Bay HD comments

[nelson]

Discuss....

[Bumblebee1983]

Thanks Nelson....wasn't sure where to post my thoughts, so I jumped in there.

It really really sucks that HD is only taking off here in America, whereas Blu ray is taking off in Europe. I don't understand the logic in that at all. :(

[mrsmith]

Thanks Nelson....wasn't sure where to post my thoughts, so I jumped in there.

It really really sucks that HD is only taking off here in America, whereas Blu ray is taking off in Europe. I don't understand the logic in that at all. :(
Fear not. As far as HD-DVD is concerned, you need look only to the last most recent quarterly NPD standalone sales figures, which showed HD-DVD with a huge 53% to 44% lead and, separately, with a 69% sales lead in Europe. And what do you think the HD-DVD equivalent figures will be for THIS quarter ending this month, which will include the 90,000-plus HD-DVD one-day player sale? Universal, Paramount and Warners have all said they discount GAME machine sales and do not want to tie their financial fortunes to them. Europeans are no less price conscious than are Americans, and it is just a matter of time that the intrinsic cost advantages of the HD-DVD format will provide the same result over the pond as here. All together now, SAY BYE-BYE TO BLU-RAY!

[nathan alexander]

Discuss... discuss what?!! I can't believe it!!! If Bay had come in here and mentioned the weather, would you guys be discussing it?!!:confused:

[Chemical Superfreak]

i too am not sure what comments we're discussing, and i prefer blu-ray, but have yet to purchase. Isn't Bay's entire filmography except Trans going to be released on Bluray?

[dobyblue]

Fear not. As far as HD-DVD is concerned, you need look only to the last most recent quarterly NPD standalone sales figures, which showed HD-DVD with a huge 53% to 44% lead and, separately, with a 69% sales lead in Europe. And what do you think the HD-DVD equivalent figures will be for THIS quarter ending this month, which will include the 90,000-plus HD-DVD one-day player sale? Universal, Paramount and Warners have all said they discount GAME machine sales and do not want to tie their financial fortunes to them. Europeans are no less price conscious than are Americans, and it is just a matter of time that the intrinsic cost advantages of the HD-DVD format will provide the same result over the pond as here. All together now, SAY BYE-BYE TO BLU-RAY!

Cut the crap - Warner have said no such thing. Their #1 title is "300" on Blu-ray and it's cracked 250,000 copies - the HD DVD version is not even close. Dan Silverberg attributed the strong sales of "300" to Blu-ray playback in the PlayStation 3 and he's the Vice President of HD Media Development for Warner. So either you're lying, or he is.

Someone seems to be a little misinformed, Blu-ray is taking off everywhere.

Software sales are what the studios look at to see who's winning and where the sales are they will go - the hardware will follow the software.

Blu-ray disc sales vs. HD DVD sales
USA - 2:1
Europe - 3:1
Australia - 5.6:1
Japan 9:1

The only place in the world where HD DVD has any legs at all is in North America, where it has not won a single week's sales all entire year. That's right, Blu-ray has beated HD DVD every week of the year in software sales.

Hardware numbers:

North America
HD DVD - 750,000 (Standalones + 360 add-ons)
Blu-ray - 2,700,000 (Standalones + PlayStation 3)

Say bye-bye to HD DVD - by January 2009 the better format will prevail. More bandwidth, more capacity, more studio support, more big name director support (Bay, Spielberg), more CE support.

The only reason HD DVD standalone prices are so low is because Toshiba is desperate - unfortunately 500,000 standalones amounts to squat, because HD DVD is still losing every week. Black Friday, the biggest shopping day in America - Blu-ray won the week with 72.6% of the disc units moved, HD DVD had only 27.4% - despite selling 90,000 cheap players two weeks before. I guess a lot of people were upgrading their 360 add-on units, because they're handicapped in the audio front being limited to DVD-quality audio.

Toshiba has priced out all other manufacturers from HD DVD standalone hardware. No-one else will make one! There's no money in it.

Blu-ray is going to win this war and anyone that tries to convince you differently has an agenda and quite possibly works for Microsoft. There is no future for high definition media as long as there are two formats around.

People have been lied to by the HD DVD camp so much - that Blu-ray would never have 50GB discs (65.07% of releases in 2007 have been on 50GB discs) that Blu-ray would only ever use MPEG-2 (76.53% of releases in 2007 have either been AVC/MPEG-4 or VC-1) and I think you should be tired of being lied to. I am. I went Blu in November 2006 and I have not looked back since. It is far more consistent for audio and has a much more promising future than HD DUD.

[dobyblue]

i too am not sure what comments we're discussing, and i prefer blu-ray, but have yet to purchase. Isn't Bay's entire filmography except Trans going to be released on Bluray?

Pretty much - all his major releases are either from Sony/Columbia or Disney/Buena Vista.

Thank God - Disney's releases so far have been awesome. Panasonic does all of their AVC/MPEG-4 encodes and add in 24-bit uncompressed PCM!! The Rock is going to be sick!

Out on Blu-ray in Europe already, out in USA in January 2008.

Although "The Island" was Paramount/Dreamworks which means it won't be released on BLu-ray until January 2009 when Paramount's exclusivity contract with the HD DVD Propaganda Group ends. However it is available from the UK on both Blu-ray and HD DVD and it's region free as well, as is the case with all of Warner's Blu-ray discs.

I have already imported it - I posted some scans of the cover and disc here - http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=21232

[TIMtationX]

And those dirt cheap HD-DVD players aren't even full HD 1080p.

[wingzero]

Fear not. As far as HD-DVD is concerned, you need look only to the last most recent quarterly NPD standalone sales figures, which showed HD-DVD with a huge 53% to 44% lead and, separately, with a 69% sales lead in Europe. And what do you think the HD-DVD equivalent figures will be for THIS quarter ending this month, which will include the 90,000-plus HD-DVD one-day player sale? Universal, Paramount and Warners have all said they discount GAME machine sales and do not want to tie their financial fortunes to them. Europeans are no less price conscious than are Americans, and it is just a matter of time that the intrinsic cost advantages of the HD-DVD format will provide the same result over the pond as here. All together now, SAY BYE-BYE TO BLU-RAY!

Sorry, but.. are you either a Microsoft or Toshiba employee, perhaps ?
Because current numbers are quite the opposite, you know ...
Everyone is buying Blu-Ray hardware and media right now. 90% of hardware manufacturers worldwide are releasing Blu-Ray devices, while Toshiba is practically all alone releasing its own products.
The Sony Playstation3 is gaining momentum and a huge boost is expected in the next few weeks for the holidays... and almost everyone is using the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player, despite some HD-DVD supporters telling the opposite.

I loved Transformers and I bought a XBox360 HD-DVD player for my HTPC just for that but I'm going to buy a PS3 now as well and I will mainly buy Blu-Ray titles, hoping that once the format war will be over there will be movies released on upcoming 6-layer 200GB Blu-Ray discs, which are highly likely to be readable by the majority of current players thru firmware updates.

And what Mr.Bay said is just the truth. Bill Gates wants to estabilish a monopoly on movies distribution and sales thru Microsoft own online systems along with Microsoft DRM schemes.

[vekt35]

I think the discussion of HD on this board shows a great hippocracy because so many claim its unfair that HD-DVD got Transformers exclusive from Paramount but really who started that fight to begin with. The blame squarely lands on Sony just by the nature of the fact they went around the consortium signing up exclusive deals with Fox and Disney to start. Unless anyone can prove it otherwise the only reason to go Exclusive so early on with out waiting for a winning format is money.

From a pure AV quality standpoint saying Blu Ray is vastly superior is VASTLY incorrect especially when you consider that VC-1 only needs 30 mbps on bit rate to provide the best picture possible in 1080p and the rest of the bandwidth can be utilized using Dolby True HD (lossless audio). While this can be done on current 30 GB disc rather well, the 51 gb discs increase platter size to 17gb from 15gb utilizing the same disc dimensions. The reason to mention this is, much like blu ray has 25 gig a disc giving 48 mbps, it increases the amount of data/bit rate of the reading device for HD-DVD from 36 mbps to 40 mbps. This makes the bit rate/Quality discussion even more laughable as currently neither format is really pushing 36mbps.

I just dont see how one can pick a format in this discussion on anything other than price as quality is equal between both. Sony has never had a history of being very friendly on the price of their products and I dont expect them to change that even if they win. Its like the cable company in my eyes the prices actually could go up if Sony wins out.

I would say the violations Sony have committed on consumers in general make them as suspect as Microsoft in any facet of technology. All you need to do is google Sony and Root kit for one example.

Sorry if i sound a little pissed off but it seems like no one puts in a constructive argument on this site for HD-DVD and it is really a great format which has been unfairly disparaged by the like of Blu Ray and its cult. Paramounts decision to move on to HD-DVD basically makes it even in my eyes because Sony, Fox, and Disney haven't necessarily been that great in releasing on both formats from the start (as in they don't). So crying that you dont have Transformers on Blu Ray is just hypocritical.


ok I'm well vented now, enjoy!

[vekt35]

Sorry, but.. are you either a Microsoft or Toshiba employee, perhaps ?
Because current numbers are quite the opposite, you know ...
Everyone is buying Blu-Ray hardware and media right now. 90% of hardware manufacturers worldwide are releasing Blu-Ray devices, while Toshiba is practically all alone releasing its own products.
The Sony Playstation3 is gaining momentum and a huge boost is expected in the next few weeks for the holidays... and almost everyone is using the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player, despite some HD-DVD supporters telling the opposite.

I loved Transformers and I bought a XBox360 HD-DVD player for my HTPC just for that but I'm going to buy a PS3 now as well and I will mainly buy Blu-Ray titles, hoping that once the format war will be over there will be movies released on upcoming 6-layer 200GB Blu-Ray discs, which are highly likely to be readable by the majority of current players thru firmware updates.

And what Mr.Bay said is just the truth. Bill Gates wants to estabilish a monopoly on movies distribution and sales thru Microsoft own online systems along with Microsoft DRM schemes.

The funny thing is they can try but it will never get market acceptance unless its dirt cheap meaning less than a dollar a rental. I would hope someone would really see the reason why microsoft is in the war heavily.
It is for the most obvious reason of all.

To beat the Sony PS3

All other objectives come much later down the road I assure you. If Blu Ray were to win out that would be a huge boon to the PS3 as it would be the player of choice and then hence Sony has a backdoor back into the console market in which they currently sit 4th behind wii 360 and ps2.

I think the speculation they are in it to kill both formats is just over hyped paranoia.

[Houston2007]

Let's think about why would you openly critisize a American Company to support a Japanese Company who don't give a Damn about the consumers. I assume that Universal do not want to support Blu-Ray because they have to kiss Sony's ass for everything. Sony basically doesn't support Adult Industry and denied them to Blu-Ray format.

I think Michael Bay need to shop and buy a PS3 and Xbox 360 and play them online. A week after Black Friday it's hard to find a Xbox 360 Premium or Elite. Wii are even rare for 30 minutes for store cameo appereance. Michael then should realize by the time you get the PS3 you got to get up and go buy a HDMI doen't come in the box that's separate purchase. Xbox 360 Elite has one in it's box. Xbox 360 HD-DVD addon is separate too. but When shopping Mike should see the Blu-Ray Prices of Disney and Fox they some place $39.99 but at least $29.99. Only reasons sales been high because of Buy 1 Get 1 Free. I been getting both I like movies. Meaning long as it was price $29.99 it wasn't moving. HD-DVDs have cheaper prices. Let's go to onliner gaming. You have more happy gamers playing 360 Online. There's at least 348,000 playing Halo 3 Worldwide and at least 50,000 playing Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare. Why is this because of lenghty development times and high manufacture cost of Blu-Ray, doen't exactly entice more developers because they don't want to lose money on a non-penetration of sales. If that doesn't wake him up he needs to go to Video Marketplace where he's bashing Microsoft. There are 8 Million Xbox Live Subscribers. That means if and when Transformers do be released then you got the best rental on Video Marketplace at $4 SD and $6 HD in US Canada, and UK. This will get you millions instantly. Right now the main backer of Blu-Ray doesn't have a online video store for the PS3. Recently Sony announced that the closing of their Sony Connect Store because they could't compete with iTunes. As of now Sony doesn't have a profitable online entertainment retails services. There alot to be said before start mud slinging. Mike needs to look at the overall picture before acussing or bribery.

[demon148]

its funny everyone dissing HD DVD in fav of Blu-Ray, why? both formats use the same compression in both audio and video, both are at :-

1920 x 1080 (HDTV)
AVC MPEG-4, VC-1, MPEG-2
Dolby Digital Plus, DTS, Dolby Digital, DTS-HD, DTS-HD Master Audio (lossless), Dolby TrueHD (lossless)
Advanced Access Content System (AACS) 128-bit (BD+, ROM Mark=BD Only)
Both Use Blue lasers in their drives.

the only differences are the Maximum data transfer rate for movie playback (Megabits per second) Which HD DVD is = 36mbps and Blu-Ray is 54mbps and the other is the size of the discs themselves.

even if Microsoft loose the format war, they'll still be making money from Blu-Ray as sony uses Microsoft VC-1 (Based on Windows Media Video 9) compression for some of their Blu-Ray Movies.

Yes Michael Bay wanted Transformers to be release on Blu-Ray and HD DVD as he wanted it to be on the best formats possible, but obviously this was prohibited due to it been Paramount, but Michael Bay also saw 300 on HD DVD and relised and he said "IT ROCKS" taken from the site http://www.michaelbay.com/blog/files/Michael-Bay-HD-DVD.html

[wingzero]

From a pure AV quality standpoint saying Blu Ray is vastly superior is VASTLY incorrect especially when you consider that VC-1 only needs 30 mbps on bit rate to provide the best picture possible in 1080p and the rest of the bandwidth can be utilized using Dolby True HD (lossless audio). While this can be done on current 30 GB disc rather well, the 51 gb discs increase platter size to 17gb from 15gb utilizing the same disc dimensions. The reason to mention this is, much like blu ray has 25 gig a disc giving 48 mbps, it increases the amount of data/bit rate of the reading device for HD-DVD from 36 mbps to 40 mbps. This makes the bit rate/Quality discussion even more laughable as currently neither format is really pushing 36mbps.


1) VC-1 is an inferior codec. It's actually an hack of the WMV9 Codec which was a Microsoft own implementation of MPEG-4 ASP (which came way before MPEG-4 Part 10 AVC H.264). Microsoft had to make the specifications go public to get a broader adoption and a few tweaks and modifications thru proposal by the committees led to what VC-1 is now. Its quality is lower than H.264, all the tweaks couldn't make it better than MPEG-4 AVC anyway. Fortunately the Transformers HD-DVD release is encoded in H.264 and not in VC-1.
2) Just as an example, Casino Royale Blu-Ray disc has 36Mbps peaks and it's MPEG-4 AVC H.264 1080p encoded. The 144 minutes movie alone is 35GB in size. This is true for many new movies. The extras on the BD-50 disc make use of 47GB out of the 50GB available.
3) The 3-layer HD-DVD 51GB discs are just marketing hype, no one is going to mass produce them, there will be no real adoption on the market. While the Blu-Ray 6-layer 200GB discs are highly likely going to be available to the market pretty soon, and if the HD-DVD disappears the studios will push adoption of BD 200GB discs and an updated BD profile specification to allow even higher allowed bitrates for video mainly to ensure less compression artifacts.

[TIMtationX]

its funny everyone dissing HD DVD in fav of Blu-Ray, why? both formats use the same compression in both audio and video, both are at :-

1920 x 1080 (HDTV)
AVC MPEG-4, VC-1, MPEG-2
Dolby Digital Plus, DTS, Dolby Digital, DTS-HD, DTS-HD Master Audio (lossless), Dolby TrueHD (lossless)
Advanced Access Content System (AACS) 128-bit (BD+, ROM Mark=BD Only)
Both Use Blue lasers in their drives.

the only differences are the Maximum data transfer rate for movie playback (Megabits per second) Which HD DVD is = 36mbps and Blu-Ray is 54mbps and the other is the size of the discs themselves.

even if Microsoft loose the format war, they'll still be making money from Blu-Ray as sony uses Microsoft VC-1 (Based on Windows Media Video 9) compression for some of their Blu-Ray Movies.


:eek::eek::eek::eek:*Head explodes*

[darthviper107]

Really there isn't much difference between the formats to choose either one as superior to the other. And for me the only reason I like HD-DVD more is because it doesn't cost as much.

If Blu-Ray doesn't lower their prices to the level of HD-DVD then they'll still be in a lot of competition. Plus, PS3 has a big part of Blu-Ray sales, but really a lot of PS3 owners don't use it for Blu-Ray, in fact in the last survey it was found that only 40% of PS3 owners know that it can play Blu-Ray movies, and only about half of them had even played a Blu-Ray movie in their PS3. Also, only about 50% of Ps3 owners even know that it can play in HD. The PS3 is important for Blu-Ray sales, but HD-DVD is doing quite well for people who are actually buying HD-DVD on purpose. And really, Sony has a big stake in this since the failure of either the PS3 or Blu-Ray could spell doom for the other.

Although really, there things could change a lot for each format depending on how things go with the release of Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones.

For me I would buy a Blu-Ray player if any of those were Blu-Ray exclusives. But I don't think it will be for a while because they are pretty much waiting to see which format comes out on top before they release a their movies in an HD format which will be a while from happening.

[ByakuyaRasen]

This is simply unbelievable. I can't believe Michael Bay would make such very serious accusations. I don't intend to lecture you Mr. Bay, but that statement you made is downright offensive. There aren't many times in my life where I've looked at a random statement on the internet or in a paper and been legitimately hurt by the thought someone would go so far. I have the utmost respect for you Mike as a person and as a man in profession.

Then there is the uninformed and ignorant people that at the first opportunity that presents itself smear Bill Gate's name.

Are you guys so cold that any and anything relating to Microsoft you just go on the offensive and attack Bill Gates despite the fact that I've he has long since removed himself from a day to day role at Microsoft where he would in any shape or form be involved with many of the business decisions? He doesn't actively preside over any business matters involving the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray Formats nor is he even actively involved in many of the things people like to attack Microsoft for. Is attacking Bill Gates just the popular thing to do whenever somebody says terrible things about Microsoft as a company?

Before I got sidetracked I must say Mr. Bay I understood your original statement regarding this format war and then I understood the ones that followed, but I just don't know what to think of this latest one. Microsoft absolutely does not want both formats to fail. Microsoft has simply made a choice on which one they feel is better for the consumer. It is easy to look at which format has the most movie sales and judge superiority based on that fact alone, but that isn't the way to look at things. Is it too much to fathom that Microsoft legitimately has faith in the HD-DVD format and that is why they are supporting it? Is Sony or any other company the victim of such attacks because they are stubborn enough to believe in their format so much that they are willing to do whatever to see it succeed?

HD-DVD has been delivering an experience that has been on equal footing with Blu Ray every step of the way in terms of picture quality. If you take into consideration that the HD-DVD format has easily been the better of the 2 formats concerning the all around user experience, thanks in no small part to the interactivity features, then I can't see why anyone would jump to say Blu Ray is superior.

Yes Blu Ray has better movie sales because of the Playstation 3, which we all knew was bound to end up selling better than these standalone players, but it can't be said with any certainty that all these PS3 owners purchased a PS3 with Blu Ray movies as their main focal point. Were it not for the Playstation 3 this ridiculous format war would be more in favor of the format that is treating the customers right and is more affordable for the consumer. Early Blu Ray standalone adopters have been left out in the cold and wont be able to enjoy the same experiences as newer standalone blu ray standalone adopters because early Blu Ray players do not support all the same features. Yes Mr. Bay I know you feel strongly that your movie Transformers would have sold better on Blu Ray and I'm not here to disagree I know it would've sold better on Blu Ray, but not every Blu Ray owner would be able to enjoy the same well rounded experience due to missing features on some blu ray players and due to the fact that many of these blu ray players can't be upgraded to support the features they would be missing out on.

Doesn't it in anyway please you to know that all HD-DVD owners that purchased the wonderful movie you directed are able to enjoy the same amazing experience? I know it probably wasn't your intention Mr. Bay, but how do you think the people that went out to purchase the movie you directed (Transformers) on HD-DVD feel reading your comments feeding this format war? It is almost as if you are in no way appreciative of the fact that these people went out to buy your movie. I know you're angry that Blu Ray owners didn't get Transformers, but there are people that put down money for an HD-DVD player to get Transformers and it's almost as if you are totally turning a blind eye to that fact. You are successfully making the people that bought your movie look and feel like they are idiots. It is nice to know the 2 copies of Transformers I purchased for HD-DVD were insignificant. One for myself and one as an early christmas gift along with an hd-dvd player from Amazon.

