, Sony Pictures' senior vice president of advanced technology. "Our goal is to present the best picture quality for Blu-ray. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, that's with MPEG-2." propably they checked the quality of their (sony's) own avc encoder and realised its crap quality ;)

[communist]

'Advanced formats don't necessarily improve picture quality,' said Eklund. No they dont, nor do less advanced formats - they just *might* represent the same subjective quality at lower file size ;)
H.264, which enables content to be encoded at much higher bit rates without huge increases in file size. Ok you gotta explain me how this works :confused: :D

[asegura]

If they accepted newer video formats there wouldn't be a need for the high capacity of Bluray or HD-DVD. With AVC or MPEG4-ASP, for example, HD movies can be stored in a DVD. I guess they need MPEG2, which requires a few tens of Mb/s for HD, to justify their new -otherwise not-so-necessary- storage technology.

[berrinam]

@asegura: not true. PSNR-wise, AVC can only reach about half the bitrate of MPEG-2 at the same quality, whereas HD resolutions go up to 5x SD resolutions:
(1920*1080) / (720*576) = 5

[charleski]

I guess they need MPEG2, which requires a few tens of Mb/s for HD, to justify their new -otherwise not-so-necessary- storage technology.Call me a cynic, but I can't help feeling that the real justification for Blu-Ray is simply AACS...

[Randall]

bah. I didn't expect anything other then MPEG-2 to begin with. That's a big reason for the obnoxious amount of space on Blu-ray discs. I'm sure eventully they will work towards MPEG-4/AVC compression, but it's still a very new technology to be the new standard.

[bond]

bluray actually supported in the beginning only mpeg-2. and this makes sense as the bigger storage space doesnt make better compression necessary. so not having to support avc means less license costs for the producers (as they would only have to pay for mpeg-2), which is a plus for bluray

i guess they later changed this tactic and added avc and vc-1 in because they wanted to remove the argument that it uses outdated coding tech compared to hd-dvd and to be able to be superior than hd-dvd in all areas

[Kostarum Rex Persia]

Peoples, let's protest on Sony site,and demanding from them to use H.264 codec. BlueRay organisation should prevent companies from using MPEG-2 for HD resolutions.

[Randall]

This is just a compression issue... and since Blu-ray has a buttload of space on the disc, there is no need for high compression yet.

[Episodio1]

Does mpeg2@1080i need high-end CPU ?

[DryFire]

I wouldn't expect it to.

[MSlv]

But will using MPEG-2 leave enough free room for special features (in SD)? Sony said many times that the discs would cost more to make, but by using only one disc will cost less than a 2-disc HD-DVD sets.

What about super-long movies like The Lord Of The Rings (regular AND Extended Editions), or Pearl Harbor, or The Aviator? Will MPEG-2 leave enough free space on the disc for special features?

[smok3]

don't you think this has something to do with a fact that mpeg2 is old/trusted/tested format and h264 is new kid in the block? (and as reported by users current codecs wont really shine at high-bitrate mode anyway?)

[Doom9]

regarding extras and space.. check my news, I put some numbers in there.

[foxyshadis]

Let's assume that as the resultion is 5x, the bitrate is 5x, so say 40Mbps. Single-layer is 23G, dual is 47G. That's an hour and a quarter SL, or 2.5 hours DL, so most likely the bitrate isn't going to be quite that high, maybe more like 25Mbps.

As for special features, if they're in TV-sized SD like most are now, they'll be an insignificant part of the content. (4-6% of the SL disc per hour, at 2-3Mbps.) They can spare that for special features. If they bumped them up to DVD-size then you'd see the multi-disc problems that we have today, but I have no idea why they would, unless they're really milking the collectors editions.

[Sagittaire]

MPEG2 MP@HL 20 Mbps 1080i is very high quality encoding (with good encoder like TMPGEnc for example). In practice high performance codec like H264 will be useless with Blu-ray or HD-DVD ...

