LOL @ HD-DVD

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

12 Jul 2006, 05:10 PM
sethsez

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobalRox

The thing with Blu-Ray is that it's sound is totally UNCOMPRESSED.

And once they manage to crank out two-layer Blue Ray discs, this'll matter. As it is, the space just isn't there for good video, uncompressed audio, and extras (hell, the space isn't even there for good video at the moment with uncompressed audio).

Of course, HD-DVD also supports Dolby TrueHD (which is lossless audio compression) and DTS-HD (which can encode either lossless or lossy), so the quality argument is moot there anyway. Lossless compression is always better than purely uncompressed audio, so the benefit of straight PCM audio is slight at best and amounts to little more than dick waving on Sony's part.
12 Jul 2006, 05:14 PM
mollipen

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobalRox

I'm calling bullshit on 720p with DTS fitting on 700 MB.

It is BS. 720p Silent Hill trailer in h.264 from Apple's QuickTime site is 118MB for 6mbps bitrate, which looks good, but isn't an acceptable bitrate for a home theater HD format.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sethsez

And once they manage to crank out two-layer Blue Ray discs, this'll matter. As it is, the space just isn't there for good video, uncompressed audio, and extras (hell, the space isn't even there for good video at the moment with uncompressed audio).

And whoever needs to get this fixed ASAP needs to get this fixed ASAP. The first batch of Blu-Ray discs being MPEG2 stuffed into >25GB with uncompressed audio was ridiculous, but now that it sounds like this could keep happening it's inexcusable. Is Sony going to re-release the titles that are already out in order to make up for the crap versions that are out there now? (I swear to God, if I finally get Blu-Ray and the only version of Silent Hill is a half-assed release...) I can't begin to understand why, under this current situation, they don't switch to h.264 or VC-1 to make up for the lack of room they have.
12 Jul 2006, 05:19 PM
Wildkat

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobalRox

I'm calling bullshit on 720p with DTS fitting on 700 MB. If that were teh case, then we'd still get the extras on DVDs with DTS on them. You say better compression, etc... but that's exactly it, it's COMPRESSED. When you compress something, it's not as good. It's why an MP3 still isn't as good as a CD unless you really put the bitrate up, in which case you aren't saving much space at all. The thing with Blu-Ray is that it's sound is totally UNCOMPRESSED.

.

Psst. HD-DVD and blu-ray are compressed too.

Ever hear of lossless compression? Its pretty common.
12 Jul 2006, 05:26 PM
Tommy Tallarico

Quote:

Originally Posted by sethsez

You keep trying to draw comparisons to Steam

I'm not. I'm saying I like Steam. I'd like a movie version of it. I don't give a fuck if Steam is centralized to Valve and all that shit. It doesn't enter the argument at all. All I care about is the fact that a downloadable movie database would be fucking killer.
12 Jul 2006, 06:11 PM
Dolemite

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobalRox

And as mentioned before, when DVD first came out it was shitty too...

Yet the vast improvement of DVD over VHS (picture quality, not having to rewind, extra features) was instantly noticable. The jump from DVD to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray isn't anywhere near as drastic.

If anything, Blu-Ray is in some ways a regression. None of the movies released on it as of yet have ANY special features. Just the movie in HD and uncompressed audio tracks. Fuck that.
12 Jul 2006, 06:20 PM
kedawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobalRox

I'm calling bullshit on 720p with DTS fitting on 700 MB. If that were teh case, then we'd still get the extras on DVDs with DTS on them. You say better compression, etc... but that's exactly it, it's COMPRESSED. When you compress something, it's not as good. It's why an MP3 still isn't as good as a CD unless you really put the bitrate up, in which case you aren't saving much space at all. The thing with Blu-Ray is that it's sound is totally UNCOMPRESSED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shidoshi

It is BS. 720p Silent Hill trailer in h.264 from Apple's QuickTime site is 118MB for 6mbps bitrate, which looks good, but isn't an acceptable bitrate for a home theater HD format.

