Actually can a 10Mb/s H.264 file store HD info?

[hkl8324]

If we use H.264 and use a bitrate of 10Mb/s, can High Definition video be stored on DVD? If we can achieve at least acceptable quality by using H.264@10Mb/s, why would we have to have Blu-ray/HD-DVD?

[setarip_old]

Anything can be burned to a DVD. the question is whether it would be playable from a DVD...

[hkl8324]

I know I know, my point is that why they push new format while the old one DVD can still be used with better compression technology (H.264). They just have to produce a new player which can play H.264 from a DVD , but not a new disc format.

[setarip_old]

Even if you are correct, that wouldn't serve the drive/media manufacturers and studios as well as selling us not only new players, but new, more expensive commercial titles (with new protection) and, eventually, new and more expensive blank media...

[Mug Funky]

yeah. besides, you'd be pushing for 6mb/s or less to get the same amount of stuff onto current generation DVDs. though it's certainly possible to do this, you'd need to remove quite a bit of information to get it looking good, and when you do that you start losing the benefits of HDTV.

[sysKin]

Oh I don't know about loosing anything, I'm getting really excellent results encoding 720p at 2.5mbps.

[Doom9]

The new formats have a mode (I don't recall the name) that allows the use of the new compression formats on the old disc format.. but obviously authoring is going to be different.

[niknik]

If we use H.264 and use a bitrate of 10Mb/s, can High Definition video be stored on DVD? If we can achieve at least acceptable quality by using H.264@10Mb/s, why would we have to have Blu-ray/HD-DVD?

Exactly.
I have Lord of the Rings @ 720p h264 in 8Gb (would fit a DVD9 perfectly) and I asked that same question myself.

But, just as it was said, they "need" to push a new format, so people buy the same movies over and over again.
I certainly won't buy anything I can't rip to disk so I can play it from my media server.

But the next generation of those players currently playing HD divx and Mpeg2 TS will play h264.

[kururu]

If we use H.264 and use a bitrate of 10Mb/s, can High Definition video be stored on DVD? If we can achieve at least acceptable quality by using H.264@10Mb/s, why would we have to have Blu-ray/HD-DVD?
I believe Microsoft was promoting Windows Media to do just this. Just look at T2: Ultiimate Edition, and that came out middle of 2000.

[zambelli]

Exactly.
I have Lord of the Rings @ 720p h264 in 8Gb (would fit a DVD9 perfectly) and I asked that same question myself.
That's perhaps OK for 720p, but what about 1080p? You'd need at least twice the capacity for 1920x1080 content of the same quality.
But, just as it was said, they "need" to push a new format, so people buy the same movies over and over again.
First of all: "Well duh."
Second of all: How would releasing H264/VC1 ecoded movies on DVD-9 be any different? You'd still have to buy new titles and new hardware.
But the next generation of those players currently playing HD divx and Mpeg2 TS will play h264.
Any player that supports those formats is more than a DVD player because all those things are not defined in the DVD spec, needless to say. The vast majority of DVD players on the market still don't support MPEG4/DivX playback. So even if H.264 takes roots in future DVD players, it's still never going to be supported in anything even remotely resembling a majority of units due to the number of existing units already out there.

HD on DVD has been done years ago (see WMV HD) so this is absolutely nothing new. The issues with HD on DVD-9 are these:
1) Manufacturers won't universally adopt it unless it's standardized, which means that either the existing DVD spec would have to be updated or a new spec would have to be made - which is exactly what happened with HD-DVD/Bluray.
2) Studios won't support it unless there is copy protection.
3) Long movies in 1080p are a huge issue because they'd have to span multiple discs. Anyone remember the Laserdisc fiasco? Let's not forget about special features either.

So this whole "it's all a big conspiracy to sell us more stuff" theory does not hold water. Yes, HD on DVD-9 is perfectly possible, but it's completely unrealistic. If the industry is going to go through the effort of updating DVD specs, it's only natural that they'll go a step further and define new standards.

[siddharthagandhi]

"Oh I don't know about loosing anything, I'm getting really excellent results encoding 720p at 2.5mbps."

Thats amazing man. Seriously.