[Anonymouses]

Peoples, let's protest on Sony site,and demanding from them to use H.264 codec. BlueRay organisation should prevent companies from using MPEG-2 for HD resolutions.

What's wrong with mpeg-2 at HD resolutions? It seems perfectly fine from the HD content I've watched.

[yidaki]

my gfx card can decode mpeg2 with extremely low cpu usage, but wmv and h.264 kills my cpu. so i'm kind of glad they use mpeg2 on the brd's, that way i'll be able to watch hd-content on my computer :)
but then, i'll be getting a ps3, so it really doesn't matter :D

[Doom9]

that way i'll be able to watch hd-content on my computerLet's see about that: you need a Vista compatible box, and your hardware needs to be HDCP compatible.. today hardly any PC can offer that, so unless you upgrade (to hardware that has no problem decoding HD AVC), you won't be playing any HD content on your PC any time soon either way ;) Sony is just unwilling to upgrade their encoders (their own AVC encoder sucks as Bond pointed out, so they'd have to buy out of house), and needs to justify the 20 GB additional space compared to HD DVD.

real justification for Blu-Ray is simply AACS...HD DVD has that too. It's about more restrictive DRM (see my news.. I report on that regularly).

[yidaki]

Let's see about that: you need a Vista compatible box, and your hardware needs to be HDCP compatible.. today hardly any PC can offer that, so unless you upgrade (to hardware that has no problem decoding HD AVC), you won't be playing any HD content on your PC any time soon either way ;) Sony is just unwilling to upgrade their encoders (their own AVC encoder sucks as Bond pointed out, so they'd have to buy out of house), and needs to justify the 20 GB additional space compared to HD DVD.
I don't understand.
Protection schemes shouldn't affect my computer specs. :-/
If I can play HD-mpeg2 now, I should be able to later aswell.
I wouldn't need to upgrade my CPU just because I install a BRD-player.

But I should probably not be so enthusiastic; seeing how Sony likes putting 'crippleware' on their discs, their BRD's might actually affect my computer's performance :D
I can see them installing programs that disables dxva features just to make me buy a new CPU.

[Randall]

Oh for the love of... We're simply talking about MPEG-4 saving "precious" disc space. I doubt that the first Blu-ray films available will be nothing more then the raw MPEG-2 movie file and nothing else. Remember old DVD's? Just the meat and potatoes and no extra fluff. With 25 Mb/s on the HD content, that is more then 2 hours and more then enough space on the disc. There will not be any space issues in the immediate future for Blu-ray. MPEG-2 will suffice for now. They shouldn't even attempt MPEG-4/AVC until the processors are more efficient at decoding and the standard is more of a "gold standard" anyway. ...We're still uh... beta testing that.

[Doom9]

@Randall: you're missing the point that any player with a HD DVD or Blu-ray logo will have to be able to handle high resolution VC-1 and AVC streams. You cannot sell a player that handles the physical disc format but not the codecs.. that is what mandatory features are all about. Player will need to be tested against discs using every codec, and even mixed contents if the specs allow that. Imagine having to replace an entire generation of players because you didn't test properly and studios other than Sony release content using another codec. There are studios leaning hard towards either VC-1 or AVC so we are likely to see a mixed batch from the getgo.

Protection schemes shouldn't affect my computer specs. :-/Yes they do. Unless your GFX card and monitor support HDCP, you're not going to get any HD picture. So, you're either stuck with downscaled content and could just stick with DVD, or you replace the entire GFX path, and since the latest generation of GFX cards support HD content playback acceleration, the CPU is no longer much of an issue. And because Hollywood likes the protected video path thing in Vista, it's likely that HD content will require Vista as well. And with a new GFX card could come the replacement of your mainboard because you only have AGP, and with that if you're at it you can replace the CPU as well, probably RAM (DDR2 versus DDR), and you have a whole new machine already. Welcome to the future...

