Blu-ray vs HD-DVD: what's wrong with quantum leap?

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
My observation...

- DivX HD trailers = Compression artifacts

- WMV HD trailers = Smooth / Low texture detail

And I dont even have one of this ultra-bright TFT monitors !!!But without having the same sources generated to high-def Mpeg2 to look at too, you can't really obtain a comparison :(

Originally posted by Soulhunter
Well, 24fps would be enough... ;)

All progressive 1920x1080 sources are 24fps (film) anyway, no ??? I really don't know of any true 1920x1080 high-def 24 frame progressive content!


Cheers

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital

I really don't know of any true 1920x1080 high-def 24 frame progressive content!

Seems all the WMV HD stuff (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_provider/wmvhddvd/default.aspx) is 24fps... ;)

At least one thing the m$ guys done right, huh?


Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital

But without having the same sources generated to high-def Mpeg2...

Sure they look better than MPEG2 @ the same bitrate !!!

What I meant is that the image quality could (and should) be better... >.<

But this means you have to use a higher bitrate, so its too huge for a DVD9 !!!


Bye

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
Seems the WMV HD stuff (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_provider/wmvhddvd/default.aspx) is 24fps... ;)

At least one thing the m$ guys done right, huh? Actually, I don't think I've seen any "live motion" HD-WMV encodes that contain 1920x1080 pixels... They all seem to contain 1440x1080 pixels... Even my T2 WMV DVD contains 1440x816 pixels ie: it's anamorphic!


Originally posted by Soulhunter
Sure they look better than MPEG2 @ the same bitrate !!!

What I meant is that the image quality could (and should) be better... >.<

But this means you have to use a higher bitrate = files too huge for a DVD9 !!! I did not mean that the bit-rate for Mpeg4 (or WMV) be the same as Mpeg2. The bit-rate should of course be no more than current Mpeg2 DVD bit-rates ;)


Cheers

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital

Actually, I don't think I've seen any "live motion" HD-WMV encodes that contain 1920x1080 pixels... They all seem to contain 1440x1080 pixels... Even my T2 WMV DVD contains 1440x816 pixels ie: it's anamorphic!

Well, this doesnt change the fact that "all" hollywood movies are initially filmed @ 24fps. So it shouldnt be a big prob for the studios to produce 24fps encodes from the celluloid raws. The question is if the HD-DVD/Blue-Ray specs allow this framerate (dunno), or just the "TV conform" PAL/NTSC mess we have on current DVDs... :\


Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital

I did not mean that the bit-rate for Mpeg4 (or WMV) be the same as Mpeg2. The bit-rate should of course be no more than current Mpeg2 DVD bit-rates ;)

Uhm, imo MPEG4 ASP (XviD) is just ~25% more efficient than MPEG2 (in the worst case) and ~50% (in the best case). WMV9 and MPEG4 AVC mainly scores @ medium/low bitrates imo! For bitrates that give transparent results the compression gain over MPEG4 ASP (XviD) is imo near like zero! Btw, do you consider the image quality (details n' artifacts, not resolution) of current DVDs as good?


Bye

[cyberVera]

@ukb008
the same happened when Intel wanted to call Prescott core a Pentium 5. Will you please give me a link?

I read it in German magazine called CHIP. November 2003 issue. They (Intel) even planned Tejas core (Pentium 6) ...
Whats there so unbelievable?
As for the quantum leap, I agree about flash media. Something which does not rotate and more secure to scratches. At least I have heard that Silicon Valley invested in biological researches more than ever, and I think artificial bio-structure is the future. Until that day, we will continue to use laser discs, which are nothing but the same vinyl records, just modern ones.
But maybe, there will be no discs very soon at all. Real quantum leap already happened: digital distrubution vs analog broadcasting. Maybe it will be something like "iMoves", and sooner than we expect. With audio it already happened. Media is not only a disc but also a way to distrubute it.

@bond
If we continue like that, we will be both struck for violation of the forum's rules :-) This thread is about consumer media progress.
Atrac and MP3:
1. In my opinion atrac, having the same frequency response, retains stereo-base better. Scene depth of mp3 is more distorted than that of atrac. There is no CBR codec which can give such a quality at bitrates lower than 128kbps. Its 96 and especially 105 are outstanding. MP3 at rates lower than 128 (112, 96) lacks crystality. It is just my opinion, and I do use Atrac3 for portable music (car/laptop/walkman).
2. Why Sony continues to support both Atrac and MP3 on their walkmans? Why not to leave just MP3 if it is far more superior to Atrac? Because it is not true, and people demand it. The evolution of Atrac proves that this technology is worth to bother with.
3. I do not trust any listening tests except my own ears. As for tests, I know about scientific listening experiments conducted by Intertek Testing Services (UK) and TESTFactory (Germany) with the opposite verdict to MP3. And I do not trust these tests also, although I am satisfied with their results (actually I found those results after I had chosen Atrac3; just one day I tried RealProducer and was amused with the audio).

atrac has never been discussed in the context of hd-dvd or blu-ray

What made you think it was? I just mentioned it to list some of Sony's technologies, and what happened to them.

from my point of view the reason why companies develop and use their own format is not because they are so progressive or whatnot, but because it gives them the possibility to exclude competition

:-) We all have this point of view. It is even not a point of view. It is just a fact.