You know eventually we're not going to stop at 1080 p. I'm thinking far ahead into the future, but in many years, we will encode at resolutions even higher, like 2060 p and things like that. And will such an encode have acceptable quality at a bitrate of 8 with AVC or any codec? Most likely not. The bitrate will have to be increased, and thus the size will increase. These new discs with 50 GB capacity and all that will be able to store even higher resolutions in the future, so that once that time comes we don't have to change media formats. (even though the aforementioned will probably happen anyways).

[Mug Funky]

The issues with HD on DVD-9 are these:

also, setting a layer break on a DVD-9 would be sort of hellish considering the only apps out there that can do it must work within DVD specs. the closest you'd get in a home scenario is sussing out exactly when a certain I-frame is going to occur, converting that to DVD sectors and setting that in DVDdecrypter in ISO burn mode. and even then i'd imagine there'd be problems. of course if the DVD drive being used is fast and clever enough it shouldn't be an issue.

[niknik]

That's perhaps OK for 720p, but what about 1080p? You'd need at least twice the capacity for 1920x1080 content of the same quality.

Curious you mention 1080p... something that doesn't even "exists" in any HDTV standard.
As for 1080i, 8gb can still hold its pace quite.


First of all: "Well duh."
Second of all: How would releasing H264/VC1 ecoded movies on DVD-9 be any different? You'd still have to buy new titles and new hardware.

Double "duh".
The issue is you could have had it 4 years ago.
Sure you'd need new players. But what other alternative do you have to watch HD movies today? Unless using an HD divx,wmv, ts, standalone player, or a PC ?
(Not to mention the insignificant costs of producing DVD9 HD media)

Of course, this is only in the perspective that it could have been done YEARS ago. And on a more standardized way (not the WMV-HD try we've seen - although in germany there's quite a market for those wmvHD movies)
We sure need higher capacity media, I'm not arguing about that. Just that, by continuously delaying HD movies (and mostly because of those "absurd" DRM protection schemes) they're getting more and more annoying every single day.

It's even harder to believe how countries that had HDTV for year s (unlike us in Europe, where most people doesn't even know what's that all about) could stand seeing HD content on their TVs, and then go and buy DVDs with a "lower" quality.


Any player that supports those formats is more than a DVD player because all those things are not defined in the DVD spec, needless to say.

Last time I checked, I've seen NO dvd player that didn't have any sort of enhancment to the DVD spec: jpeg pictures, mp3 playing, etc.

The vast majority of DVD players on the market still don't support MPEG4/DivX playback.

That would depend on what market you're talking about.
In here, on a conservative take, I'd say nearly half the DVD players have divx playback. Simply because many people wait till later to buy a dvd player... and then caught those low cost divx players. Sure, everyone I know has one of those players - but that would be expected. But even when I go to someone's else house, more than half the time they have such a player - because somehow the "buzz" on the street is that those players with that "divx" label stuck on it, "play everything".
(Ok, but this here, and we're a small country - not saying the rest of the world is acting the same way)

So even if H.264 takes roots in future DVD players, it's still never going to be supported in anything even remotely resembling a majority of units due to the number of existing units already out there.

It's not an "if even" case, they'll surely will it's just a matter of time. (Kiss is famous for having one announced for a couple of years now, and never coming forth with it: the DP700 - but there are other more "real" offerings)


HD on DVD has been done years ago (see WMV HD) so this is absolutely nothing new. The issues with HD on DVD-9 are these:
1) Manufacturers won't universally adopt it unless it's standardized, which means that either the existing DVD spec would have to be updated or a new spec would have to be made - which is exactly what happened with HD-DVD/Bluray.

I would agree, if we had ONE standard! Now, having two? Should we call that a "double standard"?
But I guess it's the same kind of standard we had on the Beta/VHS case. Hopefully in this case, they'll soon be "blended" like in the DVD+R / DVD-R case, where soon players will play BD and HDDVD. Though I think they should both lose, so they would learn that consumers are not willing to take all this bulls***.


2) Studios won't support it unless there is copy protection.

That's something WMVHD had. (Needing internet connection to verify if you were in the USA to play the movie?? geeee!)

I just hope eventually they'll grow out of it.
1) ANY and EVERY protection is breakable!
2) Consumers have the right to make copies (even if they're trying to outlaw that)
3) If they annoy PAYING customers enough, people will turn to alternative sources.