No, it's not bullshit.
I'm talking about a video file I actually downloaded and watched on my computer, and it looked fantastic.
Granted, it was some shitty travel show, but that has no bearing on the technical aspects of it.
Given the fact that my monitor, like almost all computer monitors, is better than every HDTV on the market today, I see no reason why the same content would be unacceptable for home theatre use.
12 Jul 2006, 07:16 PM
Shin Johnpv

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobalRox

Besides, as it stands right now I have ZERO HD On Demand and only 10 HD channels (12 if you count HBO and SHowtime)... the hold up right now is bandwidth, so it's going to continue to be a problem as I mentioned at the beginning ofthis post.

we have a specific On-Demand HD channel but like I said earlier every month what is available changes and for the last 2 - 3 months there's been nothing but shit available

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobalRox

The thing with Blu-Ray is that it's sound is totally UNCOMPRESSED.

yeah but both formats support codecs from both DD and DTS that are now lossless compression techniques that when they get uncompressed, give you bit for bit exactly the same signals as the uncompressed ones, personally I think that's going to be where most HD movies audio tracks go, itjust makese sense you get the exact same single at a smaller foot print

Quote:

Originally Posted by omfgninjas in iraq

I'm not. I'm saying I like Steam. I'd like a movie version of it. I don't give a fuck if Steam is centralized to Valve and all that shit. It doesn't enter the argument at all. All I care about is the fact that a downloadable movie database would be fucking killer.

do you have any idea how much storage space a downloadable movie database would require

especially at HD resolutions you're talking a warehouse just full of computers with hundreds of terrabytes on them to hold a fraction of the movies out there

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

A four-minute mp3 at 320kbps is like 12 megs... compared to 40-50 for the WAV.

use a lossless compression like flak itll still be larger than the MP3 but considerably smaller than the wav

Quote:

Originally Posted by shidoshi

I can't begin to understand why, under this current situation, they don't switch to h.264 or VC-1 to make up for the lack of room they have.

if I remember right and I could be wrong here but I do believe sony holds some patents on MPEG-2 hence why they want to stick with it and Microsoft has it's hands in h.264 and VC-1 hence their refusal to use it even though it would come in very handy right now with the current BR situation
12 Jul 2006, 07:18 PM
mollipen

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedawa

No, it's not bullshit.
I'm talking about a video file I actually downloaded and watched on my computer, and it looked fantastic.
Granted, it was some shitty travel show, but that has no bearing on the technical aspects of it.
Given the fact that my monitor, like almost all computer monitors, is better than every HDTV on the market today, I see no reason why the same content would be unacceptable for home theatre use.

Okay, let me clear something up here - I read wrong, and thought you were saying that a full length 720p movie could be compressed into 700MB without looking like utter ass.

Again just using the Silent Hill trailer as a rough example, we're looking at about 47MB/minute at 6mbps datarate. For a two hour movie you're looking at 5.6GB, and as I said before, I don't accept a data rate of 6mbps as a "legit" next-gen HD video format for serious uses. As well, the moment you start tossing on any extras, the video quality is going to suffer even more.

COULD you do 720p HD content on a DVD-9? Absolutely. Would you want to? I don't think so, at least not serious releases, and you also shouldn't be using 720p as your target. Once you bump up to 1080p, room runs out far more quickly.
12 Jul 2006, 07:23 PM
Shin Johnpv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dolemite

Yet the vast improvement of DVD over VHS (picture quality, not having to rewind, extra features) was instantly noticable. The jump from DVD to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray isn't anywhere near as drastic.

look at the article I posted again, people felt that DVD wasn't that big of an improvement over VHS or LD, and on a pure pixel basis HD is a much bigger jump over DVD than DVD was over VHS

Quote:

If anything, Blu-Ray is in some ways a regression. None of the movies released on it as of yet have ANY special features. Just the movie in HD and uncompressed audio tracks. Fuck that.

Yeah Blu Ray is sucking right now, and if Sony can't get this issues sorted out than they're going to be handing the market over to HD-DVD. From all the news lately I would say that the Blu Ray format just was not ready to ship to retailers yet. Sony is having problem making diodes and there's a problem getting dual layer discs working (BR's supposed big thing over HD-DVD). It really to me sounds like BR just was not ready but launched any way to try and fight HD-DVD's lead. I think this early launch before the product was really ready is going to be more of a problem for them than if they just let HD-DVD have this lead untill BR was truly ready. By ready I don't mean having movies out because every format launches with only a few things out for it, the library gets there. By ready I mean production in full gear with no problems, and having your media ready IE dual layer discs. I think the problems BR is having is much much worse than HD-DVD's intial players lacking 1080p, especially since supposedly that can be fixed with a firmware update.
12 Jul 2006, 07:26 PM
mollipen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv

if I remember right and I could be wrong here but I do believe sony holds some patents on MPEG-2 hence why they want to stick with it and Microsoft has it's hands in h.264 and VC-1 hence their refusal to use it even though it would come in very handy right now with the current BR situation

h.264 has nothing to do with MS's VC-1, except for both being an offshoot of MPEG4. Sony is part of MPEG LA, which is who handles the rights to h.264. What I've read is that, due to the differences in complexity between encoding in MPEG2 and h.264 (or VC-1), Sony is taking the easy way out and just trying to get stuff out the door instead of encoding their movies properly.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page