[charleski]

Sony is just unwilling to upgrade their encoders (their own AVC encoder sucks as Bond pointed out, so they'd have to buy out of house), and needs to justify the 20 GB additional space compared to HD DVD.Someone quoted the latest Ateme encoder as costing $9k to the industry. There might be additional per-title fees on top of that, but this is a drop in the ocean to Sony. Hubris might be a factor though - they don't want it known that they had to go and buy an encoder, so they make up a reason that they don't need to use one anyway.

HD DVD has that too. It's about more restrictive DRM (see my news.. I report on that regularly).I know that :).

[Randall]

@Randall: you're missing the point that any player with a HD DVD or Blu-ray logo will have to be able to handle high resolution VC-1 and AVC streams. You cannot sell a player that handles the physical disc format but not the codecs.. that is what mandatory features are all about. Player will need to be tested against discs using every codec, and even mixed contents if the specs allow that. Imagine having to replace an entire generation of players because you didn't test properly and studios other than Sony release content using another codec. There are studios leaning hard towards either VC-1 or AVC so we are likely to see a mixed batch from the getgo.

Yes they do. Unless your GFX card and monitor support HDCP, you're not going to get any HD picture. So, you're either stuck with downscaled content and could just stick with DVD, or you replace the entire GFX path, and since the latest generation of GFX cards support HD content playback acceleration, the CPU is no longer much of an issue. And because Hollywood likes the protected video path thing in Vista, it's likely that HD content will require Vista as well. And with a new GFX card could come the replacement of your mainboard because you only have AGP, and with that if you're at it you can replace the CPU as well, probably RAM (DDR2 versus DDR), and you have a whole new machine already. Welcome to the future...


I see your point, but just like the first generation of DVD players failed on later disc copy protection schemes etc., the first generataion of Blu-ray players could possibly fail with later changes. Besides the fact that decoding of AVC will get more efficient as time goes on, and therefor it will begin to become a gold standard for HD media.

And on HDCP, you know there will be a way to circumvent that hardware restriction within the first year of it being enforced. Vista won't stop piracy, but I realize the need to try and stop piracy.

[Doom9]

but just like the first generation of DVD players failed on later disc copy protection schemes etc.,huh? CSS was finalized and it never changed. The only problem first gen players had was when dual layer discs started appearing.. because the cheap bastards didn't test the players for that (okay, there were probably no test discs, but that just shows that theory needs to always be tested or you can bet something will eventually go wrong). I wouldn't put CSS mastering errors in that category.. it's not like a player needs to be able to handle that, changing CSS keys at cell levels violates the specification and many modern players cannot handle that either.
The point that decoders may get more efficient is moot as well, the silicone is available or will be very shortly, and the only thing more optimized chips will do is reduce cost.

[Randall]

huh? CSS was finalized and it never changed. The only problem first gen players had was when dual layer discs started appearing.. because the cheap bastards didn't test the players for that (okay, there were probably no test discs, but that just shows that theory needs to always be tested or you can bet something will eventually go wrong). I wouldn't put CSS mastering errors in that category.. it's not like a player needs to be able to handle that, changing CSS keys at cell levels violates the specification and many modern players cannot handle that either.
The point that decoders may get more efficient is moot as well, the silicone is available or will be very shortly, and the only thing more optimized chips will do is reduce cost.

I'm sorry you're right. I was thinking of Dual Layer. The copy protection that borks some DVD players is called "ARccOS" protection by Sony. It's not standard complant (and therefore technically isn't even a DVD) and all it is is a "garbage data" track that makes the reader yack. But I'm offtopic here.

[Revgen]

MPEG2 may be okay if movie studios are looking to manufacture 2 hour movies. But if they wanted to put out a movie like Lawrence of Arabia or Gone With the Wind with extras included, it wouldn't fit unless they used H.264/AVC. This is assuming that the movies are at 20MBit/s 1920x1080.

I can understand that if they use H264/AVC they would have to provide strong processors to decode it. Stronger processors means more cost. Mpeg2 also costs less in terms of licencing fees.

