BD Players and HD content on DVDR (red laser) - 2nd roundup

[Ghitulescu]

When I did my first series of tests (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=146134) I was looking for a BD player that would be able to play both BD-R/E and DVD+-R/W, with both SD and HD material. I picked up a Pio 51FD and never been disappointed since.

Meanwhile I've managed to put some ARTE HD (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.arte.tv/de/alles-ueber/2153534.html&ei=Szk7S8O-HoGe_Abs1oTSAw&sa=X&oi=nshc&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAkQzgQoAA&usg=AFQjCNGGUk2XmYa3d0TriuSAR4ent1yh0A) documentaries on a DVDR.

Material: ARTE HD (720p50 AVCHD, 2 audio AC-3, 1 subtitle), authored with multiAVCHD 3.0 as BD output - 1 page of menu with thumbnails for chapters. DVDR Verbatim DVD-R 16x burnt (as usual) at 4x with ImgBurn with the default settings for BD. Note: 720p50 is not a valid BR resolution, but a valid AVCHD one.

The tested BD players and combos were all for the EU market (Germany). The firmware is unknown. Some of them were not connected to a TV, some of them did not have a remote controller near-by (some players need to press OK to start the movie, pressing PLAY didn't work).

Denon:
DVD1800BD - perfect.

Funai:
B1-M110 - perfect.
Note: Funai is the OEM for many BD players around, eg the Denon above.

Harman-Kardon:
BDP-10 - perfect.

JVC:
NX-BD3 - perfect.

LG:
BD350 - perfect.
BD370 - the strangest gear in the test - it showed the menu, it worked perfectly, including the subtitles, but no image at all (it displayed the last valid image). I never saw such a behaviour before nor I could imagine one like this.
HB954SA - ejects the DVDR.

Marantz:
BD7004 - perfect.

Panasonic:
All Pannies "did not recognise" the DVDR.
BD60 - X
BD80 - X
SA-BT200 - X
My condoleancies to all Panasonic owners, be sure to check the patched DVDRs also against other fabricats, its blue laser won't last too much, so you might be in need to change the player.

Philips:
BDP5000 - probably OK. It wasn't connected to a TV so no image check. The only gear that remembered the playing position also after the DVDR was ejected.

Pionner:
BCS-FS200 - probably ok. Not connected to a TV but the behaviour was ok (including the sound, it's a combo).
BDP-120 - ejects the DVDR.
BDP-51FD - perfect.
BDP-LX52 - ok. Well, 250€ more make the difference.
LX-03BD - probably ok - not connected to a TV.

Samsung:
BD-P4610XEG - perfect.
BD-P1580 - perfect
BD-P2500 - so far so good, but no RC , PLAY didn't start the movie.
Sharp:
HP21 - X as expected

Sony:
BDV-IT1000 - probably ok, no RC available, PLAY didn't start the movie.
BDV-Z7 - perfect
BDP-S760 - perfect
HTP-BD36F - perfect

Available but not connected: Yamaha (it's the Funai), Denon 2500 (should behave like its little brother), Marantz 400x, Loewe (but it's a Sharp), Pana SA-BT205, JVC XV-BP1 (it's almost an LG 390), some new Sonies (they should perform like their cousins, however a German magazine said that the 560 is not able to play a lot of "gray" material).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

What was the purpose of this test?

Well, the next available HD content besides BD is the HDTV. While some players know a bit of MKV, they limit its size to 4GB (FAT32 hehe) which is unusable in practice. The BD-devices are still expensive, at least in Germany, also the good quality BDRs.

If one can live with a logo, the free HDTV providers may become the bulk providers for both movies and dokus. However, while movies are easy to be found, the good dokus are not.