I don't think its proper for you to get yourself involved in this messy format war for the amusement of blu ray and hd-dvd enthusiast on both sides. You have the money Mr. Bay go ahead and purchase a Blu Ray player (if you don't have one already) and purchase an HD-DVD player and see for yourself how "superior" Blu Ray is. What you are saying ultimately translates to Blu Ray is superior because the sales are higher.

[wingzero]

The funny thing is they can try but it will never get market acceptance unless its dirt cheap meaning less than a dollar a rental. I would hope someone would really see the reason why microsoft is in the war heavily.
It is for the most obvious reason of all.

To beat the Sony PS3

All other objectives come much later down the road I assure you. If Blu Ray were to win out that would be a huge boon to the PS3 as it would be the player of choice and then hence Sony has a backdoor back into the console market in which they currently sit 4th behind wii 360 and ps2.

I think the speculation they are in it to kill both formats is just over hyped paranoia.


Microsoft doesn't really care about the XBox360. The XBox has been a dead duck investment since its inception, Microsoft lost billions on it for years. They killed the original XBox console with no care for their own customers, while Sony keeps pushing the now ancient PS2 and for years pushed the PS1 despite the release of the PS3. The XBox360 has been plagued by hardware defects and low quality manufacturing issues with an a pretty high failure rate, far higher than the competing Nintendo and Sony consoles.
The XBox360 is just a way to distract Sony management and other competitors from Bill Gates true objectives, although Microsoft surely would enjoy to see Sony at failure and the PS3 to fail, but that it's not going to happen, fortunately for everyone excluding Gates.
Mr.Bay analysis is correct but Bill Gates masterplan is even more complex and ambitious. Judging from Microsoft moves so far I'd say that what Gates wants to achieve probably includes using HD-DVD and VC-1 standard as trojan horses along with the whole DRM stuff and download services to gain control over one or two major studios... Microsoft has been trying to build up its own television network and to produce its own movies (like the Halo movie..).. So, what they want to achieve is to be able to buy a couple of studios at a cheap price up to the point that they could achieve that even if Sony wins the format war with Blu-Ray .. Bill Gates might easily decide to buy Universal thanks to his current deals with Toshiba and merge it into the Microsoft group.. and he might try to buy Paramount (buying Dreamworks it's highly unlikely since Mr.Spielberg is not going to let that happen I bet, although Bill Gates deep pockets can always change that with anyone and Gates knows it). Surely Gates would like to see Sony collapse sooner better than later for him and the Microsoft group, so that he could then start "helping" Sony like he did "help" Apple... which means ending up controlling the group or a large part of it and its management. That would ensure Gates a large control on both Hollywood, tv networks, the news and so on... Bill Gates wants to expand Microsoft even further because he knows that Sony is a problem for his own goals in the tv networks and movie production sectors and because Gates wants to divide and conquer in order to control everyone and create a monopoly, which is exactly what he has done with Microsoft.

[Purcho]

From a pure AV quality standpoint saying Blu Ray is vastly superior is VASTLY incorrect especially when you consider that VC-1 only needs 30 mbps on bit rate to provide the best picture possible in 1080p and the rest of the bandwidth can be utilized using Dolby True HD (lossless audio). While this can be done on current 30 GB disc rather well, the 51 gb discs increase platter size to 17gb from 15gb utilizing the same disc dimensions. The reason to mention this is, much like blu ray has 25 gig a disc giving 48 mbps, it increases the amount of data/bit rate of the reading device for HD-DVD from 36 mbps to 40 mbps. This makes the bit rate/Quality discussion even more laughable as currently neither format is really pushing 36mbps.

I don't know who is feeding you these lies but these statements are completely false.

No matter what size the HD DVD disk gets 51gb or 30gb the bandwidth will not change. This is the biggest flaw with the HD DVD spec. It is limited to the 36mbs bit rate for the rest of its life or risk all current players being useless.

If you think that Blu-ray is not pushing its superior 48mbs peek bit rate you are mistaken. Several titles reach this limit.

Check out this link for average bit rates for Blu-ray movies. Some have average bit-rates over 40mbs
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338

[wingzero]

its funny everyone dissing HD DVD in fav of Blu-Ray, why? both formats use the same compression in both audio and video, both are at :-

1920 x 1080 (HDTV)
AVC MPEG-4, VC-1, MPEG-2
Dolby Digital Plus, DTS, Dolby Digital, DTS-HD, DTS-HD Master Audio (lossless), Dolby TrueHD (lossless)
Advanced Access Content System (AACS) 128-bit (BD+, ROM Mark=BD Only)
Both Use Blue lasers in their drives.

the only differences are the Maximum data transfer rate for movie playback (Megabits per second) Which HD DVD is = 36mbps and Blu-Ray is 54mbps and the other is the size of the discs themselves.

even if Microsoft loose the format war, they'll still be making money from Blu-Ray as sony uses Microsoft VC-1 (Based on Windows Media Video 9) compression for some of their Blu-Ray Movies.

Yes Michael Bay wanted Transformers to be release on Blu-Ray and HD DVD as he wanted it to be on the best formats possible, but obviously this was prohibited due to it been Paramount, but Michael Bay also saw 300 on HD DVD and relised and he said "IT ROCKS" taken from the site http://www.michaelbay.com/blog/files/Michael-Bay-HD-DVD.html


Higher the bitrate = higher the quality.
More space = higher possible average muxed bitrates can be achieved
Higher allowed bitrates = higher quality on fast moving scenes (for example)

VC-1 is an international approved standard. It was created thanks to proposals given by many developers and manufacturers that analyzed the original Microsoft WMV9 codec that VC-1 really is about. It's not a Microsoft own standard anymore, the organizations collect the earnings and divide them among their members AFAIK.

[nelson]

Discuss... discuss what?!! I can't believe it!!! If Bay had come in here and mentioned the weather, would you guys be discussing it?!!:confused:

For those of you that don't read the entire board (like the ask Michael section)...

http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=595

[nelson]

I think Michael Bay need to shop and buy a PS3 and Xbox 360 and play them online.

There alot to be said before start mud slinging. Mike needs to look at the overall picture before acussing or bribery.

I believe Mike owns an xBox and a PS3....last time I checked.

He is looking at the whole picture...it's the survival of the fittest in the corporate world.

[knicks2892]

It is pretty clear the blu-ray has slaughtered this war. It is impossible to beat the format that is supported strongly by all todays top end electronic companies. And they also have the movie industry support. =)

[Venom]

I believe Mr Bay should do a little more research on this format war before making these types of statements.
Here are some facts that can be readily searched online.

The DVD Forum was a group of manufacturers that got together to pick the next Hi-Def video format. Sony ,Toshiba, Nec and many others were all members. They all agreed it was better to pick one format to not confuse consumers. When all the companies voted they chose the Toshiba/Nec format HD-DVD as the new Hi-Def format. It was done for many reasons. Most notably that picture quality and sound were basically identical. Both formats would have multiple layers so storage was not a problem. HDDVD's could be made at the same existing DVD plants with marginal changes to existing equipment. This was the deciding factor. Blu-Ray needed completely new plants. Sony was furious that Blu-Ray was not chosen and left the DVD Forum Group. They decided to launch Blu-Ray anyway and started the Blu-Ray Association.
Sony has a history for this type of behavior. Sony does not want to pay anyone royalties unless it is absolutely necessary. Sony always wants their format and no one elses. We all remember VHS and Beta. VHS-C and 8MM, Mini Disc, UMD and the list goes on. Just how many Memory formats are they pushing right now??? Just recently Sony released the PS3 and the controllers had no rumble. Why? Because they were in a lawsuit with Immersion and did not want to pay royalties as Nintendo and Microsoft do. Sony made lame excuses to consumers that their new six axis controllers could not use rumble because it interfered with the Six Axis. Then the law suit ended in Immersions favor. Sony paid big and then Sony announced they would add rumble to the PS3 controllers. I guess it did not interfere with the Six Axis anymore. Funny though, They are using the original and oldest rumble technology from Immersion. It has the cheapest royalty.

One last thing Mr. Bay should note. After Being beat up repeatedly in format wars. Sony decided to purchase Movie Studios and Music Labels to push new formats they would introduce. Pretty smart, but it has not worked yet in all these years.
This format war has no one to blame but Sony. If they had gone by the rules they agreed to in the DVD Forum Association we would only have one format right now.
I am sure Microsoft lives for the day of Digital Downloads and Sony is helping them by starting the format war.

I will not buy any Hi-Def DVD's until someone wins this war. But I have to be honest. Sony's arrogance disgusts me.

[nelson]

I will not buy any Hi-Def DVD's until someone wins this war. But I have to be honest. Sony's arrogance disgusts me.

As does Microsoft's arrogance and dirty tactics. Mind you MS has a history of stealing, bullying, and buying themselves out of problems.

[nelson]

I believe Mr Bay should do a little more research on this format war before making these types of statements.
Here are some facts that can be readily searched online.



I think Bay didn't mean to say that MS is the source of all troubles (they are in the computer world... they make inferior products), but they have been prolonging this format war more than necessary.

[Venom]

As does Microsoft's arrogance and dirty tactics. Mind you MS has a history of stealing, bullying, and buying themselves out of problems.

I agree with your statement. But in this case Microsoft would have no format war to throw gas on if Sony did not start the format war.

I will always want a hard copy of my movies on any format. I do not look forward to the day of digital downloads only.

[nelson]

The DVD Forum was a group of manufacturers that got together to pick the next Hi-Def video format. Sony ,Toshiba, Nec and many others were all members. They all agreed it was better to pick one format to not confuse consumers. When all the companies voted they chose the Toshiba/Nec format HD-DVD as the new Hi-Def format. It was done for many reasons. Most notably that picture quality and sound were basically identical. Both formats would have multiple layers so storage was not a problem. HDDVD's could be made at the same existing DVD plants with marginal changes to existing equipment. This was the deciding factor. Blu-Ray needed completely new plants. Sony was furious that Blu-Ray was not chosen and left the DVD Forum Group. They decided to launch Blu-Ray anyway and started the Blu-Ray Association.
Sony has a history for this type of behavior. Sony does not want to pay anyone royalties unless it is absolutely necessary. Sony always wants their format and no one elses. We all remember VHS and Beta. VHS-C and 8MM, Mini Disc, UMD and the list goes on. Just how many Memory formats are they pushing right now??? Just recently Sony released the PS3 and the controllers had no rumble. Why? Because they were in a lawsuit with Immersion and did not want to pay royalties as Nintendo and Microsoft do. Sony made lame excuses to consumers that their new six axis controllers could not use rumble because it interfered with the Six Axis. Then the law suit ended in Immersions favor. Sony paid big and then Sony announced they would add rumble to the PS3 controllers. I guess it did not interfere with the Six Axis anymore. Funny though, They are using the original and oldest rumble technology from Immersion. It has the cheapest royalty.

Oe.



Read the "Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD war (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/29/origins-of-the-blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-war/)."

This article nails so good it's not even funny.

[rdjam]

What you don't understand is corporate politics. Microsoft wants both formats to fail so they can be heroes and make the world move to digital downloads. That is the dirty secret no one is talking about. That is why Microsoft is handing out $100 million dollar checks to studios just embrace the HD DVD and not the leading, and superior Blu Ray. They want confusion in the market until they perfect the digital downloads. Time will tell and you will see the truth.No disrespect intended, but.. are you for real? Have you honestly bought into the Bluray discussion point that MS is evil and is secretly trying to destroy HDM even though they have invested so MUCH in it?? And it has already been shown that MS did not pay Paramount or Dreamworks, yet you continue to repeat this mantra?


As does Microsoft's arrogance and dirty tactics. Mind you MS has a history of stealing, bullying, and buying themselves out of problems.It's really disappointing to see these sorts of chants from you and your webmaster, Michael.

It's the type of loathing that one hears from ardent fanboys, not from a significant member of the film community.

[Ranger]

Here are my thoughts on this subject. There are about 2.7 million Blu-ray capable players in North America.

The BDA trumpets 2.7 million Blu-ray "players" sold
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/04/the-bda-trumpets-2-7-million-blu-ray-players-sold/

About 2.35 million of those Blu-ray capable players (87%) are about to become movie download systems.

Sony readying PS3 movie download service
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=26534

A much smaller percentage of HD DVD capable systems can be used for movie downloads. HD DVD is dependent on discs for those players, but that's not really true with the vast majority of the Blu-ray installed base.

Is Sony serious about Blu-ray? Are they really looking for Blu-ray to be successful, or are they more interested in movie downloads?

Howard Stringer (CEO of Sony) Interview with Business Week
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12204586&highlight=stringer+stalemate#post12204586



It's a difficult... it's a difficult fight. There was a chance to integrate it before I became CEO. This is something I inherited. And I don't know what broke down. I wish I could go back there, because I heard it was all about saving face and losing face, and all the rest of it. But it's not a battle about the digital future. That's what's so strange about it. If it doesn't work out, that doesn't say very much about where we're all going. It's just... it's a scorecard: one-nothing or something. But it doesn't mean as much as all that. PlayStation 3 will still go on playing games. It would have to have a different disk drive. And that's about it really.

[nelson]

It's really disappointing to see these sorts of chants from you and your webmaster, Michael.
.

So it's my imagination that Microsoft stole their OS from Apple and engaged in illegal and anti-competitive practices.

Yes, they've never done anything illegal.

:rolleyes:

[Venom]

Read the "Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD war (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/29/origins-of-the-blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-war/)."

This article nails so good it's not even funny.

I am in no way trying to say that Microsoft is a good guy in any way. I have read that article before.
It is Sony that should have just swallowed hard and accepted the decision of the DVD Forum that they were a member of. It was many companies voting. Not just Microsoft.
Sony wanted the PS3 as a trojan horse for Blu-Ray. They do not want to pay any royalties on the millions of PS3's that will be shipped. HDDVD and Blu-Ray are virtually indentical. Sony made the decision out of arrogance and greed. If they had agreed on HDDVD with the others than who knows if the final spec would have included Microsoft and Intels items. That would have been voted on also.

I am sure that Microsoft is doing everything in its power to try and destroy Blu-Ray. I am sure they are the ones backing HDDVD. I also believe Sony gave them this power in its decision to not back HDDVD and still introduce Blu-Ray. I would almost bet if Blu-Ray was not included in the PS3 that Microsoft might not be investing so much in this war.

In the end it is all of us that are losing. I would go out and buy a Hi-Def player now if they had only one format. I have a beautiful home theater with a Hi-Def projector and an 8' X 14' screen that is begging for Hi-Def discs.

I see two enemies in this war. Sony & Microsoft.

[rdjam]

Read the "Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD war (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/29/origins-of-the-blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-war/)."

This article nails so good it's not even funny.Unfortunately, it's not even close to being an accurate account of what really happened...

[Ranger]

Read the "Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD war (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/29/origins-of-the-blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-war/)."

This article nails so good it's not even funny.

Nelson, you realize that Daniel Dilger loves everything Apple and hates everything that Microsoft is involved with, right? He knows very little about HDM and compiled much of his jaundiced post from Bill Hunt of Digital Bits (huge Blu-ray supporter) and a Blu-ray fan who reads his web site.

We might as well take "loose change" seriously.


http://www.roughlydrafted.com/about/

About

I’m Daniel Eran Dilger (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Journal/7DBAEF76-AE98-4D20-BB8E-4D82D8713D2E.html), and I write about technology, Apple, motorcycles and the place I call home: San Francisco. This is a work in progress. I’ve done RoughlyDrafted for a few years, but my site was so much work that it kept me from writing. I’m attempted to simplify things using iWeb, but outgrew the both the use of static pages and the bandwidth allowed by Apple when using .Mac.

[investmd7]

I have both formats, and a Sony LCD, Sony Vaio with a Blu Ray burner, and honestly, they look and sound the same, to me. I was such a huge Sony supporter until recently. Blu Ray has been such a headache. I talk to Sony Style support regularly, and even have to take the computer into the store because of Blu Ray issues.

However, ZERO problems with my HD DVD. I am seriously on the verge of taking all my Sony products back or selling them. it shluld not be an isue if everything is new and Sony.

Anyway, doesn't matter, we can't control this, the retailers are pushing Blu Ray big time here in California. I hope they both lose and some 3rd format comes out.

[Houston2007]

Microsoft doesn't really care about the XBox360. The XBox has been a dead duck investment since its inception, Microsoft lost billions on it for years. They killed the original XBox console with no care for their own customers, while Sony keeps pushing the now ancient PS2 and for years pushed the PS1 despite the release of the PS3. The XBox360 has been plagued by hardware defects and low quality manufacturing issues with an a pretty high failure rate, far higher than the competing Nintendo and Sony consoles.
The XBox360 is just a way to distract Sony management and other competitors from Bill Gates true objectives, although Microsoft surely would enjoy to see Sony at failure and the PS3 to fail, but that it's not going to happen, fortunately for everyone excluding Gates.
Mr.Bay analysis is correct but Bill Gates masterplan is even more complex and ambitious. Judging from Microsoft moves so far I'd say that what Gates wants to achieve probably includes using HD-DVD and VC-1 standard as trojan horses along with the whole DRM stuff and download services to gain control over one or two major studios... Microsoft has been trying to build up its own television network and to produce its own movies (like the Halo movie..).. So, what they want to achieve is to be able to buy a couple of studios at a cheap price up to the point that they could achieve that even if Sony wins the format war with Blu-Ray .. Bill Gates might easily decide to buy Universal thanks to his current deals with Toshiba and merge it into the Microsoft group.. and he might try to buy Paramount (buying Dreamworks it's highly unlikely since Mr.Spielberg is not going to let that happen I bet, although Bill Gates deep pockets can always change that with anyone and Gates knows it). Surely Gates would like to see Sony collapse sooner better than later for him and the Microsoft group, so that he could then start "helping" Sony like he did "help" Apple... which means ending up controlling the group or a large part of it and its management. That would ensure Gates a large control on both Hollywood, tv networks, the news and so on... Bill Gates wants to expand Microsoft even further because he knows that Sony is a problem for his own goals in the tv networks and movie production sectors and because Gates wants to divide and conquer in order to control everyone and create a monopoly, which is exactly what he has done with Microsoft.


You know what you people are a bunch of stupid player haters! I look at this forums you people is all over Michaely Bay's jock. Blu-ray, Blu-Ray! I mean really I got 34 Blu-Ray movies because of Buy 1 Get 1 Free Sales from Sony, Disney and Fox! Disney and Fox was $29.99 so Buy 1 Get 1 Free is like $15 each and $10 on Sony's. This is the ONLY way that that these HD Formats is going to move. Because these prices are like DVD Prices.

I don't care what Sony or Toshiba says because selling 1,000 here or there who got more sales here and there. The point is These formats is no where close to DVD Movie player penetration size or consumer spending averages. Some people can't even spell HD. If Michael bay wanted to make money with Transformers then he should have got Paramount to put it on iTunes at $14.99! With iPhones about to hit 2 Million Worldwide and Video nanos seliing like hotcakes there was profit there! Why Bay so busy making slandering remarks about Microsoft he should have been on his game and put it on Xbox Live Video Marketplace at $4 SD and $6 HD to view it for 24 hours I felt with 8 Million Xbox Live users worldwide and introduction to Canada and UK on December 11th there could have been maximum profit there. Actually if Bay had half a brain he realize Digital Downloads is actually better than Disc Medium because his studio wouldn't have less money to spend on disc replication and retail kits. Coming from me I took Audio/Video Production in my book a director is creating art and if Bay is a true artist then he should be smart enough to realize HD Video is just a one outlet for exhibiting his art. Michael you need to wake up and look at iTunes there is your demand there! Over 100 Million iPods are sold! I actually brought on iTunes Steve Jablonsky Score of Transformers if you got people who was really interested in your Music Score of your movie then why you think those people would not buy the movie. If you want your art out there then it should been maximized to the fullest potential. If your studio wanted to HD DVD ONLY then you should have concentraed to make it the best like you REALLY should added Dolby TrueHD 5.1 @ 6 Mbps. You live and learn but this remarks you need to get off that. You sound like not a intelligent person but instead a cocaine user getting high then jumping on the computer make absurd remarks. You not showing good composure or integrity. You got to respect the studio decision two you got to respect the people who is buying your art and really show them respect. Honestly you in a business a capitalistic business and if you wasn't you be giving Transformers away FREE! Other thing you got to respect Supply and Demand! Right now the people you insulting are the one with customers with the demand!