I can also understand that Sony probably wants these machines to be affordable when they come out, but these are players that they are marketing to consumers with $2000+ televisions. By the time HDTV's are in the hands of the mass population, the manufacturing costs will come down.

[Randall]

Sony is just unwilling to upgrade their encoders (their own AVC encoder sucks as Bond pointed out, so they'd have to buy out of house), and needs to justify the 20 GB additional space compared to HD DVD.

We have a bingo. You could actually fit a decent amount of HD source on a standard Dual Layer DVD today using MPEG-4/AVC. Sony needs to justify the extra space on Blu-ray compared to HD-DVD being a huge advantage. MPEG-2 is the answer.

[Randall]

MPEG2 may be okay if movie studios are looking to manufacture 2 hour movies. But if they wanted to put out a movie like Lawrence of Arabia or Gone With the Wind with extras included, it wouldn't fit unless they used H.264/AVC. This is assuming that the movies are at 20MBit/s 1920x1080.

I can understand that if they use H264/AVC they would have to provide strong processors to decode it. Stronger processors means more cost. Mpeg2 also costs less in terms of licencing fees.

I can also understand that Sony probably wants these machines to be affordable when they come out, but these are players that they are marketing to consumers with $2000+ televisions. By the time HDTV's are in the hands of the mass population, the manufacturing costs will come down.

Are we talking about 1080i 30 FPS or 1080p 60 FPS here? There is a big difference as far as space is concerned.

[Revgen]

Isn't 30FPS progressive material at 1920x1080 go about 20 mbit/sec?

If not, then I must be mistaken.

[Doom9]

I can understand that if they use H264/AVC they would have to provide strong processors to decode it. Stronger processors means more cost.Hello, VC-1 and AVC are MANDATORY on both formats, meaning any device must be able to handle them. There cannot be a Blu-ray or HD DVD player that can only handle MPEG-2, that's why I keep repeating myself that the codec is a non issue for players.

[Randall]

Hello, VC-1 and AVC are MANDATORY on both formats, meaning any device must be able to handle them. There cannot be a Blu-ray or HD DVD player that can only handle MPEG-2, that's why I keep repeating myself that the codec is a non issue for players.
LOL we are IGNORING that fact atm.

[foxyshadis]

MPEG2 may be okay if movie studios are looking to manufacture 2 hour movies. But if they wanted to put out a movie like Lawrence of Arabia or Gone With the Wind with extras included, it wouldn't fit unless they used H.264/AVC. This is assuming that the movies are at 20MBit/s 1920x1080.

I can understand that if they use H264/AVC they would have to provide strong processors to decode it. Stronger processors means more cost. Mpeg2 also costs less in terms of licencing fees.

I can also understand that Sony probably wants these machines to be affordable when they come out, but these are players that they are marketing to consumers with $2000+ televisions. By the time HDTV's are in the hands of the mass population, the manufacturing costs will come down.
Actually now that we've had confirmation (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/panasonic_dual-layer_bd_production/) that dual-layer discs will be available at launch time, that means 5 hours at 20 Mbps. ;)

And I don't think I'd put it past Sony to premier a 'first-generation' round of HD players that only have the capability to decode HD MPEG-2 and SD MPEG-4, like current high-end players. They'd offer the HD AVC players, but price them out of the market, so they could claim it was the spec's fault and they had to work around it. Or something.

[Randall]

Actually now that we've had confirmation (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/panasonic_dual-layer_bd_production/) that dual-layer discs will be available at launch time, that means 5 hours at 20 Mbps. ;)

And I don't think I'd put it past Sony to premier a 'first-generation' round of HD players that only have the capability to decode HD MPEG-2 and SD MPEG-4, like current high-end players. They'd offer the HD AVC players, but price them out of the market, so they could claim it was the spec's fault and they had to work around it. Or something.

Diabolical!

[DryFire]

Diabolical!

and right up sony's ally.