-=-=-=-=-

Well, I did this test since I've made (after long tries) my first BD-5 using H.264 with multi audio and subtitles from SAT HDTV, everything kept in synch. Out of curiosity I just checked all the BD players the available to me and I considered that it would be nice to share this info with you. As I said, out of the 3 legal sources for HDTV material a private may have (HD camcorder, BD, HDTV SAT/Cable - the last two on the gray zone;)), it's the SAT that poses the most problems, like in the good old days (SD TV -> DVD, remember patching 544 to 720?). While it's not a buying guide, it provides however one particular information that might help.

[LigH]

I am already looking forward to seeing HD documentaries like "Big Brother HD" and "Jungle Stars HD" on the programmes... ;)

Interesting test. The compatibility beyond BD specs (means: no rejection just due to a different medium, as known from many DVD players before) is surprisingly good. Many manufacurers may have understood the advantage of a rather loose firmware.

[Ghitulescu]

The compatibility beyond BD specs (means: no rejection just due to a different medium, as known from many DVD players before) is surprisingly good. Many manufacurers may have understood the advantage of a rather loose firmware.

The reason I've used the BD output and not the AVCHD one of multiAVCHD was the presence of subtitles. These are not part of the AVCHD standard, despite some AVCHD-compatible players still can play AVCHD with subtitles.

Should I have used the AVCHD output maybe the results were better (I count here the LGs and maybe the Pannies, as no hope for Sharps). Some LGs require the book type of DVD+R (and not DVD-ROM), maybe this was another cause why the LGs refused the disk.

My 51FD correctly identifies each type of DVDR despite the DVD-ROM booking of all my DVD+Rs.

[setarip_old]

@Ghitulescu

Hi!Panasonic:
All Pannies "did not recognise" the DVDR.
BD60 - X
BD80 - X
SA-BT200 - X
My condoleancies to all Panasonic owners, be sure to check the patched DVDRs also against other fabricats, its blue laser won't last too much, so you might be in need to change the player.

You might want to explore multiAVCHD, as it contains a Panasonic-specific fix...

[Ghitulescu]

You might want to explore multiAVCHD, as it contains a Panasonic-specific fix...

That's why I said this:

be sure to check the patched DVDRs also against other fabricats, its blue laser won't last too much, so you might be in need to change the player.
As I don't have a Panny I don't have to use the fix so I don't know if the fixed disk works in other gear as well or is a Panny-only solution.

[deank]

Panasonic output modes in multiAVCHD are not 'fixes'. They are standard/compliant AVCHD modes, with specific to Panasonic AVCHD extensions in bdmv/mpls/clpi files. One major difference with other modes is the lack of chapters in SDHC modes, because pannys (and camcoders) use 'scenes' and not chapters.

[Ghitulescu]

Thank you Dean for clarifying this.

However, additions to standards that work in a specific device while preventing that device from using the regular features (I'm talking in general, probably the best example is the GSM cellphone <-> accessories case) is not only a "fix" but also a marketing strategy, a monopole issue (under antitrust laws, both in the US and EU) and/or a customer rights infringement. That's BTW the reason I won't buy Sony (MemoryStick, however if you want a profi DSLR you'll find there the CompactFlash slot too).

I will still continue to consider the Panasonic issue a fix, because without this patch/fix their gear won't play standard AVCHD disks (reports on the German Doom9 forum show that the Panasonic output of multiAVCHD is compatible with most if not all Pannies). When I tested their DVD add-on to HD camcorders (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=146134), the created AVCHD disk was UDF 2.60. It's their choice to promote their ware through agressive marketing and paid tests, but I think the customer should be informed about these issues. If one looks into my previous test, would also find that the Pannies refused to play anything recordable that doesn't have these extentions to the standard. The funniest (sadest) issue is that Pana manufactures the Uniphier chip, which is used by Funai to provide the chassis for some Pannies but also for big names (Denon 1800/2500/3800, Onkyo and Yamaha), the latter having no [or less] problems. So it's not a hardware limitation (like eg the debate Sigma-MediaTek) but a strong will.

I can hardly wait for the first Toshiba BD SAPs and devices (it's one year now), my experience told me that Toshiba is the only company that implements the standards in their strictest form.