I would sincerely prefer Blu-ray. But it will not win.

[dragongodz]

since compressions we're using are lossy, why don't we put uncompressed videos on discs? That will be well within our reach shortly.
you are kidding right ? do you realise how bug uncompressed would be ? not even Blu-Ray would be suitable. lossless compression i may understand but uncompressed no.
besides as people already note lossy compressions such as mpeg4 at higher bitrates look very very good.

[ukb008]

It's a risky business to be skeptical about projections. Terabyte Hard Disks aren't pipe-dreams; they are looming ahead. Why, 405 nm lasers have been developed, giving rise to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. What's the limiting Laser wavelength? Smaller figures will mean greatly multiplied data density.

And who says lasers have got to be needed? We may develop something else, entirely different. Remember, we're talking about quantum leap here, no less.

Regards.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
Well, this doesnt change the fact that "all" hollywood movies are initially filmed @ 24fps. So it shouldnt be a big prob for the studios to produce 24fps encodes from the celluloid raws. The question is if the HD-DVD/Blue-Ray specs allow this framerate (dunno), or just the "TV conform" PAL/NTSC mess we have on current DVDs... :\ Yes, it's my one big hope that the proposed new "blue laser" disc formats, will only offer film-to-digital encodes at 24fps progressive.

Originally posted by Soulhunter
Btw, do you consider the image quality (details n' artifacts, not resolution) of current DVDs as good?I think the over-all quality of the current DVD format has improved in the last couple of years.

Progressive DVD players and displays have helped. As has the entire film-to-Mpeg2 authoring process.

That said, being a PAL DVD buyer, it seems most movies are now encoded onto dual-layered single sided disc's. And I now find myself more than a little pissed-off that such DVD's are crammed full of "makings off, movie trailers, out-takes, advert for other movies, cast and crew interviews etc, etc" leaving very little bit-rate for the actual movie!

In my opinion the "movie" should be placed entirely on it's own DVD using as much bit-rate as possible :) Stick all the other crap on a separate DVD... I say!


Cheers

[ukb008]

People weaned on VHS and VCD will certainly find a big difference in picture quality when they view DVD. But, if we care to think objectively, we'll find that, while the picture-quality of DVDs is good, there's ample scope for it to be so much better.

The oldies, like King Kong (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024216/dvd) will probably never have a perfect DVD transfer, because of source material, among other things. The Kinowelt DVD that I have is a 1.33:1 transfer, while the original movie was in 1.37:1.

There's the possibility that original movie source material will improve over time, and with better materials and processes available, we may see a vastly improved picture quality over what is currently available in DVDs [sound, I suppose, is already good enough, and further improvements will be limited by our otological capacity].

All in all, I do suppose that Blu-Ray [or HD-DVD if you will] will provide perceptibly better picture quality for the connoissure, but only if, as SeeMoreDigital said, the extra space is not crammed with ancilliary tidbits instead of using it to raise the movie bitrate.

Tha end point of all this picture-quality improvement will again come when the limits of details-discernment capability of the human eye approaches close. Unless evolution produces better eyes...

How far are we from that point? Quite far, I should say. So there are possibilities...

Regards.

[Soulhunter]

Ok, on a normal TV the current DVDs look acceptable, but thats like saying "128kbps mp3s sound good as long as you listen them via 5 Euro headphones". C'mon, on high resolution displays most DVDs are far away from looking good! They are full with ringing and some even contain noticeable blocking artifacts! Not to mention the mastering faults like dumb EE sharpening which produces disturbing halos, or the crappy "let it float" denoising... >.<


Bye

[ukb008]

Doom9's newssheet has a gloomy news: while the convergence efforts have stalled (http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200505140123.html), the rivals are trying to outperform (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/19/tdk_four-layer_bd/) each other. So much for friendly talks and acknowledgement of the white flag hoisted.

Figures. The convergence issue, while holding so much interest to you and me, is, nonetheless, a distasteful one to the greedy behemoths in the warring camps. It's not ego. It's dollars, millions of 'em for all of them.

And Doom9 is right: this paves the way for the good old DVD to continue to reign, despite its limitations only discernible to the freaks like us at Doom9's.

Regards.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by ukb008
Doom9's newssheet has a gloomy news: while the convergence efforts have stalled (http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200505140123.html), the rivals are trying to outperform (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/19/tdk_four-layer_bd/) each other. So much for friendly talks and acknowledgement of the white flag hoisted.... Most probably the same thing will happen with "blue laser" media/players/recorders, as it did with "DVD+R/RW and DVD-R/RW" media/players/recorders....

ie: we will get two competing standards for a year or two. Before somebody decides to manufacture a player/recorder that can handle both ;)


Cheers

[ukb008]

Right. Machines capable of handling both...that's one neat solution. Even if the movie studios remain divided and release titles partly in this and partly in that format.

The consumer may probably have nothing to worry about...except for shelling out the few extra bucks for equipment that they could have spent in buying the discs.

Regards.