They spend millions on copy protection, delay the launch because of that for nearly one year... What the point?
So that paying customers get all the hassle, while people that download an HD movie (something that - even if they want to pay for, they can't because it's not out yet) are able to watch trouble free HD movies TODAY.


3) Long movies in 1080p are a huge issue because they'd have to span multiple discs. Anyone remember the Laserdisc fiasco? Let's not forget about special features either.


With 25, 30 and 50Gb I don't see that becoming a problem.
And that's talking in the 1080p source.
As I said, the point in having HDTV movies YEARS ago, would be to have it in the standard 720p/1080i.
(Although I agree that we should get rid of all "i" formats)

So this whole "it's all a big conspiracy to sell us more stuff" theory does not hold water.

Oh... is it a conspiracy now?
I had that for a FACT.
Or are you picturing: "All of those people that already bought this movie on DVD, please return that and we'll upgrade it to a HD version for free!"

Even on DVDs you see: buy the movie; buy the special edition; oh sorry, that had mastering errors! No problem... here's a new revised special edition, please buy it again.

Yes, HD on DVD-9 is perfectly possible, but it's completely unrealistic. If the industry is going to go through the effort of updating DVD specs, it's only natural that they'll go a step further and define new standards.

Pity most of the effort has gone into devising a more devious copy protection scheme, instead of getting it to market sooner.


But of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions... And we don't have to agree on it. ;)

[Doom9]

Curious you mention 1080p... something that doesn't even "exists" in any HDTV standard. Somebody needs to visit the digiTV forum and read my stickies.. 1080p @24/25 is most definitely in the specs.

[niknik]

Somebody needs to visit the digiTV forum and read my stickies.. 1080p @24/25 is most definitely in the specs.

Sorry, I had that wrong.
But, has anyone used it in the last few years?
The first time I heard of 1080p (besides on the PC "side") was when they said it would be used on the upcoming BR/HD-DVDs.
(and with all the buzz it caused about HDMI "support" had to be updated to allow 1080p, i tought it was a late addition)

Now... when they get 1080p @100hz... I might be sold. ;)
(ok, 50/60p is enough I know)
Those film rates make me want to puke whenever they do a faster pan... (oh, and I DO love cinema... but 24 fps. yuck)
Ok, it would take a lot of film($$$) to make it better (and try selling the concept of having more reels per movie to the cinema) , but in the digital age, increasing the fps wouldn't have that problem, in fact, increasing fps could actually help codec efficiency as there is a lot less "movement" from frame to frame.
With digital movie cams, maybe they'll consider it somewhere in the not so distant future.

If you ever watched high speed film on any theme park, you can notice the difference. (or maybe it's just me that am more susceptible to "low fps" motion)

[SirCanealot]

Sorry, I had that wrong.
Those film rates make me want to puke whenever they do a faster pan... (oh, and I DO love cinema... but 24 fps. yuck)


Hey, those 30 and 60fps pans do the same to me, pal. The day they increase framerate in movies is the day I shoot myself.

[niknik]

Hey, those 30 and 60fps pans do the same to me, pal. The day they increase framerate in movies is the day I shoot myself.

Color and sound must have come as a shock to you then... :sly:

But so we don't get completely OFF topic.
The bottom line is, you could indeed store HD content h264 stream at 10Mb/s while maintaining a good enough quality.

Of course, the problem is (and always has been) doing proper encodes (whatever the resolution, whatever the codec).
If done hastly (as in badly done), no matter if we have Blueray/HDdvd movies.... they'll just turn into HD crap.

I think it was Woody Allen who said: "A wide screen just makes a bad movie look twice as bad".

[foxyshadis]

in fact, increasing fps could actually help codec efficiency as there is a lot less "movement" from frame to frame.
You'd think so, but film grain pretty much murders efficiency at high framerates, as well as the smearing from a long shutter time that lends it some smoothness. (Even at higher fps you need it to achieve a "film" look.)

(TV doesn't suffer this problem because it has much more natural levels, much faster shutters, and very little grain.)

[niknik]

You'd think so, but film grain pretty much murders efficiency at high framerates, as well as the smearing ...

Yes, and movie industry will still use film for a long time, but eventually, won't all "movies" end up being captured with digital cameras?
(and I won't argue about if it's "better" or "worse", or if they "should/shouldn't" - just like it happened with photography, where film is becoming obsolete).

