Do new DVD formats really matter?

[mg262]

I have the same card as you. Try WebScheduler.

[m1ckran]

Let's not forget the football yobs (or soccer for some of you) and pie and chips

You've obviously witnessed football yobs using overcooked meat pies as missiles. Hope you weren't on the receiving end of one! :D

Football yobs are, I think, off-topic because they they're still happy to watch fuzzy porn films on betamax players. :p

[arch_angel16]

One note about perceived audio and video quality: the signal to noise ratio acceptable by your eardrums is much, much lower than that which is acceptable to your eyes. Layman's translation: your eyes are much more sensitive than your ears when it comes to subtle details. The mere fact that your average human being can't tell the difference between SACD, CD, and 256kbps MP3, while they CAN tell the difference between original FILM (2560x1536), re-encoded DVD (say 6Mbps) and mpeg4 (say 750k/s) should be proof enough of this.

[m1ckran]

Re: arch_angel16

That could well be true but some people can accept a greater level of distortion than others. Over the years, I've spent losts of money on hi fi equipment, only to find that some part of the music reproduction began to irritate me so much that I upgraded.

But after a few years, I realised that I was listening more to the equipment than to the music! Once I understood this, I began to enjoy the content more and its presentation began to mean less. I think there's a similar danger with "video" in all of its forms.

I used to envy people who could enjoy music on appalling-sounding kit. They are the lucky ones who don't care about measurements or specifications. Similarly, many people still watch TV with badly adjusted settings that produce glowing bright orange skin tones. They know it's unrealistic but they don't care because they're enjoying the content of the programme they're watching. One friend sees nothing wrong with his 1967 black & white set, even though it's losing its focus and contrast.

I think that if the use of new equipment becomes obtrusively restrictive, it will be less convenient to use and many people will just not bother with it. I have several friends with ancient VHS video records who find them too awkward and restrictive to operate. Because of that, they lost interest and rarely use their machines unless they want to rent a tape from the local shop.

Seems to me that this is the consumer attitude most likely to emerge from all of these restrictions.

[arch_angel16]

The same observation holds for video games. Why else would Counterstrike (the original), a game that, even when it first came out, looked like recycled 4-year-old graphical ass, have become (and still remains) one of the most popular games out there?

I find that as far as audio/video/graphical fidelity goes...the whole idea of highend gear is to be completely neutral, right? You aren't supposed to hear qualities of the speaker, you're supposed to hear what it's playing, and thus, the speaker needs to be completely invisible. Lowend quality adds a distraction factor to the experience.

For some people, with some media, it doesn't matter how much of a "distraction" the crappy graphics, bad video mastering, or audio compression becomes. This is largely due to the individual's emotional reaction to the content. When I listen to orchestral compositions of Final Fantasy music, it really doesn't matter what the speaker quality or mp3 bitrate is - I'm focusing on my emotional memory evoked by the music.

That being said, well, it's quite possible to become accustomed to having an experience unclouded by the flaws in the technology delivering it. I'd never go back to a crappy monitor after becoming accustomed to my 21" Sony, I'd never go back to $10 speakers after having listened to midrange ones, and I'd certainly never go back to 128kbps or lower Mp3s after having listened to 320kb/s MP3s.

[Inventive Software]

Valid point arch_angel16. I suppose this was the primary reason for H.264's development. It is fundamentally better than MPEG-2 in all aspects (except speed, but this may change with better coding) and will pave the way for better developments in studio production.
I'd certainly never go back to 128kbps or lower Mp3s after having listened to 320kb/s MP3s.
I can't comment on that, however I find 128 Kbps to be an acceptable listening quality. I'm sort of an audiophile, but I can't tell the difference between this and the original FLAC encoded file.

[arch_angel16]

You really need a good pair of headphones, or a really good stereo setup to definitively perceive the difference between 128mp3 and lossless CD audio.

[Tuesday]

Having listened to a fair few mp3's IMHO the compression is certainly noticable at 128k, even with my car-boot sale aquired hi-fi & unbranded flash player.

even encoded with lame 128k has the lovely mp3-cymbal sound :)

but alas i think the guys on hydrogenaudio have done this discussion to death already

on topic: i havn't yet seen a commercial movie dvd in which the main feature was over 6gig and they generally seem to be 4-5gig, surely conventional dvd can be pushed a little further yet, who ever watches the "extra fearures" more than once anyway?

[m1ckran]

on topic: i havn't yet seen a commercial movie dvd in which the main feature was over 6gig and they generally seem to be 4-5gig, surely conventional dvd can be pushed a little further yet, who ever watches the "extra fearures" more than once anyway?


Spot on (except for LOTR SEE).