[ShAQ]

Well, lets sit back and wait and see what will be used for BluRay. I can't believe that Sony is sooo stupid to use MPEG2. But Sony also invented XCP ... the Rootkit. Ehm ... yes ... we will see. ;)

[Randall]

I really don't think it's stupid, there is nothing wrong with MPEG-2. With MPEG-2 on Blu-ray dual layer 50 GB discs, we'll get 5 hours of HD content at 20 Mbps. That's more then enough for your average film. There is really no problem here. MPEG-4/AVC is in the Blu-ray standard, so there's nothing stopping us from making our own MPEG-4 content for BLu-ray (accept maybe the DRM, which is the real thing we should be pissed about).

[Anonymouses]

Well, lets sit back and wait and see what will be used for BluRay. I can't believe that Sony is sooo stupid to use MPEG2. But Sony also invented XCP ... the Rootkit. Ehm ... yes ... we will see. ;)

What's stupid about using mpeg-2? I'm all for attacking Sony where its justified, but what is really everyone's problem with mpeg-2 being used for now on Blu-Ray? In my personal tests at high bitrates mpeg-2 looks just as good if not better than AVC encoded material. Or is this just an attack on the decision because its Sony that made it? Honestly, considering how AVC is still in an infancy state I consider it wise to use a tried-and-trusted codec like mpeg-2 for now.

[thegeby]

Are we talking about 1080i 30 FPS or 1080p 60 FPS here? There is a big difference as far as space is concerned.

Why would anyone want to go to 1080p at 60 FPS? It is too big a bitstream to be broadcast and film sources would need to be telecined anyway. The one case where it would make sense is when US broadcasters need to justify their spectrum use, but so far the imposition of MPEG-2 by the ATSC standard does not make that necessary.

On another topic I read that Sony will discontinue analogue TVs in Europe and only sell combined analogue/digital. If they are sticking with MPEG-2, you can get two useless tuners for the price of one....

[nm]

At least I would like to have 50 fps video without interlacing. And there certainly is enough bandwidth for cable and satellite broadcasts. Just drop all the useless shit they try to feed you and see how much bandwidth is left available. ;) Since 1080i is currently broadcast as MPEG-2, just move to AVC and you'll get 1080p 60fps at the same or smaller bitrate. With digital television there really should be no need to telecine anything. Just use 24fps video and let the receiver figure out how they want to display it. New display devices are no longer interlaced, so using interlaced video is a bad compromise.

In Europe most HDTV channels will be broadcast as AVC from the beginning. Too bad they'll probably only use 720p and 1080i instead of 1080p since there is not much source material in 1080p and the broadcasters love interlaced video.

[Randall]

Interlacing sucks. There is no longer a need for it, as most HDTVs are not CRT. The only reason Interlacing is still around is so the boradcast stations can conserve bandwidth. It exists on DVDs because post-processing costs extra cash. God forbid they even attempt to deinterlace unless they are "digitally remastering".

[thegeby]

At least I would like to have 50 fps video without interlacing. And there certainly is enough bandwidth for cable and satellite broadcasts. Just drop all the useless shit they try to feed you and see how much bandwidth is left available. ;)

Well you're almost certain to get your European HD at 50fps progressive. In that case it will be 1280x720. The problem with C&S applying higher standards is that they do not originate all that much material. => Most material will either be cinema (originally at 24 fps) or rebroadcast terrestrial. Exceptions could be "exclusive deals" like UK Premier League on Sky. This would require Sky to manage the whole process, including very high powered encoders at the camera stage (or at very fat pipe to the encoder). I doubt that the business case for such HD+ solutions is very compelling.

[charleski]

Interlacing sucks. There is no longer a need for it, as most HDTVs are not CRT.Unfortunately, some are, and still need the higher field-rate to keep a picture displayed without decay. 1080i should never have been allowed into the standard at all.