[deank]

My comment about Panasonic is related only to AVCHD written to SDHC card. DVD output is fully compatible with Panasonic, be it AVCHD DVD or Blu-ray.

[Ghitulescu]

Thank you Dean for commenting on this issue. You are indeed one of the most authorised people to speak about this issue.

As I explained above, my intention was to burn a BD-5/9 disc with SAT HDTV content, disk that is compatible with my Pio and desirably with other models, since it won't last forever (well, my Pio DVD is still "fresh" even after some 7 years now). It was not a test as in the magazines, but I felt that would be a nice share for other people.

The day when the BD burners fall under the 100€ price tag, I'll redo the test on a BD-R/E. I'll repeat the test also when I'll have a 1080i sample from SAT HDTV (I do have a sample, but I wait for something worth to be archived as my Verbatim MIT reserve is dangerously low).

Nevertheless, The Pannies were the few players that refused to play a commercial BD (VC-1) backed up on a DVDR. The other ones were the Sharps, which generally refuse recordable media (a firmware upgrade is available - but not tested by me). I mean as a whole, ie any gear coming from these companies.

The second test also make me wonder if I'll ever have a Panasonic camcorder as I intended once.
---------------
BTW, I have also to share that my Pio refuses to play the same content that was processed by tsmuxergui. The reason I presume was the presence of at least one MP2 audio track. Passing it through multiAVCHD did the trick, as multiAVCHD reencoded the audio to AC-3. MultiAVCHD also solved my delay problem.

[deank]

Thank you Dean for commenting on this issue...

BTW, I have also to share that my Pio refuses to play the same content that was processed by tsmuxergui. The reason I presume was the presence of at least one MP2 audio track. Passing it through multiAVCHD did the trick, as multiAVCHD reencoded the audio to AC-3. MultiAVCHD also solved my delay problem.

I have to add something most people do not realize. multiAVCHD's AVCHD output (for DVD, BD-R and SDHC/USB) has nothing to do with tsMuxeR's 'AVCHD disc' output. Although tsMuxeR is used for muxing - that's it - muxing. AVCHD is not just 8.3 filenames and 'patched' index.bdmv file - it is much more complicated to author than Blu-ray HDMV.

That's the main reason for so many tests to fail when trying/testing AVCHD in AVCHD-ready/Blu-ray players. If AVCHD is not authored properly (for example with tsMuxeR) - test results may mislead users. That's the reason for many complaints about Panasonic - it just wants true AVCHD, nothing else. Playstation3 for example is a major exception of this rule, but that's another subject.

And something more about AVCHD vs. Blu-ray. AVCHD is a standard which:

1) features a subset of Blu-ray standard functionallity
2) extends some video resolution support, not found in Blu-ray
3) adds structure update functionality - that's the major difference and the cornerstone.

AVCHD's index, playlist and clipinfo files have very complicated and extended structure to allow video-content editing on-the-fly (adding/removing clips) by a camcoder/DVR device, it holds manufacturer information and playback restrictions, recording equipment identification (model/make of a camcoder/DVR/software), PAL/NTSC region information, virtual playlists, recording/creation dates and times and many *many* other things. And it all is just for solid media and DVD (USB, SDHC, DVD-R), but Sony has its own path of developing AVCHD for HDD capable camcoders and then all goes to hell (read as: I spent few months trying to understand the format and it is still no go)...

Compared to the AVCHD, Blu-ray HDMV files are much easier to read and understand.

Sorry for my off-topic posts, but just wanted to clarify things. :)

[Ghitulescu]

but Sony has its own path of developing AVCHD for HDD capable camcoders and then all goes to hell (read as: I spent few months trying to understand the format and it is still no go)...

Have a look here
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1898409A1.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20080212223.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20080019670.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090129738.pdf

but good infos are also here
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP2053610A1.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP2058813A1.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090110376.pdf

Maybe it helps ;)

[laserfan]

Sorry for my off-topic posts, but just wanted to clarify things. :)
No problem there! We need all the clarification we can get! :D

But...when do you find time to code deank!? ;)

[deank]

Have a look here ... but good infos are also here

Maybe it helps ;)

:) Thanks... I browsed a lot of documents from this site and will look again!