[demon148]

There is no point in complaining about Microsoft stealing their OS from Apple as Apple stole it aswell along with some of the hardware. Plus I bet half the uses on this post use Windows.

To Give you the truth I do not see why all companies don't back both formats,is it that much trouble to put the same compression from one disc to another?, it was easy enough done on both VHS and DVD, why can't they just do the same with this. that way everyone wins and everyone chooses either Blu-Ray or HD DVD and then everyone happy, then all companies will make money.

[kill8joy]

I read about this like 2 years ago. So this guy can read too. It's not "theory" it's business common sense. Of course Microsoft wants both to fail. They want to set digital as a standard for media content. Plus, there's no way that MS could let rival Sony put out a new HD format out there and not compete against them. Don't see any MS GreenRay in the future either.

P.S. noticed some OS flaming in here. OS X 4 LIFE!!!







...windows blows.

[michaelbay]

Does anyone out here want to challenge what I feel suits my films better in terms of look. I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better. But that said - I don't a care about this format war because I have both formats in my screening room - I'm just filling you in on what people deep in the film industry feel ultimately is going on -

Transformers looks great even in DVD!!

[Houston2007]

Does anyone out here want to challenge what I feel suits my films better in terms of look. I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better. But that said - I don't a care about this format war because I have both formats in my screening room - I'm just filling you in on what people deep in the film industry feel ultimately is going on -

Transformers looks great even in DVD!!

Mike I understand you on that. I'm just on audio as well as visual. That's why I'm kind of leaning towards Blu-Ray because of the 34 Blu-Ray titles I own. I decided on my choice not solely on HighDefdigest.com reviews but going to the theaters and listen as well as watch the movies. Fox and New Line Cinema are doing so far every movie with DTS-HD Master Audio plus Steven Spielberg films with DTS-HD Master Audio. Just the major problem is that the studios are split up! Hell Freezes Over before Universal Studios do Blu-Ray. Honestly I know that Universal was the major backer of DTS it would have been nice to see Universal movies with DTS-Master Audio. Sony and Warner Bros. is doing Dolby TrueHD and PCM Uncompressed Audio as well as Disney. Excellent Picture with Sound what people need to duplicate the theater experience at home. I don't know about Microsoft conspiracy theory. I don't know if this Paramount Dreamworks non Blu-ray position is temporary or pernament. If Temporary then you can easily do a Director's Cut of Transformers on Blu-Ray with hopefully Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD Master Audio or even PCM Uncompressed Audio. #1 I see that your artistic expression will be fulfilled #2 You can make your money back fast. #3 I don't know why the Hell you didn't do Director's Cut of Pearl Harbor on Blu-Ray yet. All I can say do the best you can do on the formats available. Honestly no matter what I said before you really are a good director. You have made very entertaining films throughout your career and yes I would like to have a format that exhibit the full potential of entertainment of your films. Think about it with all the bootlegers out there you manage to make a movie this year that made close to a billion dollars worldwide. To me you deserve award just for that because you got people out of the house to see your movie. 8.3 Million DVD Sales in North America the first week as well as 190,000 HD-DVD Sales. Yeah this is funny I don't have a PS3 yet. I'm still saving for one. The movies that was on sale I couldn't pass up on deal was too good. HD-DVD players such as the Xbox 360 HD DVD addon @ $179 are one cheaper players most consumers can afford. We still get 1080p output. PS3 and other Blu-Ray Players are at leat $399. That's alot for most people. This is one of the obstacles some people face.

[Venom]

Does anyone out here want to challenge what I feel suits my films better in terms of look. I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better. But that said - I don't a care about this format war because I have both formats in my screening room - I'm just filling you in on what people deep in the film industry feel ultimately is going on -

Transformers looks great even in DVD!!


Can't argue with that at all. If you have personally seen differences when your movies are on Blu-Ray then I understand your want of Blu-Ray.

As for having both formats... I buy and collect movies. No copies, No bootlegs. I try and support the artists whether it's games, movies or music. They are all official discs. One of these formats will die and then eventually dual format players will cease to exist. Then part of my collection will be useless. Beta was a better format. I watched it fade away and leave all those tape owners with movies that had no players. At least with DVD I feel we might have backwards compatibility for a while. Regardless I would be upgrading my collection to hi-def now if it was a one format race.

Transformers in Hi-def would have been absolutely stunning in my home theater. But for now I watched it on an upscaled DVD. And you are right it still looked incredible.

[Supermans]

Michael Bay,

I too would like to see Transformers on Blu-ray with higher quality audio and would double dip for a BD version of the film. Even though the HD-DVD version looks good enough, I would like to see a re-encode of the film using a different codec at a higher bitrate than HD-DVD can handle. And include DTS-HDMA at its highest quality level. I would double dip on Transformers in a heartbeat and sell my HD-DVD version.

As for your comments about Microsoft, I have to agree with you on this one.
The way you can help end this format war is to get your friend Stephen Spielberg on board and both of you together can make a difference if you push to get your movies released on Blu-ray. I'm praying that the Indiana Jones trilogy gets a Blu-ray release before the latest Indy 4 movie comes out.

I am glad that I have the opportunity to give you my opinion on this issue, and thank you Michael for being open to us about what you think about this issue.

[Drongo]

Beadle (http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/member.php?u=565) wrote:

I am disappointed to hear that Mr. Bay has chosen to only place his films in HDTV format and not the UK leading Blu Ray format. Having seen the quality of both my personal opinion is that Blu Ray is better.
Why have you chosen this format?
I and my friends all own PS3's and it’s easier and better to watch these films on our systems especially as the HDTV format players are too expensive here in the UK. I was looking forward to viewing the extra bonus material and quality that Blu Ray offers for the new release Transformers and I now can’t do that. Only having this system means that I am NOT going to buy Transformers or any of your future releases from you Mr. Bay or give into buying the HDTV system. i was also shocked to hear your decision you made so abruptly on your website.



michaelbay (http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/member.php?u=2) wrote:

What you don't understand is corporate politics. Microsoft wants both formats to fail so they can be heroes and make the world move to digital downloads. That is the dirty secret no one is talking about. That is why Microsoft is handing out $100 million dollar checks to studios just embrace the HD DVD and not the leading, and superior Blu Ray. They want confusion in the market until they perfect the digital downloads. Time will tell and you will see the truth.

Bay


michaelbay (http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/member.php?u=2) wrote:

Does anyone out here want to challenge what I feel suits my films better in terms of look. I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better. But that said - I don't a care about this format war because I have both formats in my screening room - I'm just filling you in on what people deep in the film industry feel ultimately is going on -

Transformers looks great even in DVD!!



I am pleased to hear that Mr. Bay has chosen to place his films on the HD DVD format, a format whose standalones outsell standalones from the rival Blu-Ray format and whose functionality is far in advance of any Blu-ray standalone player to date.

Having seen the quality of both formats, I have chosen to own both, primarily because I am more concerned about films than types of optical discs.

I have found that there is no discernable difference in either picture or sound between either format despite Blu-ray’s generally higher prices.

Of course, unlike Mr. Bay, I have not had the benefit of seeing either format projected in a screening room.

I have seen both formats projected on screens of well over 100” on several occasions, without any discernable difference between the two. Which makes me wonder, if on the average sized screen (37”-60”), whether it is possible to see a difference between the formats even assuming that a difference existed in the first place.

To all intents and purposes both formats offer the same quality as far as average mainstream buyer is concerned.

With regard to functionality, HD DVD is (at this point in time) far ahead of the rival Blu-ray offering Picture in Picture as well as online connectivity for downloadable content.

This downloadable content is something that gives ‘added value’ to optical disc media and is to be welcomed.

Those behind the production of the Transformers HD DVD are to be congratulated for their sterling efforts:


Web-enabled features found on Paramount's "Transformers" include downloadable Sector 7 Transmission videos, "Transformers" Profiler with still photography and bios, and "Intelligence Mode", a special data dashboard providing stats on the various Autobots and Decepticons, a GPS locator and factoids. The "Transformers" HD DVD also includes Menubots, which allow fans to customize their menus to a variety of themes, from Bumblebee to Megatron.


http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-04-2007/0004715957&EDATE=


Although I love Blu-rays picture and sound quality, I am confused as to why the cheapest Blu-ray capable device (Sony PS3) is also the best in terms of response times and future proofing. There are many people who -for whatever reason- would rather own a standalone player than a games machine.

I feel sorry for those who have paid premium prices for their Blu-Ray standalones when they find that either the forthcoming interactive features of future (1.1) Blu-ray titles will either not work on their (1.0) players or they will be painfully slow to operate.

It is also less than ideal that Blu-ray companies have done little to tell consumers of these limitations. This to me smacks of a profits above honesty policy.


Ideally all studios should be neutral, giving the consumer choice of which format to buy. This hasn’t happened, so it’s a little pointless moaning about exclusivity, when both sides are guilty of this.

As regards downloadable films, I understand that Sony is devoting time, effort and large sums of money into creating their own download service.

Surely it is inevitable that in the future a download service will be here? We just have to make sure that it is complimentary to optical disc (of whatever colour) and does not supplant it.

Given my comments above, I am a little puzzled as to why Mr. Bay regards Blu-ray as ‘superior’ and why Microsoft is the villain of the piece?

Regardless, I would like to thank Mr. Bay for both a great film in Transformers and a superb disc in the HD-DVD version.

Forget formats – enjoy the films!

[GoldenArm]

Does anyone out here want to challenge what I feel suits my films better in terms of look. I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better. But that said - I don't a care about this format war because I have both formats in my screening room - I'm just filling you in on what people deep in the film industry feel ultimately is going on -

Transformers looks great even in DVD!!

Your comments are not very convincing. Why exactly does Blu-ray suit your films better? It just makes you seem like another Sony fanboy, spewing misinformation and blindly stating Blu-ray is better without examples. Have any of your films been released on both formats for you to compare? If not, then how would you know which is better suited for your films? Both offer high resolution 1080p video and lossless audio. However HD DVD expands and offers exclusive PiP abilities, web connectivity and other interactive extras. Isn't that what Directors want? The best picture, sound AND immersive content extras? With your Transformers HD DVD, Paramount can offer exclusive videos and trailers for the second film. Blu-ray can't do that. Mike, you don't think that suits your films or are you still thinking of the archaic times of static discs that can't be updated? Enlighten us, because I don't see it.

At the High-Def Awards, the winner for Best Audio Quality is Transformers (HD DVD), Paramount Home Entertainment. How ironic is that?

I don't see how one is better suited for your films. You don't care about the format war, but you are becoming involved with your comments.

Fine, everything aside you personally prefer Blu-ray, but do you have to resort to denigrating HD DVD or the format and it's consumers? At least provide examples. I think you're being courted by Sony, because HD DVD is a great product and I wish you would give it a chance.

[nathan alexander]

Hey GoldenArm... who exactly are you? You joined like two minutes ago, only to attack Michael Bay on this thread. Do you work for Microsoft? If not you should.
If Bay says he prefers Blu Ray, who are you to come in here and question him? He doesn't have to justify his comments.

[GoldenArm]

Hey GoldenArm... who exactly are you? You joined like two minutes ago, only to attack Michael Bay on this thread. Do you work for Microsoft? If not you should.
If Bay says he prefers Blu Ray, who are you to come in here and question him? He doesn't have to justify his comments.

I asked for his reasoning, is that an attack on his character? Most people like to know why someone makes a choice. Of course he doesn't have to say, but without doing so just affirms the widely known fact that most BD only supporters can't identify why. All I ever hear is "It's better" but that doesn't say much.

Why are you so defensive? Are you his advocator? Mike has no problem speaking and making comments, so I don't see why you are speaking on his behalf. And yeah I just registered specifically to ask those questions, and you just registered a month ago. Don't pretend you've been here for two years.

No I don't work for Microsoft, I actually work for American Express. Anything else?

[space2001]

one thing that I just found out, for HD DVD is that even though its stored on the Disc at 24fps its flagged at 1080i60, Which means that it is converted in software mode, then your tv has to convert it back to 1080p..... unless you buy the higher end hd-dvd player that handles 1080p and ignores those flags. Blu-ray does not have any of these flags and lets the hardware do what is needed for you.
So there is a difference in the encodings.

even though HD dvd is saying we have the cheapest players, they can't even do 1080p on the cheaper players.

[Supermans]

one thing that I just found out, for HD DVD is that even though its stored on the Disc at 24fps its flagged at 1080i60, Which means that it is converted in software mode, then your tv has to convert it back to 1080p..... unless you buy the higher end hd-dvd player that handles 1080p and ignores those flags. Blu-ray does not have any of these flags and lets the hardware do what is needed for you.
So there is a difference in the encodings.

even though HD dvd is saying we have the cheapest players, they can't even do 1080p on the cheaper players.

This is true. Currently there is only a difference in $50 between two formats in regards to players that support native 1080p24 output. pushing the limits of both formats is something that only one studio has tried. Rbfilms which I have quoted from an interview by the producer below..... Richard Casey has been the only person to maximize quality for both formats doing two seperate encodes. Here is an interview that is very interesting below..

http://www.hidefpreview.com/Breaking%20News.html

Exclusive Interview:
Richard J. Casey
Executive Producer
R&B Films, Ltd.

"9. In a thread at AVS Forum, you said you had some bandwidth space left over on the Blu-Ray version while you maxed out the HD-DVD versions bit rate, can you comment on the reasoning behind this?

Yes, you can do the math yourself by looking at the printed insert that comes with each disc. You will see we were at 29.64mbps total out of 30mbps available on HD-DVD. On the BD version, we used 44.44mbps out of 48mbps.

I negotiated the bit budget with Technicolor at the time we started production. Unlike DTS-HD which uses an exact bandwidth spec for encodes, DTS-HD-MA Lossless uses what it needs to achieve best results. Since we did not know at that time how much space the DTS-HD-MA audio encode would utilize, we settled on 37mbps for the video encode which left us more than enough headroom for whatever the DTS-HD-MA ended up being. However, looking back … I could have hit 40mbps on the Video Encode rate for this title. We will try to achieve this on our next release … although I don’t think it matters much once you get to this level."

[nathan alexander]

One question GoldenArm: WHY ARE YOU SO BOTHERED ABOUT THIS?!!:confused:

This whole debate is totally pointless. So if Michael Bay says he prefers Levi jeans, are we going to get a bunch of guys coming in here with mountains of statistics and info demanding to know why?
I thought it was Religion that was the source of modern conflicts... LOL

[nelson]

Nelson, you realize that Daniel Dilger loves everything Apple and hates everything that Microsoft is involved with, right? He knows very little about HDM and compiled much of his jaundiced post from Bill Hunt of Digital Bits (huge Blu-ray supporter) and a Blu-ray fan who reads his web site.

We might as well take "loose change" seriously.


http://www.roughlydrafted.com/about/

About

I’m Daniel Eran Dilger (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Journal/7DBAEF76-AE98-4D20-BB8E-4D82D8713D2E.html), and I write about technology, Apple, motorcycles and the place I call home: San Francisco. This is a work in progress. I’ve done RoughlyDrafted for a few years, but my site was so much work that it kept me from writing. I’m attempted to simplify things using iWeb, but outgrew the both the use of static pages and the bandwidth allowed by Apple when using .Mac.

And does the fact that he loves Apple products make his opinion less valid? He does stick with the facts.

The fact is that Blu-ray is the most technically superior format. But, that's just part of the story. VC-1 is a horrible codec with limited colorspace. I've encoded HD footage in both mpeg and VC-1 codec and the color space seems to be wider in MPEG.

[Bumblebee1983]

I am pleased to hear that Mr. Bay has chosen to place his films on the HD DVD format, a format whose standalones outsell standalones from the rival Blu-Ray format and whose functionality is far in advance of any Blu-ray standalone player to date.

Having seen the quality of both formats, I have chosen to own both, primarily because I am more concerned about films than types of optical discs.

I have found that there is no discernable difference in either picture or sound between either format despite Blu-ray’s generally higher prices.

Of course, unlike Mr. Bay, I have not had the benefit of seeing either format projected in a screening room.

I have seen both formats projected on screens of well over 100” on several occasions, without any discernable difference between the two. Which makes me wonder, if on the average sized screen (37”-60”), whether it is possible to see a difference between the formats even assuming that a difference existed in the first place.

To all intents and purposes both formats offer the same quality as far as average mainstream buyer is concerned.

With regard to functionality, HD DVD is (at this point in time) far ahead of the rival Blu-ray offering Picture in Picture as well as online connectivity for downloadable content.

This downloadable content is something that gives ‘added value’ to optical disc media and is to be welcomed.

Those behind the production of the Transformers HD DVD are to be congratulated for their sterling efforts:




http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-04-2007/0004715957&EDATE=


Although I love Blu-rays picture and sound quality, I am confused as to why the cheapest Blu-ray capable device (Sony PS3) is also the best in terms of response times and future proofing. There are many people who -for whatever reason- would rather own a standalone player than a games machine.

I feel sorry for those who have paid premium prices for their Blu-Ray standalones when they find that either the forthcoming interactive features of future (1.1) Blu-ray titles will either not work on their (1.0) players or they will be painfully slow to operate.

It is also less than ideal that Blu-ray companies have done little to tell consumers of these limitations. This to me smacks of a profits above honesty policy.


Ideally all studios should be neutral, giving the consumer choice of which format to buy. This hasn’t happened, so it’s a little pointless moaning about exclusivity, when both sides are guilty of this.

As regards downloadable films, I understand that Sony is devoting time, effort and large sums of money into creating their own download service.

Surely it is inevitable that in the future a download service will be here? We just have to make sure that it is complimentary to optical disc (of whatever colour) and does not supplant it.

Given my comments above, I am a little puzzled as to why Mr. Bay regards Blu-ray as ‘superior’ and why Microsoft is the villain of the piece?

Regardless, I would like to thank Mr. Bay for both a great film in Transformers and a superb disc in the HD-DVD version.

Forget formats – enjoy the films!

Well said! *claps*

The downloadable features are what I'm looking forward to with the HD!!! :cool:

[dobyblue]

From a pure AV quality standpoint saying Blu Ray is vastly superior is VASTLY incorrect especially when you consider that VC-1 only needs 30 mbps on bit rate to provide the best picture possible in 1080p and the rest of the bandwidth can be utilized

STOP!

What "rest of the bandwidth" are you talking about? HD DVD only has 30 Mbps. You must have been thinking of Blu-ray which has 48 Mbps.

[dobyblue]

the only differences are the Maximum data transfer rate for movie playback (Megabits per second) Which HD DVD is = 36mbps and Blu-Ray is 54mbps and the other is the size of the discs themselves.

even if Microsoft loose the format war, they'll still be making money from Blu-Ray as sony uses Microsoft VC-1 (Based on Windows Media Video 9) compression for some of their Blu-Ray Movies.
Sorry that's incorrect.

HD DVD - video max 29 Mbps data max 30.09 Mbps
Blu-ray - video max 40 Mbps data max 48 Mbps

Sony hasn't used VC-1, neither has Fox. Disney has on a handful of titles but prefers using AVC/MPEG-4 encoded by Panasonic, who do Fox's encodes also.

[Bumblebee1983]

My head's about to explode from reading all this.

I have had numerous people praise HD...especially Transformers in HD. I've seen the screenshots and :eek: I said I'm getting one of those!! Which I asked for an HD DVD player for Christmas.

As for the TV I'll be watching it on...it's a 52 inch Samsung LCD HDTV. Beautiful picture.

However, I don't know enough about Blu Ray, except that not everyone's going with it...unless you're Warner Brothers and go with all THREE formats. Smart thinking. You don't lose anyone in the format war there. You make everyone happy.

By the by.....are these region friendly or not?

These I mean Blu Ray and HD DVD.

But the fact of the matter is that, yes, Sony's evil and yes, Microsoft is evil (even though I work on a Mac at work and a PC at home...I won't go into detail about the differences, but I'm starting to like Macs better. That's another topic.) Hell, even Dell is evil. (I won't go there either. :() All corporations want is money...and with this war, they'll do anything they can to get it. :cool:

[dobyblue]

I believe Mr Bay should do a little more research on this format war before making these types of statements.
Here are some facts that can be readily searched online.