[Randall]

I know we're getting a little off-topic, but I feel that NONE of the interlaced formats ever should have made it into the HD standards. Again, the only reason they are available is to conserve bandwidth for content providers. It's a bunch of BS. CRT TVs can handle progessive content good enough, and 1080p is coming. Meanwhile those of us with DLP, Plasma, and LCD have to suffer with Interalcing artifacts. ^&@%$#*^&

You would be shocked to learn how some of the LCD HDTVs deal with 1080i. It should be illegal. Some TV manufacturers do the 1080i conversion just by taking one 540 line field from each 1080i frame (which is composed of two 540 line fields) and scaling that one field up to 720p, ignoring the other field. Reason being, it takes a lot less processing power to do this than to convert the image to 1080p and scale that, which would use all the information in the original signal to derive the 720p signal. Truely a crime against all humanity. Should be punishable by death.

[communist]

It exists on DVDs because post-processing costs extra cash.
Or God forbid the source was actually interlaced to begin with or has been telecined which can be undone easily :rolleyes:

[Randall]

Or God forbid the source was actually interlaced to begin with or has been telecined which can be undone easily :rolleyes:
Unacceptable. All sources must be progressive! You probably love interlacing... communist!

[Revgen]

Unacceptable. All sources must be progressive! You probably love interlacing... communist!

LOL :D

You guys are too funny.

[Doom9]

nd I don't think I'd put it past Sony to premier a 'first-generation' round of HD players that only have the capability to decode HD MPEG-2 and SD MPEG-4, like current high-end players.That would not conform to the Blu-ray specs, the player wouldn't be able to carry the Blu-ray logo, and nobody would buy it. Impossible. And by the way the latest Sigma chipsets handle HD MPEG-4 AVC and VC-1.. there's just no player and nobody knows why.. is it because manufacturers are gearing up for HD players, or is it because Sigma can't deliver their product?

Truely a crime against all humanity.I agree. Even those that argue you need the higher framerate for sports (say 50p instead of 25p), I suggest you watch a couple Hollywood flicks that are about football, soccer, basketball, baseball, hockey - they all really don't need a higher framerate so it shouldn't be a problem to have sports broadcast at 24p/25p. And in the digital age, nobody really needs 29.97 fps anymore, LCD and plasma screens can handle any framerate. And screw those pesky CRT screens, they can rot where the sun don't shine (flame me for it, I don't care.. I've left interlacing behind I got my first PC some 13 years ago and never looked back. I had to suffer through some more VHS years but when DVDs came along, I prefered to watch them on a progressive PC screen, and now I'm about to match your average TV size with this PC screen: http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000240070831/).

Back to topic obviously there's nothing wrong with using MPEG-2 if you have the full 50 GB available, but you have to be devil's advocate and wonder if it's not just a justification for using Blu-Ray. Once all the studios have settled on the codec and format, we can draw better conclusions, but I'm already putting some money down on the Blu-ray camp having a stronger tendency towards MPEG-2 and the HD DVD camp using VC-1 or AVC instead.. it serves both camps in their "we need / don't need that kind of space" argumentation.

[Randall]

That would not conform to the Blu-ray specs, the player wouldn't be able to carry the Blu-ray logo, and nobody would buy it. Impossible. And by the way the latest Sigma chipsets handle HD MPEG-4 AVC and VC-1.. there's just no player and nobody knows why.. is it because manufacturers are gearing up for HD players, or is it because Sigma can't deliver their product?

I assume it's the latter, that Sigma can't deliver their product. The players that do handle HD MPEG-4 AVC and VC-1 correctly will be quite expensive to say the least, because of the robust chipsets that will be involved. If Sigma can't deliver on these chipsets, then it's panic time for Blu-ray. They can come out with all of the MPEG-2 content they want, and that's fine... but if the hardware players can't do MPEG-4/AVC or VC-1 then "Huston, we have a problem!" The spec must be supported no matter the cost. And believe me the cost will be $$$. The key to Blu-ray's success lies in Playstation 3.