The problem with these patents is that it is not really clear if any manufacturer actually implemented them into real units, available on the market :)

Most information I can get is from sample structures/files, reverse engeneering and patent applications from 2008 and 2009, which is *really* an early stage for the technology. At least we won't need 5 years like we did with DVD-authoring. :)

But...when do you find time to code deank!? ;)

Umm... I just happened to have a pretty cool job (as a programmer) which doesn't require me to go to the office (and still get the work done quickly), so I get all the time in the world :) + I sleep just 5-6 hours a night. :cool:

***

@Ghitulescu: I think it will be a good thing to test AVCHD output written to DVD-R media with various players.

Dean

p.s. Have a great New Year's Eve, guys!

[Ghitulescu]

Before anyone got the wrong idea, the output of multiAVCHD was BD and not AVCHD. The reason was that the AVCHD does not support subtitles, however there are many units outthere that actually do play AVCHD with subtitles.

:) Thanks... I browsed a lot of documents from this site and will look again!

The problem with these patents is that it is not really clear if any manufacturer actually implemented them into real units, available on the market :)

Most information I can get is from sample structures/files, reverse engeneering and patent applications from 2008 and 2009, which is *really* an early stage for the technology. At least we won't need 5 years like we did with DVD-authoring. :)

Well, while this is not 100% certain, the units already on the market should nevertheless be "compatible" with the patents (own or licenced), otherwise infringements procedures may follow. So there is a certain delay between the filing date (not publishing) of a patent and the devices on the market.

[Ghitulescu]

When I did my first series of tests (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=146134) I was looking for a BD player that would be able to play both BD-R/E and DVD+-R/W, with both SD and HD material. I picked up a Pio 51FD and never been disappointed since.

Meanwhile I've managed to put some ARTE HD (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.arte.tv/de/alles-ueber/2153534.html&ei=Szk7S8O-HoGe_Abs1oTSAw&sa=X&oi=nshc&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAkQzgQoAA&usg=AFQjCNGGUk2XmYa3d0TriuSAR4ent1yh0A) documentaries on a DVDR.

Material: ARTE HD (720p50 AVCHD, 2 audio AC-3, 1 subtitle), authored with multiAVCHD 3.0 as BD output - 1 page of menu with thumbnails for chapters. DVDR Verbatim DVD-R 16x burnt (as usual) at 4x with ImgBurn with the default settings for BD. Note: 720p50 is not a valid BR resolution, but a valid AVCHD one.
......
LG:
BD370 - the strangest gear in the test - it showed the menu, it worked perfectly, including the subtitles, but no image at all (it displayed the last valid image). I never saw such a behaviour before nor I could imagine one like this.
......
Pionner:
BDP-160 - ejects the DVDR.

I acquired in the meantime these two players.
So the BD370 that I have happily plays the DVDRs obtained from ARTE HD material. I don't know which FW it has, but it doesn't react to cinavia.
The Pioneer BDP-160, made by Sharp, refuses to play HD content on DVDRs. It play them just wonderful from the USB, so if it's a copyright enforcement then it's rather a flop. It may otherwise be that it refuses to play 720p50 only, I'll do some tests later, when I'll get some 1080i or 1080p sources.

Yes, I know that BDR writing is of low quality, that the prices are high, and therefore people prefer to store the movies on solid state media (like USB sticks, external HDDs, or even NAS). Yet I still believe that optical media are still providing a few advantages over these, like the write-only (no accidental deletion), minimizing losses (should the HDD crash) etc.

[von Suppé]

Yes, I know that BDR writing is of low quality,
How do you mean this; in comparison to dvd-r writing?

[Ghitulescu]

How do you mean this; in comparison to dvd-r writing?