The DVD Forum was a group of manufacturers that got together to pick the next Hi-Def video format. Sony ,Toshiba, Nec and many others were all members. They all agreed it was better to pick one format to not confuse consumers. When all the companies voted they chose the Toshiba/Nec format HD-DVD as the new Hi-Def format. It was done for many reasons. Most notably that picture quality and sound were basically identical. Both formats would have multiple layers so storage was not a problem. HDDVD's could be made at the same existing DVD plants with marginal changes to existing equipment. This was the deciding factor. Blu-Ray needed completely new plants. Sony was furious that Blu-Ray was not chosen and left the DVD Forum Group. They decided to launch Blu-Ray anyway and started the Blu-Ray Association.
Sony has a history for this type of behavior. Sony does not want to pay anyone royalties unless it is absolutely necessary. Sony always wants their format and no one elses. We all remember VHS and Beta. VHS-C and 8MM, Mini Disc, UMD and the list goes on.

get informed - it really helps!!
The Blu-ray Disc Founders was formed in 2001. It was comprised of all the major CE companies that were founding members of the DVD Forum...except Toshiba.

DVD Forum founding members:

HItachi
Matsushita
Mitsubishi
Pioneer
Philips
Sony
Thomson
Time Warner
Toshiba
Victor Company of Japan (JVC)Blu-ray Disc Founders

Hitachi Ltd.
LG Electronics Inc.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
Pioneer Corporation
Royal Philips Electronics
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Sharp Corporation
Sony Corporation
Thomson Multimedia.For those who don't know Matsushita = Panasonic.

Sony doesn't "own" Blu-ray Disc technology. 17 companies have patents in it.

http://www.mpegla.com/pid/bluray/

CyberLink Corporation;
Dell Inc.;
Hewlett-Packard Company;
Hitachi Ltd.;
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.;
LG Electronics Inc.;
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (Panasonic);
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation;
Pioneer Corporation;
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.;
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.;
Sharp Corporation;
Sonic Solutions;
Sony Corporation;
TDK Corporation;
Victor Company of Japan, Ltd.;
Warner Home Video Inc.All the BD companies abstained from voting through HD DVD out of respect for Toshiba. The "DVD Forum approved" rubbish is Toshiba's greed to want to not move forward with technology, but stay with one that they get massive royalties from.

[dobyblue]

My head's about to explode from reading all this.

I have had numerous people praise HD...especially Transformers in HD. I've seen the screenshots and :eek: I said I'm getting one of those!! Which I asked for an HD DVD player for Christmas.

As for the TV I'll be watching it on...it's a 52 inch Samsung LCD HDTV. Beautiful picture.

However, I don't know enough about Blu Ray, except that not everyone's going with it...unless you're Warner Brothers and go with all THREE formats. Smart thinking. You don't lose anyone in the format war there. You make everyone happy.

By the by.....are these region friendly or not?

These I mean Blu Ray and HD DVD.

But the fact of the matter is that, yes, Sony's evil and yes, Microsoft is evil (even though I work on a Mac at work and a PC at home...I won't go into detail about the differences, but I'm starting to like Macs better. That's another topic.) Hell, even Dell is evil. (I won't go there either. :() All corporations want is money...and with this war, they'll do anything they can to get it. :cool:

HD DVD is region free
Blu-ray region coding is optional (two regions of note)

http://bluray.liesinc.net will show you which titles are region coded and which aren't.
Warner will not be releasing on both formats come this time next year. They know one needs to win in order to make the studio money. Blu-ray leads everywhere in the world from between 2:1 right up to 9:1. Which do you think they'll go with? "300" on BLu-ray is the biggest selling HD disc of the year, moving over 1/4 million units, twice as many as hte HD DVD version.

[Ranger]

Does anyone out here want to challenge what I feel suits my films better in terms of look. I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better. But that said - I don't a care about this format war because I have both formats in my screening room - I'm just filling you in on what people deep in the film industry feel ultimately is going on -

Transformers looks great even in DVD!!

Michael, I currently have an HD DVD player, but plan on picking up a Blu-ray player at some point, as this format war is likely to continue for a lot longer. I'm not willing to buy one though, until it has all of the same types of functionality as my HD DVD player. Is there a model out there that supports all the same types of features used on the Transformers HD DVD?

By the way, what about Blu-ray suits your films better?

[dobyblue]

No disrespect intended, but.. are you for real? Have you honestly bought into the Bluray discussion point that MS is evil and is secretly trying to destroy HDM even though they have invested so MUCH in it?? And it has already been shown that MS did not pay Paramount or Dreamworks, yet you continue to repeat this mantra?

It's really disappointing to see these sorts of chants from you and your webmaster, Michael.

It's the type of loathing that one hears from ardent fanboys, not from a significant member of the film community.


rdjam - one of the biggest fountains of misinformation on the internet nad one of the loudest voices behind the HD DVD propaganda campaign.

Here is rdjam's website - judge for yourself - www.campaignhd.com (http://www.campaignhd.com)

All MS said is they "didn't write any cheques" - hardly a denial of offering $150 million in incentives.

Bay knows far more than you do rdjam - he knows how much better Blu-ray is and apprently so does hte majority of this planet. Nowhere on Earth does HD DVD outsell Blu-ray, despite Toshiba's desperation price cuts.

[dobyblue]

Unfortunately, it's not even close to being an accurate account of what really happened...

You're right - Blu-ray has the backing of the DVD Forum's founding members from December 2001, much earlier than the article states.

[Ranger]

HD DVD is region free
Blu-ray region coding is optional (two regions of note)

http://bluray.liesinc.net will show you which titles are region coded and which aren't.

Warner will not be releasing on both formats come this time next year. They know one needs to win in order to make the studio money. Blu-ray leads everywhere in the world from between 2:1 right up to 9:1. Which do you think they'll go with? "300" on BLu-ray is the biggest selling HD disc of the year, moving over 1/4 million units, twice as many as hte HD DVD version.

We heard all of the same arguments about disc sales before Paramount and Dreamworks stopped publishing in Blu-ray. What makes you think Warner will make a different choice than they did? This is where you bring up the $150m from Toshiba. My response to that is do you believe that Paramount and Dreamworks couldn't have gotten the same or more money from the BDA if they would have rather gone Blu-ray exclusive?

Universal, Paramount and Warner were all HD DVD backers early on. The BDA convinced Paramount and Warner to go neutral. Paramount has gone back to their original position and collected cash in the process. I wouldn't bet too heavy on Warner going Blu-ray exclusive.

[dobyblue]

Does anyone out here want to challenge what I feel suits my films better in terms of look. I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better. But that said - I don't a care about this format war because I have both formats in my screening room - I'm just filling you in on what people deep in the film industry feel ultimately is going on -

Transformers looks great even in DVD!!

Yup - that seems to be why Panasonic can screen their AVC encode of Fox's Fantastic Four Silver Surfer on a 100" screen using the 2K master and the Blu-ray version playing on the DMP-BD30 and no-one can tell where the split screen is - 50 prominent HD media members couldn't see the line.

That's how good Blu-ray is. HD DVD could not and would definitely not attempt this sort of demonstration.

Blu-ray is better for your movies. I'm looking forward to the Disney released coming out early next year, particularly The Rock.

[nelson]

By the way, what about Blu-ray suits your films better?

I assume he means the code MPEG...and the higher bitrate...all which affect the color space/range.

[dobyblue]

We heard all of the same arguments about disc sales before Paramount and Dreamworks stopped publishing in Blu-ray. What makes you think Warner will make a different choice than they did? This is where you bring up the $150m from Toshiba. My response to that is do you believe that Paramount and Dreamworks couldn't have gotten the same or more money from the BDA if they would have rather gone Blu-ray exclusive?

Universal, Paramount and Warner were all HD DVD backers early on. The BDA convinced Paramount and Warner to go neutral. Paramount has gone back to their original position and collected cash in the process. I wouldn't bet too heavy on Warner going Blu-ray exclusive.

I would. Neither Viacom nor Paramount sit on the BDA's board of directors - Warner does.

[dobyblue]

By the way, what about Blu-ray suits your films better?

Most likely the 60% more bandwidth.

[Trigger Mike]

Does anyone out here want to challenge what I feel suits my films better in terms of look. I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better. But that said - I don't a care about this format war because I have both formats in my screening room - I'm just filling you in on what people deep in the film industry feel ultimately is going on -

Transformers looks great even in DVD!!

There it is, from the man himself.

End of argument in my opinion.

[Bumblebee1983]

HD DVD is region free
Blu-ray region coding is optional (two regions of note)

http://bluray.liesinc.net will show you which titles are region coded and which aren't.
Warner will not be releasing on both formats come this time next year. They know one needs to win in order to make the studio money. Blu-ray leads everywhere in the world from between 2:1 right up to 9:1. Which do you think they'll go with? "300" on BLu-ray is the biggest selling HD disc of the year, moving over 1/4 million units, twice as many as hte HD DVD version.

Ahhh hmmm....okay...HD is region free. Interesting....

But it all comes down to marketing. That's how VHS won. Beta was still in use with television news stations (at least with the one I was interning with). However, they've all mostly gone HD.

[Drongo]

This thread and possibly this forum does not seem to me to be the appropriate place to discuss ‘geeky’ things like 1080p vs 1080i or bit rate differences.

However as these things have been mentioned, the assumption that 1080p is inherently 'better' than 1080i is incorrect.

The assumption that all Blu-ray players output 1080p/24 without an intermediate 1080i/60 stage is wrong – some do.

The assumption that Blu-Rays higher bit rate will result in a visible difference is wrong.

I suggest that people stop read specifications and assuming that what is ‘better’ on paper means that it must be better in real life.

If you want to prove that one format is ‘better’ than the other, I suggest this.

Ask five or ten or fifty people who have High Definition displays (regardless of size, make or cost) who have zero interest in the technology to evaluate both formats with discs of their choice to see which they believe to be better.

Their feedback would be far more conclusive than any specification.

And just for the hell of it, let them all compare ‘Natures Journey’ on both formats to see if anyone notices a difference between them ;)

[dobyblue]

Ahhh hmmm....okay...HD is region free. Interesting....

But it all comes down to marketing. That's how VHS won. Beta was still in use with television news stations (at least with the one I was interning with). However, they've all mostly gone HD.


That's not how VHS won.

Longer running time, porn.

One is now Blu-ray's favour, the other is irrelevant thanks to the internet.

[dobyblue]

This thread and possibly this forum does not seem to me to be the appropriate place to discuss ‘geeky’ things like 1080p vs 1080i or bit rate differences.

However as these things have been mentioned, the assumption that 1080p is inherently 'better' than 1080i is incorrect.

The assumption that all Blu-ray players output 1080p/24 without an intermediate 1080i/60 stage is wrong – some do.

The assumption that Blu-Rays higher bit rate will result in a visible difference is wrong.

I suggest that people stop read specifications and assuming that what is ‘better’ on paper means that it must be better in real life.

If you want to prove that one format is ‘better’ than the other, I suggest this.

Ask five or ten or fifty people who have High Definition displays (regardless of size, make or cost) who have zero interest in the technology to evaluate both formats with discs of their choice to see which they believe to be better.

Their feedback would be far more conclusive than any specification.

And just for the hell of it, let them all compare ‘Natures Journey’ on both formats to see if anyone notices a difference between them ;)

All of the models you can currently buy do 1080p24 output with no 1080i60 stage.

1080p does make a difference - one need only look at all the sets that fail deinterlacing and 3:2 tests to know this.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/
http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1107hook2/

[superdynamite]

What you don't understand is corporate politics. Microsoft wants both formats to fail so they can be heroes and make the world move to digital downloads. That is the dirty secret no one is talking about. That is why Microsoft is handing out $100 million dollar checks to studios just embrace the HD DVD and not the leading, and superior Blu Ray. They want confusion in the market until they perfect the digital downloads. Time will tell and you will see the truth.

Bay

I agree with M.Bay to a certain extent. To the extent that digital downloads will definitely be a percentage of the market. For instance, people that went Blu-Ray will TiVo Transformers in HiDEF from Pay-Per-View. The restraints against every single movie being a download is HDD space and accessibility to what you've downloaded. Discs are portable and are self contained in regard to memory.

Regardless of what you're downloading to, whether it be XBox360, PS3 or PC/Laptop, you will never be able to hold an entire collection of 1080p/Master Audio 7.1 movies with all the bonus and extra footage that would normally fill a 50+GB Blu Disc or 30GB HDD. I mean, how many could you hold? 2 - 4 movies Tops. Not 20 or 30. Are you going to have a stack of Hard Drives?

I think Michael Bay is very bitter about the Paramount deal because he has no control where as Spielberg has control. Spielberg just said, "Not my films!". Bay doesn't have that power or control yet. I believe he will though. Bay has too much talent and respect for him not to one day attain "Spielberg type Status". Aslo, Mike stuck to his guns in all this so his stock rose tremendously.

Check out "The Universal Loss" on MichaelBay.com SEE Here: http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=604 (http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=604)

[Drongo]

The talk of Blu-ray sales lead over HD-DVD is largely irrelevant.

The only market where any ‘significant’ volume of HD media has been sold is North America – and that is paltry in comparison to standard definition DVD.

The North American market is where both camps are focusing their energies, and the one most subject to dynamic change.

The effects of the price reduced PS3 and the highly price competitive HD DVD standalones will have to be evaluated in the months to come.

Only a fool would assume that things cannot change for better or worse for either format.

As to the rest of the world, Blu-ray has a sales advantage over HD-DVD.

The ratios look impressive, but in truth volumes are so small, that they are meaningless.

The BDA recently announced the millionth Blu-ray film had been sold in Europe.

What they didn’t announce was the sales volumes for titles languishing at the bottom of the sales chart.

In the UK some of those poorer selling titles, volumes can be measured in the tens of units sold – yes that’s tens of units sold i.e. sub one hundred sales.

Nothing is set in stone as yet.

[Ranger]

And does the fact that he loves Apple products make his opinion less valid? He does stick with the facts.

The fact is that Blu-ray is the most technically superior format. But, that's just part of the story. VC-1 is a horrible codec with limited colorspace. I've encoded HD footage in both mpeg and VC-1 codec and the color space seems to be wider in MPEG.

Actually he doesn't stick with the facts. He's repeating Bill Hunt's version of the facts as he doesn't really know much about HDM or the history of the format war himself. Bill Hunt posted many of the same conspiracy theories on his own web site 9 days before Daniel posted his story. The rest of his site is focused mostly on Microsoft vs. Apple and is focused on the PC realm. If I have time, I'll go through his post and point out a number of issues.

Ok, so you don't like VC-1. The Transformers HD DVD is encoded in AVC/Mpeg4. You have the same codec choices in both formats. What is it that you prefer about Blu-ray specifically? BD+? Region Coding?

[No1fan]

The talk of Blu-ray sales lead over HD-DVD is largely irrelevant.

The only market where any ‘significant’ volume of HD media has been sold is North America – and that is paltry in comparison to standard definition DVD.

The North American market is where both camps are focusing their energies, and the one most subject to dynamic change.

The effects of the price reduced PS3 and the highly price competitive HD DVD standalones will have to be evaluated in the months to come.

Only a fool would assume that things cannot change for better or worse for either format.

As to the rest of the world, Blu-ray has a sales advantage over HD-DVD.

The ratios look impressive, but in truth volumes are so small, that they are meaningless.

The BDA recently announced the millionth Blu-ray film had been sold in Europe.

What they didn’t announce was the sales volumes for titles languishing at the bottom of the sales chart.

In the UK some of those poorer selling titles, volumes can be measured in the tens of units sold – yes that’s tens of units sold i.e. sub one hundred sales.

Nothing is set in stone as yet.

Only a fool would be so dismissve of the world market outside of the US, and to back a format that is only staying in the game thanks to firesale standalone sales and dubious deals buying studio format exclusivity.

I am from the UK, the market only kicked in when the PS3 launched in March, to move 1m discs so far, before Christmas, shows how the format is taking hold.

UK stores are dedicating increasing amounts shelf space to Blu-ray, HD-DVD is increasingly looking like a flash in the pan format, in the UK at least, like Philips CDI, Video CD etc.

HD-DVD have alrady played all their cars in the US, cheaper standalones, buying off Paramount etc., they have nothing left. In the process they have killed any potenial new CE's joining the HD-DVD camp, great stategy!

In spite of this, they still lose week after week by a 2-1+ ratio, it really does appear as if A2/A3 firesale has been countered and more by the PS3, with Blu-ray still having cheaper standalones to come in 2008.

[roadrash]

I couldn't see any difference in picture quality between blueray & HD-DVD when i comaping them in a shop. It was a good comparison because they were both playing the same thing on the same brand of tv. I bought the HD-DVD in the end because it cost me £170 and the blue ray was over £400. Seeing as there was no difference in picture quality it was the best choice. No just that I also thought well in the long term I'd rather loose £170 than loose £400+ if i end up with the loosing format. I will still get to see a lot i good I def stuff in the meantime.
I think price will have a large part to play in getting HI Def DVD players into the mass market to replace current DVD players.
I like the online features abilty of the HD-DVD player and especially the abilty to add new features & improve over time by downloading of firmaware updates via broadband or from CD. This is something I understand blue ray doesn't do but something they are looking at except that it will only apply to blue ray players in the future and not for existing ones.
anyway I'm loving the HI Def movies & gonna be watching Transformers soon with the lights off and my Yamaha surround sound cranked up. lol

[Drongo]

All of the models you can currently buy do 1080p24 output with no 1080i60 stage.

1080p does make a difference - one need only look at all the sets that fail deinterlacing and 3:2 tests to know this.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/
http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1107hook2/


Ah, but 'models you can currently buy' is not the same thing as all Blu-ray players and no guarantee that future players will not be effected by this.

http://www.bigscreen.com/about/help.php?id=47



Both HD DVD and Blu-ray store movie-based video on the discs in 1080p at 24 frames per second (fps). Some players do not output 1080p, but rather 1080i due to the circuitry implemented in the player for cost-savings or product maturity reasons.
Most displays are not capable of accepting a 1080p signal at 24 frames per second. More than likely, they need a 1080p signal at 60 frames per second (if they can take 1080p at all), so the conversion from 24 fps to 60 fps still needs to happen somewhere (this conversion is called 3:2, or 2:3, pulldown). The fact that most TV's cannot handle 1080p24 is why most HD DVD players and Blu-ray players alike output 1920x1080 at 60 fps in either interlaced or progressive fashion.
Does this mean that you're losing picture quality if your player is outputting 1080i, or your TV is only capable of accepting 1080i? As long as your TV is capable of displaying 1920x1080 pixels on the screen, and its internal circuitry was designed properly, there won't be any difference between a 1080i and 1080p input. The HDTV will deinterlace the 1080i signal, create a 1080p signal from it, and then display it to you. Unlike in the old days of analog video, there is no information lost or artifacts introduced as a result of the deinterlacing process. All the information is there, it just has to be reassembled.


http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/



Short Version
What this all means is this:
• When it comes to movies (as in HD DVD and Blu-ray) there will be no visible difference between the 1080i signal and the 1080p signal, as long as your TV correctly de-interlaces 1080i. So even if you could input 1080p, you wouldn't see a difference (because there is none).

Still we're getting geeky here.

As I say, put both formats into the average consumers home and see if they can tell the two apart.

[Exist_To_Resist]

Oy vay, yes 1080p24 vs 1080i60 does make a difference, slight differennce.
The only advantage BR has over HDDVD is the storage capacity, which in turn will give you higher bit rates and colour ranges.
First of all, native 1080 resolution is not meant to be displayed on anyhting but screens of 24" to 30" wide screen. Anything larger than that you will start to notice artifacting in fast moving scenes, and you will start to see the grain. You want to know what resolution pairs up to what size screen, look at computer monitors.
Besides i have watched DVD's on 60" screens, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the picture, looks good to me, granted not as sharp, but whatever, its watchable, picture is clean, and i enjoyed it.

The user interface on HD is far superior and has nicer features.
BR abandoned their early adopters by upgrading their firmware with new features that are not backwards compatible with first gen BR players, how nice, release a product to the market without finalising the specification.
You'r $1000 BR player was worth it wasn't it?
How about the fact that the first batch of BR movies used MPEG2 encoding, laughable, and insulting.