And when we start dealing with digital only, then all those grain and film effects can be added as "post-processing". Isn't is h264 that already has some special considerations for film grain?

[quick google: "The group standardized a new film grain model in the industry, which has subsequently been adopted as part of the H.264 standard and has been made mandatory for the HD DVD specifications. This technique, known as Film Grain Technology (FGT), has also been standardized by SMPTE."
from http://www.thomson.net/EN/Home/Technology/research_activities/lab_overview_princeton.htm]

So eventually, I think encoding will rely on such post-processing effects more than ever.
Hey, I'm from the time when encoding an entire movie to fit in a 700Mb CD was seen with awe!
(and encoding with the "fast motion/slow motion" parameters in the "original" divx, and then cutting and pasting it by hand, scene by scene to get the best possible quality for each section... It sounds crazy today)

[foxyshadis]

Doesn't matter how they're made. These days most of that film effect comes in postproduction already! Some shows and movies are actually made digitally, and even those that aren't, often the cameras and film these days is simply too good to achieve the grainy effect of old movies, which many films still aspire to emulate. :p

And yes, some film grain can be done by the codec, but you first have to get them to trust it, and then to actually use it correctly; at this point I'm not sure any decoder does it anyway, so we can't even judge its effectiveness.

[niknik]

My point exactly. They have the tools... they should USE it properly.

Talking about if h264 decoders properly implement all those features, kinds of remind me of OpenGL and rendering implementations.... ;)
"This is a great movie, if you see it in XYZ graphic card, with full post-processing effects. On a cheaper card, you don't get to see the volumetric fog..."
eheheh.

[zambelli]

As for 1080i, 8gb can still hold its pace quite.
1080i and 1080p in the context of HDMI and player output typically refer to 30i or 60p. However, in the context of encoding films, we're really talking about 24p, so that's a non-issue.
Anyway... You're forgetting a key factor here: movie length. 1080/24p in 8 GB is not the same quality for "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Cat In a Hat". Remember that bitrate is expressed per second.

It's even harder to believe how countries that had HDTV for year s (unlike us in Europe, where most people doesn't even know what's that all about) could stand seeing HD content on their TVs, and then go and buy DVDs with a "lower" quality.
That's because most Americans still haven't: a) purchased HD displays, b) tuned their HD displays into actual HD signals. A recent study showed that an alarming number of HDTV owners thought just buying a high def set gives them high def. They didn't realize they were just watching SD on a better TV. :)
Last time I checked, I've seen NO dvd player that didn't have any sort of enhancment to the DVD spec: jpeg pictures, mp3 playing, etc.
But as long as it's not a standard, there will be legacy players out there that don't support it.

That would depend on what market you're talking about.
Of course. You should always assume "worst case scenario" when making such estimates. Everyone on this forum more or less belongs to a niche market. We're not the mainstream and that's a fact.

2) Consumers have the right to make copies (even if they're trying to outlaw that)
They'd argue that they own the content so they can make the rules. :)

They spend millions on copy protection, delay the launch because of that for nearly one year... What the point?
It wasn't just copy protection that delayed it. It simply wasn't ready from a technical standpoint. Suffice to say that first movie encodes were finished the month before launch. :)

[niknik]

Suffice to say that first movie encodes were finished the month before launch. :)
That's also what puzzles me...
You can find HD movies to download, and that's been happening for a LONG time before the players were to reach the market. (In fact, that's the only way most of us can watch HD content at the moment)

I wonder what the source of those movies.
Some are from TV HD broadcasts, you can see the "logo" on it, but others are free from any TV logo.

(and I'm not considering the latest trend of upscaling a DVD movie to make it pass as HD! ;)

[bob0r]

That's also what puzzles me...
You can find HD movies to download, and that's been happening for a LONG time before the players were to reach the market. (In fact, that's the only way most of us can watch HD content at the moment)

I wonder what the source of those movies.
Some are from TV HD broadcasts, you can see the "logo" on it, but others are free from any TV logo.

(and I'm not considering the latest trend of upscaling a DVD movie to make it pass as HD! ;)

Some Paid TV channels air the movies without logo, they are probably 1080i, correct?

[niknik]

Some Paid TV channels air the movies without logo, they are probably 1080i, correct?

Well, they're available in all shapes and sizes, but most sources are 1080i Mpeg2 transport streams - and then recoded to whatever ppl want.