In comparison to every single optical media.
BDR writing, even with good'ol discs, yields a too much initial error rate. That means that the "apparent goodness duration" is much lower than that of their predecessors. There are reports that people claimed the freshly burned BDR could not be played back - a "performance" the CDR reached only after 12-15 years and the DVDR in less than 10 years.
I have to test the durability of M-discs but according to their inventors it's like raising a turtle to see if it reaches 300 years old :).

[LigH]

Oooh, I know DVD-R brands too which were unreadable just after burning... Possible that the burner firmware misinterpreted or did not correctly support the media code; possible also that they were fake discs by low quality producers. But I do remember that some of them were sold with the brand "intenso" and "Sky".

[von Suppé]

I've had my experience with unplayable discs also. Up till this day I can only say it was because of bad (brand) media and bad hardware.
There's a lot of discussion on the internet about the quality of media and burners itself. I wonder if anybody's found a "golden match" of a) media brand/type and b) writer brand/type, which would be more than the sum of the two. Not taking into account standalone's hard/firmware preferences. And that besides hardware and media, the initial result of a burned disc also depends on the quality of authoring- and burning-software.
But indeed, as for expirement, how to test? I would agree that you can really tell after waiting a whole expirement-test period. Otherwise you'd be lifting that turtle.

I know my burner came with software that's able to scan a burned disc and show these "quality-related parameters" in a graph. Great, but also this is a real-time snapshot and would say nothing about future conditions.
Talking about expensive, in the old days I played laserdiscs (sometimes still do). I kept one, just because of a phenomenon I had never heard of: laserdisc-rot, they called it (from dutch). The shiny - metal? -layer is decoloured (yellow/brownish) and therefore looks a bit like oxydation.
Who can ever tell some things like this will not happen with modern/future media.

[Ghitulescu]

I excluded the burners and media that did not match. My first burner, a NEC ND-1300, was bought by comparing the burning results, published by a few PC magazines, with the media I had the possibility to use. One very good brand back then was OCTRON of LIDL which was Maxell in disguise but made by Ritek IIRC (4x and 8x only). Those I have also today, after some 10 years or more, and still provide lower PI/PO than current discs.
So I am talking about what can one obtain for the best.
Nevertheless, it suffices that one takes a BDR in hand and compare it with a DVDR. If that one is lucky he might have an old DVDR (that BTW costed so much back then like a BDR today :) ), he might notice the same.

Just one comment, the software does not affect the writing results. It may however produce incompatible discs (discs that do not work because they are not understood, not because they can't be read). Also the software may help by giving access to some functions, official or not, which indirectly may affect the quality. The best place to improve is the firmware, because the chemistry of the discs cannot be improved, apparently.

Discussions on internet are BTW endless, and mainly because the situation changes continuously, in particular new brands and media appear, while the informations from one source does not compare with the ones from another source.

[von Suppé]

the software does not affect the writing results
I don't fully agree.
First, my phrase "initial result" also included playability in general. Not 100% compatibly authored discs may/may not play in a player. Also, for instance, the "rom" setting in ImgBurn can make a difference for BD players. Of course these things are compatibility issues.
But I think that burning software - think of eg. write-speed settings - has direct physical effect on the burning process --> and therefore it's quality, whether it be positive or negative.

[Ghitulescu]

But I think that burning software - think of eg. write-speed settings - has direct physical effect on the burning process --> and therefore it's quality, whether it be positive or negative.
The burning speed cannot be imposed by the software - even if some poorly written writing software may claim they can burn at eg 12x, if the drive won't support this speed it will default to one of the existing ones (usually the nearest lower speed, eg 10x).
I use imgburn BTW after a long use of Nero (stopped at 6 IIRC, when I was aware that imgburn appeared). The only time when I revert to Nero is for audio CDs, whose tracks I have in FLAC, as Nero is able to burn them on-the-fly (all others not being capable of). I lack the convenience of writing offset compensation of EAC, and the multi-choice environment of Imgburn, but for audio CDs I compile Nero is still ok, and it came with the computer BTW.