Do you know why both formats will be around for a while, because the cost to produce movies on HDVD is 10 times less of the cost to produce movies on BR. The big studios can afford this, but the small studios will not and they will opt for the HDVD format.

Both formats have their pros and cons.

[Drongo]

Only a fool would be so dismissve of the world market outside of the US, and to back a format that is only staying in the game thanks to firesale standalone sales and dubious deals buying studio format exclusivity.

I am from the UK, the market only kicked in when the PS3 launched in March, to move 1m discs so far, before Christmas, shows how the format is taking hold.

UK stores are dedicating increasing amounts shelf space to Blu-ray, HD-DVD is increasingly looking like a flash in the pan format, in the UK at least, like Philips CDI, Video CD etc.

HD-DVD have alrady played all their cars in the US, cheaper standalones, buying off Paramount etc., they have nothing left. In the process they have killed any potenial new CE's joining the HD-DVD camp, great stategy!

In spite of this, they still lose week after week by a 2-1+ ratio, it really does appear as if A2/A3 firesale has been countered and more by the PS3, with Blu-ray still having cheaper standalones to come in 2008.

I am not dismissive of the world market, rather putting it into context.

Things can change - time will tell.

I think time will also tell whether your assumption that HD DVD have already played 'all their cards' and 'alienated all other CE's' is correct or not ;)

[No1fan]

You have the same codec choices in both formats. What is it that you prefer about Blu-ray specifically? BD+? Region Coding?

I'll speak for myself.

I prefare Blu-ray as it recieves the support the major CE's, plus budget manufactuers from China, which it has been conformed will enter the Blu-ray market in 2008.

It has the support of crucial studios like Disney and FOX, which I personally could not do without.

It has the backing of industry giants such as Steven Spielberg and Michael Bay.

I like the fact the PS3 is Blu-ray compatable, it introduces potentially millions more consumers to Blu-ray, possibly years before they would have considered a standalone player, it's also a great player.

The 50GB capacity gives Blu-ray the headroom for high bitrate encodes, multiple soundtracks, including True HD and PCM, and HD extras.

My final two points, I firmly believe Blu-ray will win the format war, that has to play a part in which format you buy. Blu-ray was also a logical choice as HD-DVD is virtually invisable in the UK, retailers and marketing is only pushing Blu-ray, HD-DVD is nowhere to be seen, unfortuanately for Mr Bay, this also means HD-DVD Transfromers lags well behind the likes of Spiderman 3 and POTC 3, which are of course on Blu-ray.

HD-DVD is a great format, but it's second best to Blu-ray in all dpts. short of interactivity, which will be with us in the coming weeks on Blu-ray.

[No1fan]

Oy vay, yes 1080p24 vs 1080i60 does make a difference, slight differennce.
The only advantage BR has over HDDVD is the storage capacity, which in turn will give you higher bit rates and colour ranges.
First of all, native 1080 resolution is not meant to be displayed on anyhting but screens of 24" to 30" wide screen. Anything larger than that you will start to notice artifacting in fast moving scenes, and you will start to see the grain. You want to know what resolution pairs up to what size screen, look at computer monitors.
Besides i have watched DVD's on 60" screens, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the picture, looks good to me, granted not as sharp, but whatever, its watchable, picture is clean, and i enjoyed it.

The user interface on HD is far superior and has nicer features.
BR abandoned their early adopters by upgrading their firmware with new features that are not backwards compatible with first gen BR players, how nice, release a product to the market without finalising the specification.
You'r $1000 BR player was worth it wasn't it?
How about the fact that the first batch of BR movies used MPEG2 encoding, laughable, and insulting.

Do you know why both formats will be around for a while, because the cost to produce movies on HDVD is 10 times less of the cost to produce movies on BR. The big studios can afford this, but the small studios will not and they will opt for the HDVD format.

Both formats have their pros and cons.



You know full well much of what you post is utter rubbish and has been debunked many times.

Unfortunately HD-DVD fans have ruined a number of forums with FUD posts and attacking Blu-ray supporters in the past, don't let this be the next on your list!

Mr Bay has made his feelings clear, it is quite clear Microsofts intentions are to kill BOTH formats, I would have thought HD-DVD owners would have been a little worried the likes of Mr Bay have openly stated what we've known for a long time.

[dobyblue]

Oy vay, yes 1080p24 vs 1080i60 does make a difference, slight differennce.
The only advantage BR has over HDDVD is the storage capacity, which in turn will give you higher bit rates and colour ranges.
First of all, native 1080 resolution is not meant to be displayed on anyhting but screens of 24" to 30" wide screen. Anything larger than that you will start to notice artifacting in fast moving scenes, and you will start to see the grain. You want to know what resolution pairs up to what size screen, look at computer monitors.
Besides i have watched DVD's on 60" screens, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the picture, looks good to me, granted not as sharp, but whatever, its watchable, picture is clean, and i enjoyed it.

The user interface on HD is far superior and has nicer features.
BR abandoned their early adopters by upgrading their firmware with new features that are not backwards compatible with first gen BR players, how nice, release a product to the market without finalising the specification.
You'r $1000 BR player was worth it wasn't it?
How about the fact that the first batch of BR movies used MPEG2 encoding, laughable, and insulting.

Laughing and insulting to whom? The people watching 5 star PQ encodes in MPEG-2 of X Men 3, MI:3, etc? MPEG-2 can look just as good as MPEG-4 and VC-1 because of Blu-ray's bandwidth.
What features aren't compatible with the older players? PIP? I guess you conveniently forgot to mention that all PIP content can be viewable in all players separately.
1080 content is supposed to be watched on 24" monitors, yet DVD's look fine on 60" TV's. Something is incongruent in your post bud.
You contend that extra capacity somehow magically gives you more bandwidth and color? You don't know what you're talking about.
25GB Blu-ray gives you 48 Mbps bandwidth.
What does 50GB Blu-ray give you? 48 Mbps bandwidth. Your theory is incorrect.

[dobyblue]

Ah, but 'models you can currently buy' is not the same thing as all Blu-ray players and no guarantee that future players will not be effected by this.


There is no guarantee - but with 99% of players avoiding 1080i60 conversions in the player, it's a pretty safe bet that this will continue.

I presume you mean affected and most Blu-ray CE's are pushing 24p True Cinema logo, so it's a safe bet that this is what the BDA encourages.

Perhaps when Toshiba releases a Blu-ray player it will not be 1080p24?

[dobyblue]

Do you know why both formats will be around for a while, because the cost to produce movies on HDVD is 10 times less of the cost to produce movies on BR. The big studios can afford this, but the small studios will not and they will opt for the HDVD format.
You're just flat out lying here.
Ten times less? Try ten cents less.
Richard Casey from R&B FIlms who produced Nature's Journey on both formats says the difference in cost between the two formats for his studio was "Negligible"

[Drongo]

There is no guarantee - but with 99% of players avoiding 1080i60 conversions in the player, it's a pretty safe bet that this will continue.

I presume you mean affected and most Blu-ray CE's are pushing 24p True Cinema logo, so it's a safe bet that this is what the BDA encourages.

Perhaps when Toshiba releases a Blu-ray player it will not be 1080p24?


Thanks for the correction - yes I meant affected.

I'm sure you're right as a matter of marketing the BDA probably will encourage it, no guarantees that everyone within the BDA will follow that path though.

Toshiba release a BD player? I suspect that will only happen as part of an agreement to endorse dual format players as a 'peace pact' between both formats.

So far it's the BDA who have had CE's go dual format, not the other way around.

As you are obviously a believer in 'proper' 1080p/24 - do you think that the average consumer, with the average Hi-Def display will notice the difference and be swayed by it?

[Tobi]

I assume he means the code MPEG...and the higher bitrate...all which affect the color space/range.

AVC/MPEG4 was used on the HD DVD release of Transformers (not VC-1), and we all know how that one turned out.

[dobyblue]

I believe the average consumer when things are pointed out to them will notice the difference - but you've also got to remember that there are a handful of sets out there, like the Pioneer PDP6010FD 60" 1080p Kuro plasma which pass not only deinterlacing tests, but 3:2 cadence detection tests as well. In this case the 1080i60 material will be corrected converted back to 1080p24 and dispalyed at 72Hz, removing all instances of judder and motion artifacting.
Not everyone has this set though. But on this set even a trianed eye wouldn't notice the difference, because there is none.

On plenty of other sets (ie - avergae sets and I've provided the links to the testing) the 1080i60 is not converted back to 1080p24, but rather it loses 540 lines of resolution and doubles them.

Interlaced frame (first 6 lines of a 1080 line signal)
1
_2
3
_4
5
_6

Correctly deinterlaced
1
2
3
4
5
6

Poor deinterlacing
1
1
3
3
5
5

Yes, I think most people would notice.

As for the BDA I don't think anyone has encouraged dual format players. LG has 3% or les of the standalone market with their player and with the new one coming in at $999 it's highly unlikely that will change. Samsung's dula format player - well they've already said from Korea that their neutral stance was temporary and they are back to being all about Blu-ray. No doubt their 49% ownership in the TSST (Toshiba Samsung Storage Technologies) had something to do with their one off release.

Toshiba are the only manufacturer making HD DVD hardware. The Venturer is an A3, the Onkyo is an XA2. This cannot be said of the current batch of Blu-ray standalone players.

If Warner drops HD DVD next year, Universal will not be far behind going neutral. They are right above PHL and they have been in for visits. Toshiba has no bargaining power with the BDA, don't kid yourself. Someone else mentioned it would be a cold day in hell before Uni releases on Blu - this is simply not true. They lose nothing by releasing on both formats. Toshiba loses everything. Would you buy hardware from a company when you can get releases from every major studio on BLu, but only three of them on HD DVD?

[poothedrew]

I don't know who is feeding you these lies but these statements are completely false.

No matter what size the HD DVD disk gets 51gb or 30gb the bandwidth will not change. This is the biggest flaw with the HD DVD spec. It is limited to the 36mbs bit rate for the rest of its life or risk all current players being useless.

If you think that Blu-ray is not pushing its superior 48mbs peek bit rate you are mistaken. Several titles reach this limit.

Check out this link for average bit rates for Blu-ray movies. Some have average bit-rates over 40mbs
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338

The rate at which data travels has really no real affect on the quality. It would if you were downloading it but you have the content stored on disc. In fact as the technology gets better this number will go down not up.
But as the rest of the thread don't let reality interfere with your opinion.

[poothedrew]

You're just flat out lying here.
Ten times less? Try ten cents less.
Richard Casey from R&B FIlms who produced Nature's Journey on both formats says the difference in cost between the two formats for his studio was "Negligible"
Cost per disc is @ 3 or 4 cents for hddvd vs 50 cents for blu. All those little discs do make a difference.

[Slacabamorinico]

As you are obviously a believer in 'proper' 1080p/24 - do you think that the average consumer, with the average Hi-Def display will notice the difference and be swayed by it?

Does that mean that HD-DVD is "the look and sound of good enough for the average consumer with the average HD display and surround system?"

[Tobi]

Microsoft's Amir Majidimehr responds:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/amirm/default.mspx

From AVS forums:


Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo http://images.avsforum.com/avs-images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12404679#post12404679)
Any insider want to comment on Michael Bay's new comments on his preference for Blu-ray?

"michaelbay
Director

Do you think you know my film look? - Today, 04:13 AM
Does anyone out here want to challenge what I feel suits my films better in terms of look. I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better. But that said - I don't a care about this format war because I have both formats in my screening room - I'm just filling you in on what people deep in the film industry feel ultimately is going on -

Transformers looks great even in DVD!!"

http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum...9&postcount=40 (http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6069&postcount=40)

A few comments:

1. It is great that he has both formats! And that he thinks even DVD looks great. Imagine how much better HD DVD is then (and how it is possible then for something to be better than it!).

2. We would be happy to invite him to a screening to show him how incredible HD DVD picture quality is on a proper projector/display. And let him find any fault using his own material.

3. Both HD DVD and BD have the same "range." Both are 8-bit products and with 4:2:0 sampling. So the look he describes does not change in that respect no matter which format is used. Indeed we have different encodes of Paramount titles and not a single review that I recall has commented on the range or lighting condition being different on the formats.

Ultimately though, I personally respect the creative person deciding different things that us engineers. For example, AVC was used on Transformers not because it produced the best fidelity/transparency, but the best look in the eye of the “creative” making the call. And we respect that also, even though it meant our codec was not used at the end of the day.

4. The interactivity in HD DVD lets his creativity travel far past the linear movie experience created in theater. That I would think would be music to anyone's ear that cares about creative experiences. BD format is far behind right now in this area so he would take a step back if his wishes came through. We have shown these capabilities to many directors and they can't wait to see their future titles in HD DVD with these features.

Anyway, I love the fact that Michael is active in forums and stays so in touch with his audience. In that respect, he could say VC-1 and HD DVDs sucks a thousand times and that would still be cool with me http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/smilies/smile.gif. I hope though, that like me, he does allow the possibility that folks posting may teach him stuff about things he may not know. I know that I have learned a lot from your postings….
__________________
Amir
Retired HD DVD insider (circa fall 2007)
http://images.avsforum.com/avs-images/statusicon/user_online.gif

Most Blu-Ray backers, either dislike him, or down right hate him for the obvious reasons, but I couldn't say enough good things about him. I for one would like to see if anything comes out of this.

[Slacabamorinico]

Cost per disc is @ 3 or 4 cents for hddvd vs 50 cents for blu. All those little discs do make a difference.

:confused:


HD DVD replication vs Blu-ray replication at Plant #1
My confidential industry source revealed that one large replication company is currently charging approximately $1.15 per single layer HD DVD (15GB) and $1.30 per single layer Blu-ray Disc (25GB), assuming a quantity of 25,000. For comparison purposes, a run of 25,000 Dual Layer DVD (DVD9) discs would cost about $0.50 per disc at this same facility. DL HD DVD (30GB) was right inline with SL Blu-ray (25GB) pricing, but an exact figure was not provided. This translates to a cost of approximately $0.077 per GB on HD DVD SL media and $0.052 per GB on Blu-ray SL media.

Blu-ray replication costs Plant #2 (Blu-ray only)
I received quotes on Blu-ray single layer (25GB) replication at plant #2 between $1.35-$1.45 USD per disc on runs of 25K or more. Blu-ray DL (50GB) was quoted between $2.15 - $2.25 per disc on a 25,000 quantity run. Taking the high end on this range, this translates to approximately $0.045 per GB for Blu-ray DL media.

---and more in this story here. (http://wesleytech.com/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-revealed/111/) From February 2007.

[Drongo]

I believe the average consumer when things are pointed out to them will notice the difference - but you've also got to remember that there are a handful of sets out there, like the Pioneer PDP6010FD 60" 1080p Kuro plasma which pass not only deinterlacing tests, but 3:2 cadence detection tests as well. In this case the 1080i60 material will be corrected converted back to 1080p24 and dispalyed at 72Hz, removing all instances of judder and motion artifacting.
Not everyone has this set though. But on this set even a trianed eye wouldn't notice the difference, because there is none.

On plenty of other sets (ie - avergae sets and I've provided the links to the testing) the 1080i60 is not converted back to 1080p24, but rather it loses 540 lines of resolution and doubles them.

Interlaced frame (first 6 lines of a 1080 line signal)
1
_2
3
_4
5
_6

Correctly deinterlaced
1
2
3
4
5
6

Poor deinterlacing
1
1
3
3
5
5

Yes, I think most people would notice.

As for the BDA I don't think anyone has encouraged dual format players. LG has 3% or les of the standalone market with their player and with the new one coming in at $999 it's highly unlikely that will change. Samsung's dula format player - well they've already said from Korea that their neutral stance was temporary and they are back to being all about Blu-ray. No doubt their 49% ownership in the TSST (Toshiba Samsung Storage Technologies) had something to do with their one off release.

Toshiba are the only manufacturer making HD DVD hardware. The Venturer is an A3, the Onkyo is an XA2. This cannot be said of the current batch of Blu-ray standalone players.

If Warner drops HD DVD next year, Universal will not be far behind going neutral. They are right above PHL and they have been in for visits. Toshiba has no bargaining power with the BDA, don't kid yourself. Someone else mentioned it would be a cold day in hell before Uni releases on Blu - this is simply not true. They lose nothing by releasing on both formats. Toshiba loses everything. Would you buy hardware from a company when you can get releases from every major studio on BLu, but only three of them on HD DVD?



Yes, I think most people would notice. That’s interesting. That’s contrary to my own personal experience. I take it you yourself have evaluated both formats closely before coming to your conclusions?

If you are correct, it would be an asset for the BD side.

Rather than touting this ‘feature’ to people who probably have no awareness of the term ‘1080p/24’ perhaps the BDA would be best advised to sponsor some independently run tests among real world consumers?

Surely positive feedback from group of neutral consumers would carry more weight than any advertising slogan or paper specification?



Samsung's dula format player - well they've already said from Korea that their neutral stance was temporary and they are back to being all about Blu-ray.As to Samsung going back to being entirely Blu-ray, you mean they are cancelling the BDP-5000 dual format player? :confused:




Toshiba are the only manufacturer making HD DVD hardware. The Venturer is an A3, the Onkyo is an XA2. This cannot be said of the current batch of Blu-ray standalone players.

Yes, I realise that all current HD-DVD standalone players stem from the Toshiba created reference design as will be all the forthcoming HD DVD/China machines.

So a single CE is giving support to the HD DVD format –currently- as is the model in the gaming world - only Sony make a PS3, only Microsoft the 360 and only Nintendo the Wii.

Several Blu-ray standalones are re-badges. Many Sony’s are Pioneer manufactured, the Philips is a Samsung clone - so the number of ‘names’ that support the format isn’t indicative of the number of manufacturers.


If Warner drops HD DVD next year That’s an assumption and a pretty big assumption!


I think you would be wiser to wait and see rather than speculate. The thinking about Warner changes with the wind – “they are going Blu! they are going HD DVD!”

The truth is Warners could profit from staying neutral both in terms of sales and in terms of ‘incentives’ from both sides.

Any talk of what Warner will do is guess work.




Toshiba has no bargaining power with the BDA


As to Toshiba having no bargaining power the BDA?


The very fact of HD DVD’s existence is bargaining power! The BDA’s strategy from the outset was to eliminate HD DVD.


It has so far failed.


Despite all the studio support, despite all the CE support, despite the Trojan donkey that is the PS3, HD DVD exists, grows and has more studio support now than at launch.

If the BDA fail to eliminate HD DVD they will have to talk to each other; if only to work out how best to co-exist in a dual format Hi-Def world.

[No1fan]

Tell you what, let the consumer decide, just like they already have in Europe, Japan and Australia, were HD-DVD is non existent, though I realise these regions no longer matter to HD-DVD, apparently. They mattered when early predictions had HD-DVD dominating Europe.

If the A2/A3 firesale doesn't have the desired effect, it's game up.

I guess it's no coincidence the same pro HD-DVD posters crop up on every forum with ludicrous post counts!

[Drongo]

Does that mean that HD-DVD is "the look and sound of good enough for the average consumer with the average HD display and surround system?"


It means that it is the average consumer who will decide the success or failure of each format - it's probably the person with the 42" LCD who holds the power, not somone with a 1080p PJ, a Lumagen scaler and Stewart screen.

Of course, if you do have a high end set up, such people, may be able to see a difference if it is there.

And if they cannot see a difference, then everybody will be wondering what all the 1080p/24 fuss is about...;)

[nelson]

Microsoft's Amir Majidimehr responds:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/amirm/default.mspx

From AVS forums:



Most Blu-Ray backers, either dislike him, or down right hate him for the obvious reasons, but I couldn't say enough good things about him. I for one would like to see if anything comes out of this.

A link would be nice.

[poothedrew]

First of all I can tell we all have something in common: WE ALL LOVE MOVIES!

There is so much passion about the technology that will be used to deliver them it’s amazing.
With all the discussion about the competing disc sizes I wonder why no one has mentioned that downloading 30 GB to 50 GB each movie is just not going to happen any time soon. Are consumers going to wait half an hour just to get the first 10 minutes of the movie to stream or 4 or 5 days for the entire thing?

Even on the network I designed that is 1 Gb/s that would be 100 times faster than some of the fastest DSL connection transferring that much data takes 30 tour to 45 minutes. Internet connections are not even at 100 Mb /s Lan speeds most are not at 10 Mb /s (1.2 Mega Bytes per second 7 + hours on a connection between 2 computers not the 25 that the packets need to hop on the internet ).

Connections are not the problem the networks that deliver the content are years away from delivering that kind of speed. Without a massive sacrifice in picture quality this is just not going to happen anytime soon. It’s one thing to download the latest Heroes episode in broadcast quality HD a completely different animal.
I think people are seriously overestimating the technical prowess of MS if they think these fundamental hurdles will be overcome by 2010 or even 2012 by then this whole HD disc thing will be hopefully sorted.

But here is a whole different argument: Imagine how excited little Johnny will be when he gets a Visa receipt for his favourite movie download under the tree!
I would be considered the extreme high end of technology user, I make my living designing computers systems for companies I have been doing this for over 20 years. Humans like to touch things especially the things we love movies being one of them. I think we will always want to own part of that experience it helps us to remember the excitement of watching the movie in the theatre. Downloading will happen but mostly for rental and broadcast quality.

It is our passion to touch and feel and experience all the wonder that is movies that will make downloading them a poor second cousin to pleasure of ownership

[dobyblue]

Cost per disc is @ 3 or 4 cents for hddvd vs 50 cents for blu. All those little discs do make a difference.

Please stop talking out your ass.

I think most people here will assume the word of a neutral producer (Richard Casey, President and Executive Producer, R&B Films, "Chronos" and "Nature's Journey" available on both HD DVD and Blu-ray) over your statement backed up with no evidence whatsoever.

http://hidefpreview.com/Breaking%20News.html

5. Which HD format is less expensive to produce for? Details?


Well, if you asked me this question a year ago, the answer would be different. However, from a production standpoint, there is no difference in cost between HD and BD formats.

[Drongo]

Tell you what, let the consumer decide, just like they already have in Europe


If you are in favour of the consumer deciding - you presumably would be favour of having all studios neutral?

So then people could make a fair choice of format based on what they want and not studio politics.

[Bumblebee1983]

If studios let consumers decide, it'd end up just like this thread: bashing it over another.

It's pointless, and frankly my head hurts trying to figure out all this jargon. I want to see and enjoy the movies on my home theater system....that's all. HDMI upconvert is good enough for me at the moment, but the fact that I've had friends all hail HD is what I'm going for.

I may just have to sit in Electronic Express and look at the difference, if there is one, and decide whether to go blu ray with HD DVD in the near future.

[dobyblue]

That’s interesting. That’s contrary to my own personal experience. I take it you yourself have evaluated both formats closely before coming to your conclusions?

If you are correct, it would be an asset for the BD side.

Why would it be an asset for the Blu-ray side - from what I understand the A35 bypasses the 1080i60 and can read 1080p24 right off the HD DVD disc.

Rather than touting this ‘feature’ to people who probably have no awareness of the term ‘1080p/24’ perhaps the BDA would be best advised to sponsor some independently run tests among real world consumers?

Surely positive feedback from group of neutral consumers would carry more weight than any advertising slogan or paper specification?
I sincerely doubt it.


As to Samsung going back to being entirely Blu-ray, you mean they are cancelling the BDP-5000 dual format player? :confused:

Nope, my post says "one off" and as they haven't released one yet, the BD-p5000 must be that one.


So a single CE is giving support to the HD DVD format –currently- as is the model in the gaming world - only Sony make a PS3, only Microsoft the 360 and only Nintendo the Wii.
Sorry, I'm not sure how that's a valid comparison at all.


Several Blu-ray standalones are re-badges. Many Sony’s are Pioneer manufactured, the Philips is a Samsung clone - so the number of ‘names’ that support the format isn’t indicative of the number of manufacturers.
That's only the first Pioneer and BDP-S1. The players since are their own - the reason behind those first models was to get a few players out on market at the same time.
Your statement is almost a year incorrect. 18 monhts after HD DVD's inception though, it's still all Toshiba.


That’s an assumption and a pretty big assumption!
Yes it is, but I've never seen Warner make a statement like they did at the Blu-ray Event 2007. Even though they had to make a statement to tone down all the talk, it was still said. It is a glimpse ot the future and I believe Warner will drop HD DVD before the next Batman movie comes out.


I think you would be wiser to wait and see rather than speculate.
That's a pretty redundant statement.


The truth is Warners could profit from staying neutral both in terms of sales and in terms of ‘incentives’ from both sides.
Not one tenth of what they will profit when Blu-ray acheives mass market adoption as the replacement for DVD.


Any talk of what Warner will do is guess work.
Sure thing.


As to Toshiba having no bargaining power the BDA?


The very fact of HD DVD’s existence is bargaining power! The BDA’s strategy from the outset was to eliminate HD DVD.
Nope, the BDA's strategy is to provide a better product, which they are doing. I know it, Michael Bay knows it, Steven Spielberg knows it.


It has so far failed.


Despite all the studio support, despite all the CE support, despite the Trojan donkey that is the PS3, HD DVD exists, grows and has more studio support now than at launch.
HD DVD isn't growing. They had 55% of the market in North America in January 2007. They now have 38%. How is that growing?


If the BDA fail to eliminate HD DVD they will have to talk to each other; if only to work out how best to co-exist in a dual format Hi-Def world.
If it's a dual format future they won't talk, studios will jhust stop releasing with no reasons to think otherwise. That's why months can go by without a new DVD-Audio release. (I would include SACD too, but that's still successful in the classical and jazz audiophile world)

[dobyblue]

If you are in favour of the consumer deciding - you presumably would be favour of having all studios neutral?

So then people could make a fair choice of format based on what they want and not studio politics.
That's what Warner have done and the people chose BLu-ray, despite the interactive advantages of HD DVD.

Why would it be different for any other studio? Disney and Fox don't want to compromise their encodes.

[dobyblue]

The rate at which data travels has really no real affect on the quality. It would if you were downloading it but you have the content stored on disc. In fact as the technology gets better this number will go down not up.
But as the rest of the thread don't let reality interfere with your opinion.

You are severely confused.

Take a .wav file - encode it at 96 Kbps.
Re-encode that .wav file at 320 Kbps.

Listen to them and compare.

Do you see?

:rolleyes:

Bandwidth has a very close relationship to quality. How someone can suggest otherwise is probably beyond everyone else posting here.

[nelson]

Microsoft responds...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12405162#post12405162

[nelson]

If you are in favour of the consumer deciding - you presumably would be favour of having all studios neutral?

So then people could make a fair choice of format based on what they want and not studio politics.

No, all I'm asking is that no outside companies interfere..hence prolong this war. If the studio decide to support said format, so be it. But what sucks is that Toshiba (who doesn't have $150 million to be allocating to marketing, much less pay studios) all of the sudden gave P/DW $150 million out of the blue with no help from their biggest supporter.

Don't know if you were around for the VHS/Beta wars, but the formats fought amongst themselves without 3rd party "supporters" bribing studios.

[Quback]

The format wars are a temporary problem...BluRay/HD DVD..it doesn't matter. All movies, (and TV) if they aren't already, will be available for download over the net in HD digitally. They will be easily downloaded and stored on your hard drive. I already do it with Xbox Marketplace and my HD Tivo. There are other options as well. The movies look great. It's no hassle, much cheaper than a DVD..and I don't have a bunch of DVD boxes cluttering up my screening room.
Consumers in more wired countries, like Korea, apparently don't use DVD's now at all..everything they want to watch, they download.

So, please quite crying about this HD vs. BluRay "war" ...they will both be gone, like vinyl records and 8 Track tapes, very, very soon.

Jim

[nelson]

The format wars are a temporary problem...BluRay/HD DVD..it doesn't matter. All movies, (and TV) if they aren't already, will be available for download over the net in HD digitally. They will be easily downloaded and stored on your hard drive. I already do it with Xbox Marketplace and my HD Tivo. There are other options as well. The movies look great. It's no hassle, much cheaper than a DVD..and I don't have a bunch of DVD boxes cluttering up my screening room.
Consumers in more wired countries, like Korea, apparently don't use DVD's now at all..everything they want to watch, they download.

So, please quite crying about this HD vs. BluRay "war" ...they will both be gone, like vinyl records and 8 Track tapes, very, very soon.

Jim

Please, the movies downloaded from xBox Live look nowhere near as good as Blu-ray or HD-DVD disks.

[Bumblebee1983]

The format wars are a temporary problem...BluRay/HD DVD..it doesn't matter. All movies, (and TV) if they aren't already, will be available for download over the net in HD digitally. They will be easily downloaded and stored on your hard drive. I already do it with Xbox Marketplace and my HD Tivo. There are other options as well. The movies look great. It's no hassle, much cheaper than a DVD..and I don't have a bunch of DVD boxes cluttering up my screening room.
Consumers in more wired countries, like Korea, apparently don't use DVD's now at all..everything they want to watch, they download.

So, please quite crying about this HD vs. BluRay "war" ...they will both be gone, like vinyl records and 8 Track tapes, very, very soon.

Jim

Not everyone has high speed internet access capable of downloading those kinds of movies, especially in HD format.

Also...that would take a HUGE hard drive depending on how big of a movie fan you are.

So I don't think that will take off yet. The format war is here to stay for a while anyway.

[poothedrew]

Please stop talking out your ass.

I think most people here will assume the word of a neutral producer (Richard Casey, President and Executive Producer, R&B Films, "Chronos" and "Nature's Journey" available on both HD DVD and Blu-ray) over your statement backed up with no evidence whatsoever.

http://hidefpreview.com/Breaking%20News.html

5. Which HD format is less expensive to produce for? Details?


Well, if you asked me this question a year ago, the answer would be different. However, from a production standpoint, there is no difference in cost between HD and BD formats.

Wow now that you used a really big font I agree with you! Do you use such a big font to compensate for your lack of critical thinking or something else?
The manufacturing costs are artificially levelled because Sony subsidises the start up costs for the manufacturer.
The physical media costs are still vastly different each BD disc is more expensive 50 to 70 cents not to dupe it or anything else just the disc.
HD-DVD based on DVD has taken advantage of the economy of scale the DVD provided giving a physical disc that is 2-4 cents to make. (NOT REPRODUCE)
It has to enter your thinking that the years of producing DVD’s and just walking into Best Buy looking at the DVD +-R prices falling to deduce that the disc based on this would be cheaper, it uses the same equipment same lasers etc.

http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/video/dvd-hdd-players-and-receivers/blu-ray-and-hd-dvd/news/why-hd-dvd-costs-less-than-blu-ray?articleid=985000801 (http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/video/dvd-hdd-players-and-receivers/blu-ray-and-hd-dvd/news/why-hd-dvd-costs-less-than-blu-ray?articleid=985000801)

[crazzeto]

Mr. Bay,

What comments do you have regarding the fact that Sony also is working on integrating a Video download service, accessable by the Playstation 3? Additional, the fact that Sony alone has already made assertions that future iterations of the Playstation consle (only thing keeping blu ray alive) *WILL NOT* include *ANY* sort of optical media support. All game (and movie) content for the playstation 4 on forward would be downloaded.

Please note that Microsoft has never made any such asseristions ever. Also please take into account that HD DVD is the next generation optical format *OFFICIALLY SUPPORTED AND ENDORSED* by the DVD forum, while Blu Ray is a "bastard" format Sony created in order to reap as many royalties as they can.

[nelson]

Mr. Bay,

What comments do you have regarding the fact that Sony also is working on integrating a Video download service, accessable by the Playstation 3? Additional, the fact that Sony alone has already made assertions that future iterations of the Playstation consle (only thing keeping blu ray alive) *WILL NOT* include *ANY* sort of optical media support. All game (and movie) content for the playstation 4 on forward would be downloaded.

Please note that Microsoft has never made any such asseristions ever. Also please take into account that HD DVD is the next generation optical format *OFFICIALLY SUPPORTED AND ENDORSED* by the DVD forum, while Blu Ray is a "bastard" format Sony created in order to reap as many royalties as they can.

You have so much FUD in that post I don't know where to begin. How could Sony get so many royalties when they don't even own all the Blu-ray patents?

[dobyblue]

Wow now that you used a really big font I agree with you! Do you use such a big font to compensate for your lack of critical thinking or something else?
The manufacturing costs are artificially levelled because Sony subsidises the start up costs for the manufacturer.
The physical media costs are still vastly different each BD disc is more expensive 50 to 70 cents not to dupe it or anything else just the disc.
HD-DVD based on DVD has taken advantage of the economy of scale the DVD provided giving a physical disc that is 2-4 cents to make. (NOT REPRODUCE)
It has to enter your thinking that the years of producing DVD’s and just walking into Best Buy looking at the DVD +-R prices falling to deduce that the disc based on this would be cheaper, it uses the same equipment same lasers etc.

http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/video/dvd-hdd-players-and-receivers/blu-ray-and-hd-dvd/news/why-hd-dvd-costs-less-than-blu-ray?articleid=985000801 (http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/video/dvd-hdd-players-and-receivers/blu-ray-and-hd-dvd/news/why-hd-dvd-costs-less-than-blu-ray?articleid=985000801)



Wow you've quoted an HD DVD spokesperson who works for Toshiba.
:rolleyes:
Sony does not subsidize anything for Panasonic - in fact we were ahead of Sony, releasing an AVC/MPEG-4 Blu-ray before they did. (Eight Below for Disney)
As for the font, if you bothered to click on the link to see what else Mr. Casey had to say you'd see I merely copied it.
You can take your foot out of your mouth anytime you want to.

[dobyblue]

Mr. Bay,

What comments do you have regarding the fact that Sony also is working on integrating a Video download service, accessable by the Playstation 3? Additional, the fact that Sony alone has already made assertions that future iterations of the Playstation consle (only thing keeping blu ray alive) *WILL NOT* include *ANY* sort of optical media support. All game (and movie) content for the playstation 4 on forward would be downloaded.

Please note that Microsoft has never made any such asseristions ever. Also please take into account that HD DVD is the next generation optical format *OFFICIALLY SUPPORTED AND ENDORSED* by the DVD forum, while Blu Ray is a "bastard" format Sony created in order to reap as many royalties as they can.

Have you actually read anything here or did you just sign up to post this useless tidbit of completely non-factual information?

Compare the companies supporting Blu-ray and the ones supporting HD DVD and see which ones you recognize.

There are 17 patent holders in Blu-ray technology - only the most ignorant trolls would suggest otherwise and claim to still have any knowledge of what's happening with BD and HD DDV.

[dobyblue]

Microsoft responds...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12405162#post12405162

Is that the same guy who said that Blu-ray would never use anything other than BD25GB discs and MPEG-2?

I'm sure MS could make Bay's films look good at a private screening, but who wants to see a future where everyone has to wait for the Microsoft team to do all the encodes? not me. Amir even stated to Richard Casey that it would take their team to get the most out of VC-1 and that unless they were involved it would not look as good as it could.

That's not very promising.

notice how despite getting a 5 star rating on several sites Amir calls into question whether or not TF looked as good as it could thanks to MS not doing the VC-1 encode for them. Typical MS FUD.

[crazzeto]

You have so much FUD in that post I don't know where to begin. How could Sony get so many royalties when they don't even own all the Blu-ray patents?

Which part is FUD?

Sony PS3 also has a video download service.. I guess you've never heard of PSN?

Sony has claimed PS4 will not have optical drive? In fact they did, caused a lot of discussion about why Sony would be dumb enough to snub retailers who lose money selling game console hardware.

HD DVD is officially supported by the DVD forum and Blu Ray isn't... Why is there no blu ray link of http://www.dvdforum.org/forum.shtml? If you could find it that would be great.

Sony collecting Blu Ray Royalties... Yes they do, last estimate I heard was $30/player. Sony is the founding member of the Blu Ray forum, and they are they have been the principal investors, developers and backers of the media.

[poothedrew]

You are severely confused.

Take a .wav file - encode it at 96 Kbps.
Re-encode that .wav file at 320 Kbps.

Listen to them and compare.

Do you see?

:rolleyes:

Bandwidth has a very close relationship to quality. How someone can suggest otherwise is probably beyond everyone else posting here.

I used to work with the guy who created the zip libraries we use today and I had a very similar coversation from a perspective not unlike yours. Where your analagy breaks down is you are using a fixed ecoding scheme "mp3". If I said mp3's encoded at a lower bit rate are no different in quality then I would be crazy.

Here is an example. I have one black dot on a page of white. I could encode it by each line or the whole page. The difference would be staggering in terms of bit rate. Line 1 = 1420 white pixels etc line by line doing the same thing until we reached that one black pixel or I could ecode like this:
1079 White + 1(1419 white + 1 Black).

What would be the difference in quality?

You will notice is that these rates go down as the encoding gets better not the reverse. It's just like more code does not make a better program more efficient code does.

[poothedrew]

Wow you've quoted an HD DVD spokesperson who works for Toshiba.
:rolleyes:
Sony does not subsidize anything for Panasonic - in fact we were ahead of Sony, releasing an AVC/MPEG-4 Blu-ray before they did. (Eight Below for Disney)
As for the font, if you bothered to click on the link to see what else Mr. Casey had to say you'd see I merely copied it.
You can take your foot out of your mouth anytime you want to.

But the content of the Toshiba guy was not the thrust of my point which you convieniently ignored the discs are cheaper no logic in world can argue that.

Learn how to format your fonts, using different type size and font changes the implied meaning of your posts. It leads people to believe you are attempting to be pedagoical with people when I am sure you are just trying to get your point across and not be demeaning.

[nelson]

But the content of the Toshiba guy was not the thrust of my point which you convieniently ignored the discs are cheaper no logic in world can argue that.

Learn how to format your fonts, using different type size and font changes the implied meaning of your posts. It leads people to believe you are attempting to be pedagoical with people when I am sure you are just trying to get your point across and not be demeaning.

I don't know why the "cheaper" angle is being even mention. No one here has any money vested in the studios or production companies.

What the "studios save" by going with HD-DVD is probably what they spend on take-out any given week (assuming that there are any savings).

[poothedrew]

I don't know why the "cheaper" angle is being even mention. No one here has any money vested in the studios or production companies.

What the "studio save" by going with HD-DVD is probably what they spend on take-out any given week (assuming that there are any savings).
Bean counters care and stock holders care and CEO's often make decisions based on their input. (im not one but they do)

Frankly if Star Wars came out next week on BD I would RUN not WALK to the nearest electronics store to get the cheapest PS3 I could buy.

[calactyte]

Hello Michael,

Congrats on the release of Transformers on DVD and HD-DVD. I'm a digital encoding specialist. When I saw your post regarding your preference of Blu-ray over HD-DVD, I paused to think about your statement for a second but then I felt the need to set the record straight.

HD-DVD offers no difference between Blu-Ray in terms of picture quality. I myself, am a Blu-Ray supporter because I feel that the 20 gigs of extra space it provides will be useful in the future, especially when it comes to sound compression. For instance Blu-Rays can supports uncompressed PCM audio in several languages where as an HD-DVD usually cannot because of the space limitation.

That said, the picture quality is no different. A digital transfer is a digital transfer. Almost all Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs discs uses the VC-1 codec which looks identical. When I say identical I don't mean to the naked eye. I mean..byte for byte it's exactly the same. The only thing that can affect the quality from one format to the other is if the file is encoded using a more compressed VC-1 codec setting. Also if the transfer process from film is for some reason done of a lesser quality for one or the other. Often when I get a film that needs to be compressed for both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, then I'm using the same digital transfer so that should never ever happen anyway.

If you wanted to make a case about the sound capacity difference then you'd certainly have a point. In terms of picture quality, if you're seeing a difference it's only in your mind or you're viewing a 1080i image instead of 1080p image from your HD-DVD player.

I hope that clears things up.

-Cal, New York, NY

[dobyblue]

But the content of the Toshiba guy was not the thrust of my point which you convieniently ignored the discs are cheaper no logic in world can argue that.

Learn how to format your fonts, using different type size and font changes the implied meaning of your posts. It leads people to believe you are attempting to be pedagoical with people when I am sure you are just trying to get your point across and not be demeaning.

The fact that it's a Toshiba rep supercedes any other point made in the article, because it's all based on what the Toshiba rep said.

The word of an actual studio releasing on both formats more than trumps what you're showing here as evidence to back up your claim.

As for your final points, this site allows you to copy formatting from other sites and the only reason I didn't change it was simply to save time.

What does pedagoical mean?

[dobyblue]

I used to work with the guy who created the zip libraries we use today and I had a very similar coversation from a perspective not unlike yours. Where your analagy breaks down is you are using a fixed ecoding scheme "mp3". If I said mp3's encoded at a lower bit rate are no different in quality then I would be crazy.

Here is an example. I have one black dot on a page of white. I could encode it by each line or the whole page. The difference would be staggering in terms of bit rate. Line 1 = 1420 white pixels etc line by line doing the same thing until we reached that one black pixel or I could ecode like this:
1079 White + 1(1419 white + 1 Black).

What would be the difference in quality?

You will notice is that these rates go down as the encoding gets better not the reverse. It's just like more code does not make a better program more efficient code does.

Wow, that's a mind-bogglingly dumb example.

[dobyblue]

Which part is FUD?
Sony PS3 also has a video download service.. I guess you've never heard of PSN?
Sony has claimed PS4 will not have optical drive? In fact they did, caused a lot of discussion about why Sony would be dumb enough to snub retailers who lose money selling game console hardware.
HD DVD is officially supported by the DVD forum and Blu Ray isn't... Why is there no blu ray link of http://www.dvdforum.org/forum.shtml? If you could find it that would be great.
Sony collecting Blu Ray Royalties... Yes they do, last estimate I heard was $30/player. Sony is the founding member of the Blu Ray forum, and they are they have been the principal investors, developers and backers of the media.

Who cares what the DVD Forum has to say? All the major CE's are on the Blu-ray team with the exception of Toshiba.
Is the DVD Forum biblical now on what we should and shouldn't do with optical disc formats?

February 19th, 2002: Nine leading companies today announced that they have jointly established the basic specifications for a next generation large capacity optical disc video recording format called "Blu-ray Disc". The Blu-ray Disc enables the recording, rewriting and play back of up to 27 gigabytes (GB) of data on a single sided single layer 12cm CD/DVD size disc using a 405nm blue-violet laser. The companies that established the basic specifications for the Blu-ray Disc are: Hitachi Ltd., LG Electronics Inc., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Pioneer Corporation, Royal Philips Electronics, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation, and Thomson Multimedia.

Does that say "Sony announced" or does it list all the companies that were founding members of the DVD Forum other than Microshiba?

Does the DVD Forum tell you when to eat breakfast as well?

Sony don't get $30 a player. Where did you hear this nonsense from? I notice you conveniently didn't cite a link or source.

[poothedrew]

The fact that it's a Toshiba rep supercedes any other point made in the article, because it's all based on what the Toshiba rep said.

The word of an actual studio releasing on both formats more than trumps what you're showing here as evidence to back up your claim.

As for your final points, this site allows you to copy formatting from other sites and the only reason I didn't change it was simply to save time.

What does pedagoical mean?
If I could spell it means:
pedagogical
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of pedagogy.
2. Characterized by pedantic formality: a haughty, pedagogic manner.

pedagogy is the teaching of children

[dobyblue]

HD-DVD offers no difference between Blu-Ray in terms of picture quality. The picture quality is no different. A digital transfer is a digital transfer.
What? Who do you work for?

Almost all Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs discs uses the VC-1 codec which looks identical.
They do? Funny, you don't seem to know much about Blu-ray at all.
Here's a breakdown of the 2007 Blu-ray Disc releases:


Codecs
MPEG2 65 23.30%
AVC 132 47.31%
VC-1 82 29.39 %

http://blu-raystats.com/codecpie.php?a=0&Date=2007


When I say identical I don't mean to the naked eye. I mean..byte for byte it's exactly the same.
Really, so the 26 Mbps VC-1 encode of Nature's Journey on HD DVD is byte for byte identical to the 37 Mbps VC-1 encode of hte same digital transfer on Blu-ray? Who knew!

I hope that clears things up.
-Cal, New York, NY

Not likely.

[Scapp70]

I think Michael Bay is just as frustrated as all of us Blu fans. Michael Bay is the unsung hero for Blu-Ray, and I think it's great that he makes his ideas on the subject known. He seems unafraid and unrelentant. I applaud the man, and may Transformers make it's way over to the Blu side earlier than expected.

Thanks,
Michael
:)

[dobyblue]

If I could spell it means:
pedagogical
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of pedagogy.
2. Characterized by pedantic formality: a haughty, pedagogic manner.

pedagogy is the teaching of children

Yes I knew that word - I just wasn't sure if that's what you meant. Pedagoical is used in many instances on the internet but with no description, so I was wondering if it was a technological term that wasn't in the dictionary.

[poothedrew]

Wow, that's a mind-bogglingly dumb example.
Ok then I'm stupid, although I have actually written fractal compression algorithms in C I am more of n-tier software and network scalability expert. Please educate me; I am your “humble” compression and encoding pupil.

[ROBBE1]

Both formats will be around for a while. The reason Blu-Ray is doing so well is because of the PS3... what else are you going to do with it besides buy movies? There are no good games for it. If you removed the PS3 from the equation they would be equal. The point of the matter as mentioned before is that we all love movies. Buy the player you want to watch the movies you like on. It's just everyones opinion. I am holding out for the Purple with yellow Polka Dots HD High Definition player!!!! :-)

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6509576.html

[darinp2]

Your comments are not very convincing. Why exactly does Blu-ray suit your films better? It just makes you seem like another Sony fanboy, spewing misinformation and blindly stating Blu-ray is better without examples. Have any of your films been released on both formats for you to compare? If not, then how would you know which is better suited for your films? Both offer high resolution 1080p video and lossless audio. However HD DVD expands and offers exclusive PiP abilities, web connectivity and other interactive extras. Isn't that what Directors want? The best picture, sound AND immersive content extras? With your Transformers HD DVD, Paramount can offer exclusive videos and trailers for the second film. Blu-ray can't do that. Mike, you don't think that suits your films or are you still thinking of the archaic times of static discs that can't be updated? Enlighten us, because I don't see it.

At the High-Def Awards, the winner for Best Audio Quality is Transformers (HD DVD), Paramount Home Entertainment. How ironic is that?

I don't see how one is better suited for your films. You don't care about the format war, but you are becoming involved with your comments.

Fine, everything aside you personally prefer Blu-ray, but do you have to resort to denigrating HD DVD or the format and it's consumers? At least provide examples. I think you're being courted by Sony, because HD DVD is a great product and I wish you would give it a chance.Sorry if this has been covered, but maybe Michael Bay understands some of the differences between the formats heading into the future as some more difficult things are desired. It seems that people like to pick an example like the Transformers release as if that proves that HD DVD's lower bandwidth or space aren't an issue (even though it may not have gotten lossless audio because of the bandwidth). Besides the fact that Michael Bay gets to the see the master and the final product and so should know more than people who just see the final and claim they don't see any problems, maybe Michael understands that in the future he might want to do a 1.85:1 movie that doesn't have the free black bars in every frame which 2.35:1 movies have on these formats, helping to fit them in less bandwidth.

Or maybe he figures that in the future he will want be able to put a Director's Cut on the same release which contains the Theatrical Cut and do it on one disc, where seamless branching has more strict bandwidth limitations just before the branch points (one going to the alternative branch and one coming back). HD DVD can do seamless branching, but they have much lower ceilings for it than Blu-ray. In other words, doing seamless branching without degradation can be quite a challenge on Blu-ray, but it is even worse on HD DVD. And just a note. Some people get confused and think that any branching is seamless. I've seen multiple cases of people claiming seamless branching on an HD DVD and when I check it, it isn't seamless (it has a pause).

Codecs should improve some, but there are difficult things that compressionists will be asked to do. Michael Bay seems to care greatly about quality and probably understands that the limitations of these formats do and will matter. I doubt he would be fooled by somebody like a Microsoft representative trying to make people believe that these bandwidth differences won't make any difference (while in another conversation claiming that neither VC-1 or AVC can be artifact free at the compression rates used for these formats).

The PiP thing and interactivity difference are mostly short term issues, but the bandwidth differences are long term. While there was some teasing that Toshiba might actually do something about their bandwidth issue by going to 1.5x spin rate (which they should have used originally) from 1.0x spin rate, the odds of that look like they are close to zero at some point. Michael Bay and the rest of us look like we will be stuck with that 1.0x spin rate the HD DVD camp chose a long time ago, back when they understood a lot less about what bitrates and space would be required (Warner even claimed that most of their movies would fit on DVD-9s a couple of years ago).

And to try to be clear, for those who think that 30Mbps is plenty for VC-1 for video and so the HD DVD camp's decision to limit everything to about 30Mbps isn't a real issue and won't be, that isn't valid thinking. The problems really come in because all the other things take away from what is left for video. Put real lossless on there with PiP and other things and all of a sudden the peak bitrates can drop to 20Mbps or less. And with seamless branching the limits for everything can drop as low as about 16Mbps ABR for the 2 seconds before a branch, from my latest information. Even 6Mbps of audio and other things there would mean 10Mbps left for video. If the HD DVD camp had gone with higher spin rate and higher overall bandwidth limitations, but left the video limit at 29.4Mbps, the bandwidth wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. The Blu-ray camp left themselves about 8Mbps for other things like audio before those eat into the peak video bitrate limitation, where the HD DVD camp left themselves way less than 1Mbps.

This is an enthusiast's site and I would expect people here to want the highest quality possible. Michael Bay seems to.

And as far as rdjam, I hope he isn't allowed to mislead people here like he has elsewhere. He either doesn't realize his own ignorance about VC-1 and also the issues above, or doesn't care and just wants to help HD DVD pretty much no matter what.

--Darin

[poothedrew]

I think Michael Bay is just as frustrated as all of us Blu fans. Michael Bay is the unsung hero for Blu-Ray, and I think it's great that he makes his ideas on the subject known. He seems unafraid and unrelentant. I applaud the man, and may Transformers make it's way over to the Blu side earlier than expected.

Thanks,
Michael
:)
Wow, unung hero. (I'm not directing this at you but all of us)
But I think we ALL have lost some perspective. I don't know Micheal at all but I would have to think that "unsung hero of blu-ray" will not be mentioned at his funeral.

This is a movie format after all....

:)

[tosvus]

I don't know if Bay's comments on M$ master-plan is correct, but it certainly is possible. They have not fully committed to HDDVD (why not include a HDDVD player in a xbox 360 "super edition" yet? (They have had plenty of time, and yes, I heard the rumors of late 2008 - a bit late to the party if you ask me, even if it turns out true).

Luckily I own both formats, so I am planning on picking up Transformers on HDDVD.

I am also eagerly waiting to pick up "The Rock" on Blu-Ray in January!!

[darinp2]

I'm a digital encoding specialist.
...
That said, the picture quality is no different. A digital transfer is a digital transfer. Almost all Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs discs uses the VC-1 codec which looks identical. When I say identical I don't mean to the naked eye. I mean..byte for byte it's exactly the same.Cal,

They are only byte for byte identical if the compressionist makes them that way. Even using VC-1, if you were to do an encode for Blu-ray's limitations and then do an encode for HD DVD's limitations, the odds are pretty close to zero that they would end up byte for byte identical. However, the HD DVD encode would work on Blu-ray (other than maybe some minor thing like HD DVD used more B-Frames than Blu-ray allowed at that point). You could also make an encode to DVD's bandwidth and space limitations and put it on an HD DVD, then claiming that extra bandwidth of HD DVD doesn't matter. That would of course be bogus as the extra bandwidth of HD DVD over DVD does matter, even though they are both digital.

I could go further, but you really should explain your position or retract it. These 3 bandwidth limitations:

10Mbps
30Mbps
48Mbps

are not all the same and are unlikely to yield the same results in an encode if the encode is done for them (and not a lower bandwidth limitation).

The HD DVD camp was smart to make their bandwidth limitation higher than DVD's, but if they were smarter (better at predicting) they would have decided on higher bandwidth limitations. Now it would be difficult for them to correct that mistake, so they are trying to stick us with it. All IMO of course.

--Darin

[dobyblue]

Ok then I'm stupid, although I have actually written fractal compression algorithms in C I am more of n-tier software and network scalability expert. Please educate me; I am your “humble” compression and encoding pupil.

When we start making movies with one black dot in a field of white (probably directed by Yoko Ono) I'll think of you, m'kay?

[nelson]

Both formats will be around for a while. The reason Blu-Ray is doing so well is because of the PS3... what else are you going to do with it besides buy movies? There are no good games for it. If you removed the PS3 from the equation they would be equal. The point of the matter as mentioned before is that we all love movies. Buy the player you want to watch the movies you like on. It's just everyones opinion. I am holding out for the Purple with yellow Polka Dots HD High Definition player!!!! :-)

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6509576.html




Well, true...sort of.

Most people I know that have a PS3 use it as a cheap blue-ray player (mind you, only about 40% of them know the HD capabilities of the PS3).

Now, while HD-dvd players are cheaper, they still can't outsell Blu-ray's 2:1 movie titles sales. So what are all those people with HD DVDs doing with them as is shows that HD DVD's media sales are low?

[No1fan]

If you are in favour of the consumer deciding - you presumably would be favour of having all studios neutral?

So then people could make a fair choice of format based on what they want and not studio politics.

Why not, go ahead.

The US is the only market that's still up for grabs, at worst it's going to be 50/50 in this market, the rest of the world is firmly in the Blu-ray camp. The simultaneous launch of HD-DVD and Blu-ray standalones, plus the PS3, in the rest of the world, has meant HD-DVD did not gain early ground as they did in the US.

I guess it's HD-DVD's problem if they don't provide the format copy protection and region coding that Disney and FOX believe to be absolutely essential. Even New Line, who's movies are distributed by Warner, are delaying their releases due to lack of region coding.

HD-DVD fans were in favour of letting the consumer decide in the early days, now the formats struggling, they're in favour of buying studio exclusivity, who'd have though it, a HD-DVD fan moving the goalposts.

[poothedrew]

When we start making movies with one black dot in a field of white (probably directed by Yoko Ono) I'll think of you, m'kay?
Yes but we do make movies with at least some of the pixels being identical or shapes that can be extrabilited via repeating patterns that is the point I was trying make. (obviously I failed in this regard)

You can not imply a direct correlation between the encoded bitrate and resulting quality in all cases.

Transformers audio was encoded with the "Inferior" DD+ rather than True HD or DTS Master HD, but the sound engineers can't tell the difference between it and the studio master.

[shamon85]

Does anyone out here want to challenge what I feel suits my films better in terms of look. I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better. But that said - I don't a care about this format war because I have both formats in my screening room - I'm just filling you in on what people deep in the film industry feel ultimately is going on -

Transformers looks great even in DVD!!
i feel the same way and i have both formats but blu-ray is way better the only down is less movies on blu-ray because of the spilt. i also think microsoft will come out with some dual format player that will make them a winner.

[No1fan]

Both formats will be around for a while. The reason Blu-Ray is doing so well is because of the PS3... what else are you going to do with it besides buy movies? There are no good games for it.



Is this the level HD-DVD fans have to stoop to try and promote HD-DVD and slate Blu-ray?

Depsite the higher cost, consumers are choosing Blu-ray the world over.

HD-DVD is having to buy studio support while Toshiba are having to sell players below cost.

[ROBBE1]

Well, true...sort of.

Most people I know that have a PS3 use it as a cheap blue-ray player (mind you, only about 40% of them know the HD capabilities of the PS3).

Now, while HD-dvd players are cheaper, they still can't outsell Blu-ray's 2:1 movie titles sales. So what are all those people with HD DVDs doing with them as is shows that HD DVD's media sales are low?

I would assume waiting for the movies they want to see come out on the format. I, personally, would not go out and just start buying every HD disc out there to replace my existing DVD collection. I would pick and choose the movies that would look great on the format. Transformers would be a great movie to watch in HD. Pirates would be a great movie to watch in HD. The Aviator... not so much. LOL!

[pscoop]

Read the "Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD war (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/29/origins-of-the-blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-war/)."

This article nails so good it's not even funny.

Good read Nelson. Thank you for the link. I should probably get back to work now.

I support Bay's comment's regarding Blu-Ray and hope we get a chance to see Transformers as well as TF2 and TF3 on the format . :D

[ROBBE1]

Is this the level HD-DVD fans have to stoop to try and promote HD-DVD and slate Blu-ray?

Depsite the higher cost, consumers are choosing Blu-ray the world over.

HD-DVD is having to buy studio support while Toshiba are having to sell players below cost.

That's a fact. I am sorry. I have seen numerous posts from the UK on this subject say that since the PS3 has come out Blu-Ray has taken off. They are not buying 5-6 games with their PS3... they are buying 5-6 movies. Hence, they have more sales. It is the same here too. Get the player that has the movies you want on it. Plain and simple. A few months ago they said this XMAS was going to determine the victor... now they are saying 2008... it's a constant circle. You ask someone what Blu-ray is and they give you a dumb stare back asking what is that... you ask someone what HD-DVD is and they will know what your talking about. The PS3 is the reason Blu-ray is selling more discs and have more players out. Take away that system and it would give HD-DVD the edge.

[dobyblue]

Sorry if this has been covered, but maybe Michael Bay understands some of the differences between the formats heading into the future as some more difficult things are desired. It seems that people like to pick an example like the Transformers release as if that proves that HD DVD's lower bandwidth or space aren't an issue (even though it may not have gotten lossless audio because of the bandwidth). Besides the fact that Michael Bay gets to the see the master and the final product and so should know more than people who just see the final and claim they don't see any problems, maybe Michael understands that in the future he might want to do a 1.85:1 movie that doesn't have the free black bars in every frame which 2.35:1 movies have on these formats, helping to fit them in less bandwidth.

Or maybe he figures that in the future he will want be able to put a Director's Cut on the same release which contains the Theatrical Cut and do it on one disc, where seamless branching has more strict bandwidth limitations just before the branch points (one going to the alternative branch and one coming back). HD DVD can do seamless branching, but they have much lower ceilings for it than Blu-ray. In other words, doing seamless branching without degradation can be quite a challenge on Blu-ray, but it is even worse on HD DVD. And just a note. Some people get confused and think that any branching is seamless. I've seen multiple cases of people claiming seamless branching on an HD DVD and when I check it, it isn't seamless (it has a pause).

Codecs should improve some, but there are difficult things that compressionists will be asked to do. Michael Bay seems to care greatly about quality and probably understands that the limitations of these formats do and will matter. I doubt he would be fooled by somebody like a Microsoft representative trying to make people believe that these bandwidth differences won't make any difference (while in another conversation claiming that neither VC-1 or AVC can be artifact free at the compression rates used for these formats).

The PiP thing and interactivity difference are mostly short term issues, but the bandwidth differences are long term. While there was some teasing that Toshiba might actually do something about their bandwidth issue by going to 1.5x spin rate (which they should have used originally) from 1.0x spin rate, the odds of that look like they are close to zero at some point. Michael Bay and the rest of us look like we will be stuck with that 1.0x spin rate the HD DVD camp chose a long time ago, back when they understood a lot less about what bitrates and space would be required (Warner even claimed that most of their movies would fit on DVD-9s a couple of years ago).

And to try to be clear, for those who think that 30Mbps is plenty for VC-1 for video and so the HD DVD camp's decision to limit everything to about 30Mbps isn't a real issue and won't be, that isn't valid thinking. The problems really come in because all the other things take away from what is left for video. Put real lossless on there with PiP and other things and all of a sudden the peak bitrates can drop to 20Mbps or less. And with seamless branching the limits for everything can drop as low as about 16Mbps ABR for the 2 seconds before a branch, from my latest information. Even 6Mbps of audio and other things there would mean 10Mbps left for video. If the HD DVD camp had gone with higher spin rate and higher overall bandwidth limitations, but left the video limit at 29.4Mbps, the bandwidth wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. The Blu-ray camp left themselves about 8Mbps for other things like audio before those eat into the peak video bitrate limitation, where the HD DVD camp left themselves way less than 1Mbps.

This is an enthusiast's site and I would expect people here to want the highest quality possible. Michael Bay seems to.

And as far as rdjam, I hope he isn't allowed to mislead people here like he has elsewhere. He either doesn't realize his own ignorance about VC-1 and also the issues above, or doesn't care and just wants to help HD DVD pretty much no matter what.

--Darin

Absolutely great post man, all points bang on the money.

[darthviper107]

My how this thread has grown...


Anyways, there's more to each format than just features and video/audio quality.

For instance, price. HD-DVD is cheaper which gives it an advantage. And it's easier to manufacture which makes it even better.

Also as a note, it's been discovered that studios that release on both formats are making more money and so really it doesn't help them to be exclusive to one format. And if that happens where all the main studios support both formats then it'll really change things.

Really it's hard to tell a difference. I noticed with the Transformers HD-DVD that when I hooked up the Xbox HD-DVD drive to my computer and took some screenshots, not many of the screenshots really turned out all that great, usually unless you got to a very still shot things would end up being kind of muddled and blurry, maybe it's a problem with the format (which couldn't be changed even with the new 51GB discs) or perhaps it's just because of motion. But I'd have to have a Blu-Ray version to test against it.

Also, by the way. There is a third format. It's some sort of format using regular DVD hardware (can't remember what it's called). Which makes it cheaper (both for discs and players) although I'm certain it doesn't have as good quality as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.



And just wait until we have the OLED TV's with the 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio (I will thank Sony for that) and 0.01ms response rate, plus 4x the resolution. It'll make things amazing. Plus we get the Ultra High Definition (4k) format that will probably be out before this format issue is settled.

And really, at least for HD I don't see internet media becoming big, especially the big issue being storage space and also the problem with losing data and how it's really not worth the cost since it doesn't cost a company hardly anything to sell a copy of a movie.

[poothedrew]

Is this the level HD-DVD fans have to stoop to try and promote HD-DVD and slate Blu-ray?

Depsite the higher cost, consumers are choosing Blu-ray the world over.

HD-DVD is having to buy studio support while Toshiba are having to sell players below cost.
I went with HD-DVD because I had a xbox 360 I got into the HD movie game for cheap, and I am extremly happy with the content.

There is influence and money loss on both sides and the reality is the overall numbers are still too small to even remotely declare any victor.

Remember Sony fired the guy who insisted they put a BD player in the PS3 and many point to that technology as key factor in it coming to the market a year late.

When we compare the overall movie buying market we are still scratching the surface. This is why most movie execs have been quoted as watching this Xmas player sales as key.

If Sony sold 20 million players this year we would have a clear winner but arguing over 100's of thousands is silly.

IMO the only reason studios like Fox and Disney went with Blu-Ray had nothing to do with quality but copy protection. They were convinced that it had the "fool-proof" mechanism for protecting their profits.
This speaks volumes about the lack of knowledge in this area in that there is and really never will be an un-hackable scheme.

[Phranctoast]

Also as a note, it's been discovered that studios that release on both formats are making more money and so really it doesn't help them to be exclusive to one format. And if that happens where all the main studios support both formats then it'll really change things.


Yes, but how much more would they make if they didnt release on two formats therefore confusing the consumer into not accepting either, and instead helped to push high def media to the point of where dvd is now?

[captainjy]

And those dirt cheap HD-DVD players aren't even full HD 1080p.

Know your stuff before you post these types of replies. Of all of the HDTV owners, only a very small percentage even own a 1080p TV. And though there are technical and even some noticeable differences between 720p and 1080p, they aren't enough to spend more money on.

I liked TF a lot, but Michael Bay is out of line and obviously uninformed. Blu-Ray is by no means superior to HD-DVD even with more space. HD-DVD, has a more attachable name and the technical specs make more sense. Read around and many will say that not only does HD-DVD PQ look better, its future does as well.

Personally, I think Michael Bay is a whiny baby that throws a fit over everything. He's one of those ridiculously rich Hollywoodites that cries when he doesn't get his way. Grow up and stop flopping. And what's really going to upset him is when HD-DVD does finally win this stupid format war.

[darinp2]

And just wait until we have the OLED TV's with the 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio (I will thank Sony for that) and 0.01ms response rate, plus 4x the resolution. It'll make things amazing.This is another reason I care about having the highest possible quality on the discs. Things like what you mentioned tend to bring out details that are hard to see on lesser displays, and that includes artifacts. I got to see a super high contrast display at Brightside before they sold to Dolby. This was a $42k display which had LEDs backlighting and LCD panel and could to bright whites and extremely deep blacks at the same time. We ran some HD sources through it and it brought out some of the bad stuff in there. A reviewer not seeing problems while watching with their display does not mean that problems aren't there, or that the source couldn't be even better. In the future they may get a much more revealing display and realize that the source they got wasn't as perfect as they had thought it was.

--Darin

[nelson]

Know your stuff before you post these types of replies. Of all of the HDTV owners, only a very small percentage even own a 1080p TV. And though there are technical and even some noticeable differences between 720p and 1080p, they aren't enough to spend more money on.

I liked TF a lot, but Michael Bay is out of line and obviously uninformed. Blu-Ray is by no means superior to HD-DVD even with more space. HD-DVD, has a more attachable name and the technical specs make more sense. Read around and many will say that not only does HD-DVD PQ look better, its future does as well.

Personally, I think Michael Bay is a whiny baby that throws a fit over everything. He's one of those ridiculously rich Hollywoodites that cries when he doesn't get his way. Grow up and stop flopping. And what's really going to upset him is when HD-DVD does finally win this stupid format war.

And you're an idiot that doesn't even know what he doesn't know.

[Bumblebee1983]

And you're an idiot that doesn't even know what he doesn't know.

*note to self: never question anything Nelson or Bay says....cuz they know what they're talking about.*

I will never be one to do that. I don't know enough about this technical stuff to post anything halfway intelligent, on the subject of this anyways. :cool:

Just bringing some humor into this oh-so-serious (and hot) thread. :D

[darthviper107]

It's fine that Michael prefers Blu-Ray. Even Spielberg prefers to shoot with film instead of the newer digital cameras even though they are superior. But it doesn't really hurt it any.

Really I kind of wonder what it's like to have to setup a movie for one format or another. Although really there shouldn't be much difference.

I always thought it was interesting how in transformers there's such good color quality and yet there really isn't all that much difference to the original footage--besides the CG effects of course.

[nelson]

*note to self: never question anything Nelson or Bay says....cuz they know what they're talking about.*

I will never be one to do that. I don't know enough about this technical stuff to post anything halfway intelligent, on the subject of this anyways. :cool:

Just bringing some humor into this oh-so-serious (and hot) thread. :D

Believe or not, Michael likes playing on the XBox a lot. There's something you didn't know. He's even featured it on one of his movies.

[ROBBE1]

Believe or not, Michael likes playing on the XBox a lot. There's something you didn't know. He's even featured it on one of his movies.


Let's settle this discussion in a game of Halo... lol. It would fun to have HDDVD vs. BluRay... but Mr. Bay would probably transform into some uber awesome Mega Master Chief and wax us all! :-)

[Bumblebee1983]

Believe or not, Michael likes playing on the XBox a lot. There's something you didn't know. He's even featured it on one of his movies.

What exactly does he play on there?

Is he on live? :D

Not that I am...yet.....but you know, it's getting a bit boring killing the same peeps in Halo 3....time for some more fun with that game.
:cool:

I've already beaten it three times.....and I really have not heard good reviews of the TF game.

Let's settle this discussion in a game of Halo... lol. It would fun to have HDDVD vs. BluRay... but Mr. Bay would probably transform into some uber awesome Mega Master Chief and wax us all! :-)

That would be cool!!!

Baybot vs. Master Chief....hmm........:eek:

[xAgonyxScenex]

my internet goes out for 2 days and i miss all this.....damnit haha


17 pages worth to....ugh....i REALLLY dont want to go reading all of that

[Bumblebee1983]

my internet goes out for 2 days and i miss all this.....damnit haha


17 pages worth to....ugh....i REALLLY dont want to go reading all of that

Let me sum it up for you:

It's a roller coaster. My head's still spinning and I still don't know what this thread accomplished.

Oh, and don't question Nelson or Bay. That's pretty much it. :D

[hacktackular]

1) How is Blu-Ray "obviously superior"?
1a) 1080p is 1080p is 1080p
1b) Are there independant, verifiable studies that show how blue-ray is technically superior? Could you link to these studies?

2) Is there any PROOF of Microsoft making payments to studios, beyond conspiracy theories?

3) MS has just as much to lose, considering they are selling an HD-DVD player for the XBox 360. yes, Microsoft wants both formats to fail so their investment in the standard and the hardware will cost them MILLIONS. That's how they've grown so large - by purposefully losing money.

4) The only conceivable thing about blu-ray that is "superior" is it's additional layers of copy protection, which make it harder for consumers to use their purchased content how they want on the devices they want.

5) Michael Bay is a hack.

[Bumblebee1983]

Pretty much. :p But one important thing to note, you can question Nelson and Bay. In my time here there's never been a problem with that.

The problem is you got a bunch of one-post wonders who have trouble distinguishing the difference between being insulting/rude and questioning.

But why question the pros? (Just my opinion, considering I know nothing about filmmaking....or any of the techno garble that's been flying around this thread.) That's my take on it. :D

And true about the one-post wonders....good point too. :cool:

[tosvus]

I'll take a stab at responding to this one...


1) How is Blu-Ray "obviously superior"?
1a) 1080p is 1080p is 1080p

Please understand some of the technical basics before you post. Bandwidth is the key in terms of PQ and AQ. Blu-Ray has lots more than HDDVD, and can compress the source less, producing less artifacts/less soft picture.

1b) Are there independant, verifiable studies that show how blue-ray is technically superior? Could you link to these studies?

Mathematics, Wikipedia? Take your pick..

2) Is there any PROOF of Microsoft making payments to studios, beyond conspiracy theories?

No, would you expect to find any proof of such a thing? Companies only tell you what they want you to hear. I'm not 100% onboard with the conspiracy theory myself though..

3) MS has just as much to lose, considering they are selling an HD-DVD player for the XBox 360. yes, Microsoft wants both formats to fail so their investment in the standard and the hardware will cost them MILLIONS. That's how they've grown so large - by purposefully losing money.

They are not losing money. They don't sell the add-on at a loss, and it probably generates more buys into xbox360 as well. Win-win for them! Conspiracy theory or not, they have their eye on the big prize in the future which is hidef downloads. (they lost the music battle against apple/itunes, they don't want that to happen again..)

4) The only conceivable thing about blu-ray that is "superior" is it's additional layers of copy protection, which make it harder for consumers to use their purchased content how they want on the devices they want.

No, Blu-Ray is superior in terms of potential PQ/AQ. In real life, most people couldn't tell the difference though. They also have D-Box support on upcoming titles from several studios, which brings another dimension to the movie watching experience. There is a reason that custom installer and high end brands are all on the Blu-Ray bandwagon.

They are slowly catching up to interactive features such as pip or web, but HDDVD leads the way in this area.

Blu-Ray also needs to get lower price entry level players.

5) Michael Bay is a hack.

You're a rude SOB, no offense :)

[jwebb1970]

One "fact" getting tossed around in this is Microsoft and $$ they suposedly paid to a certain studio to get HD DVD exclusivity.

In terms of the P/DW deal, it was TOSHIBA, not MS that gave "advertising $$" to the tune of reportedly 150 million for that studio's devotion (the Tosh/SHREK THE 3rd TV ads are part of that deal).

Both sides give "incentives" of some form or another to get/keep studios in their corner. And Sony has spent a number of years buying up other studios as they got into the movie business in order to(partially at least) control future movie media distribution (the Betamax debacle surely still stings).

The Tosh-P/DW-HDDVD thing just happened to get the most press (mainly due to how shocking it was at the time).

And for the record, I own both formats, but disc purchases do lean towards "red"....and TRANSFORMERS is a centerpiece of that collection, BTW. Cool flick, Mr Bay. Much better than I expected. And the HD DVD is gorgeous.

[No1fan]

That's a fact. I am sorry. I have seen numerous posts from the UK on this subject say that since the PS3 has come out Blu-Ray has taken off. They are not buying 5-6 games with their PS3... they are buying 5-6 movies. Hence, they have more sales. It is the same here too. Get the player that has the movies you want on it. Plain and simple. A few months ago they said this XMAS was going to determine the victor... now they are saying 2008... it's a constant circle. You ask someone what Blu-ray is and they give you a dumb stare back asking what is that... you ask someone what HD-DVD is and they will know what your talking about. The PS3 is the reason Blu-ray is selling more discs and have more players out. Take away that system and it would give HD-DVD the edge.

This is the kind of argument I would expect from a HD-DVD supporter!

How's this, take out Microsoft or Toshiba and HD-DVD's stone dead!

Blu-ray only launched in the UK when the PS3 was released, there were limited supplies previously, but not much.

PS3's are being purchased both as games systems and dedicated Blu-ray players. The key is to convince 'gamers' to buy Blu-ray movies rather than DVD.

Gamers watch movies, it isn't one or the other, it just so happens the PS3 is a fantastic Blu-ray player and games system in one package, that's why consumers are picking it up.

The worry for HD-DVD is the PS3 is matching, and more, Toshibas firesale A2/A3's, and Blu-ray still has to launch their budget players.

[wingzero]

This thread and possibly this forum does not seem to me to be the appropriate place to discuss ‘geeky’ things like 1080p vs 1080i or bit rate differences.

However as these things have been mentioned, the assumption that 1080p is inherently 'better' than 1080i is incorrect.


You don't know what you are talking about here, really. Interlacing is a legacy technology included in the HDTV standard just for backward compatibility purposes but everyone in the field should know that it should be avoided at any cost, unless there is a desperate need to reduce the needed bandwidth. In the '40s when the SDTV standards were developed they had to come up with interlacing in order to lower transmission and manufacturing costs (there were valves at the time), otherwise the original proposed standard was for something above 40Hz progressive... Even at the time everyone knew that progressive was the way to go to achieve the best quality. If technology allowed that at a lower cost in the '40s then the whole interlacing stuff wouldn't exist today.
Interlacing corrupts the motion flow axis of every object on the screen, even using the best and most complex deinterlacing algorithms with motion compensation, there is no way to reconstruct the original progressive source, only a good or very good approximation of it.

[richard l.]

People flaming Mr. Bay for speaking his mind on his own forum are ridiculous.
I'm elated that someone with clout is willing to stand up to Microsoft, who bullies everyone and stifles technological advancement whenever it helps their monopolistic strategy.
Mr. Bay I applaud your courage, and your conviction to release your movies in the manner which best takes advantage of their exquisite vision and production values.

[poothedrew]

You don't know what you are talking about here, really. Interlacing is a legacy technology included in the HDTV standard just for backward compatibility purposes but everyone in the field should know that it should be avoided at any cost, unless there is a desperate need to reduce the needed bandwidth. In the '40s when the SDTV standards were developed they had to come up with interlacing in order to lower transmission and manufacturing costs (there were valves at the time), otherwise the original proposed standard was for something above 40Hz progressive... Even at the time everyone knew that progressive was the way to go to achieve the best quality. If technology allowed that at a lower cost in the '40s then the whole interlacing stuff wouldn't exist today.
Interlacing corrupts the motion flow axis of every object on the screen, even using the best and most complex deinterlacing algorithms with motion compensation, there is no way to reconstruct the original progressive source, only a good or very good approximation of it.

I won't argue with the interalacing because it's really moot the "1080i" players play 720P which fine for most users.

People are paying good money for a 1080p tv that is smaller than 50 inches when the reality is that the human eye can't even tell the difference at more than 6 feet away. Yes the picture looks better in the store when you are a foot away but other than geek factor you are paying for nothing.

(Don't know about you but 6 feet is too close the tv for me.)

So I think the lesson here is numbers and buzz words can often be misleading.

[wingzero]

I won't argue with the interalacing because it's really moot the "1080i" players play 720P which fine for most users.


Yours is a moot point. Interlacing is not good and should be avoided.
720p has a lower spatial resolution, obviously and so details are far less than at 1080p. Trust me, the human eye can clearly detect the difference between the two. A lower resolution implies that there are less high frequencies on the screen which leads to less detailed objects on every picture along with more aliasing effects.



People are paying good money for a 1080p tv that is smaller than 50 inches when the reality is that the human eye can't even tell the difference at more than 6 feet away. Yes the picture looks better in the store when you are a foot away but other than geek factor you are paying for nothing.

(Don't know about you but 6 feet is too close the tv for me.)

So I think the lesson here is numbers and buzz words can often be misleading.You are the one trying to mislead people with your arguments. Either you don't know what you are talking about or you have to follow an agenda to prove that HD-DVD is better at any cost. Otherwise, why are you trying to state things that are just not true and plain incorrect ?

The optimal viewing distance from any screen is on average 1.5x times the screen diagonal. Not everyone is like the others, video coding and video technologies have been and are developed taking into account the perceptual vision of test subjects in order to fine tune everything on average levels able to achieve the best results for everyone, which is not the best for a single person. Some people can grasp more details than others both on video and audio. There are people with better eye vision than other people. So telling that from a given distance no one can tell the difference and see more details than others it's just plain incorrect.

[TIMtationX]

..I'm sure this thread alone has brought in tons of new members to this forum....

[jwebb1970]

What seems to be getting protrayed here (somewhat) is that HD DVD doesn't do 1080p.

Incorrect. The "cheapest" stand alone (entry-level) players are 1080i max (A2, A3, Venturer model). For those with older HD sets that are eiher 720p or 1080i (CRT sets--yes, many still use them happily) the 1080i max is all they will need.

If you must have 1080p, you get the next step up. $$-wise, these are closer to BD player prices.

[Drongo]

Why would it be an asset for the Blu-ray side - from what I understand the A35 bypasses the 1080i60 and can read 1080p24 right off the HD DVD disc.

I think we are at cross purposes here. I was saying that if your average guy with an average HD display can distinguish between ‘proper’ 1080p/24 and a ‘flagged’ version – it would help the Blu-ray cause.


I sincerely doubt it.

You don’t think that consumer feedback of Blu-ray’s ‘superior’ capabilities would help sell Blu-ray? Odd.


Nope, my post says "one off" and as they haven't released one yet, the BD-p5000 must be that one.

So you believe that even if Samsung’s dual format player is a massive success they would still revert to being Blu-ray only?


Sorry, I'm not sure how that's a valid comparison at all.

It illustrates several viable models of only one CE supporting large and profitable software sales markets.


That's only the first Pioneer and BDP-S1. The players since are their own - the reason behind those first models was to get a few players out on market at the same time.
Your statement is almost a year incorrect. 18 monhts after HD DVD's inception though, it's still all Toshiba.

Isn’t the latest Philips still a Samsung clone?

The other consideration is currently what benefits are the standalone CE’s getting from Blu-ray now? The PS3 is the overwhelming BD player (96%) whilst the miniscule remains are divided up by several manufacturers probably not recovering their development costs whilst being outsold and outperformed by a games console.


Yes it is, but I've never seen Warner make a statement like they did at the Blu-ray Event 2007. Even though they had to make a statement to tone down all the talk, it was still said. It is a glimpse ot the future and I believe Warner will drop HD DVD before the next Batman movie comes out.

Were not the (misquoted?) comments following the Blu-ray event quickly retracted?

It may be a glimpse of the future – it may not. Time will tell.


That's a pretty redundant statement.

It is a self evident truth.


Not one tenth of what they will profit when Blu-ray acheives mass market adoption as the replacement for DVD.

That’s assuming any or both Hi-Def formats ever replace SD DVD, and even if it happens it won’t be for several years, in which time neutrality could be the more prpfitable path for Warner.


Sure thing.

Glad we can agree about something!


Nope, the BDA's strategy is to provide a better product, which they are doing. I know it, Michael Bay knows it, Steven Spielberg knows it.

A better product? Where and when is it coming? It can’t be on the interactive side, it can’t be on the value for money side, so it must be on picture and sound? If that’s the case – Blu-ray’s fate depends on you being right about the average guy, with the average display being able to see the difference between the two formats.

That wouldn’t fill me with confidence if I was on the Blu side…


HD DVD isn't growing. They had 55% of the market in North America in January 2007. They now have 38%. How is that growing?

Wrong – both HD DVD and Blu-ray are growing. Your talking ratios between the two, I’m talking sales volume.


If it's a dual format future they won't talk, studios will jhust stop releasing with no reasons to think otherwise. That's why months can go by without a new DVD-Audio release. (I would include SACD too, but that's still successful in the classical and jazz audiophile world)

If it’s a dual format future, they will either have to talk or they will both be relegated to niche status and possibly die.

Neither DVD-A or SACD failed because of the dual formats, although that certainly didn’t help.

They failed because of poor catalogues (appalling catalogue in the case of DVD-A) a lack of consumer understanding, audiophile product is niche product, a reluctance for audiophiles to embrace multi channel audio (and yes I know that two channel was an option) and several other reasons. It could be argued that universal players from Pioneer and Denon helped Hi-Res audio, but it was too little and too late.

[Drongo]

That's what Warner have done and the people chose BLu-ray, despite the interactive advantages of HD DVD.

Why would it be different for any other studio? Disney and Fox don't want to compromise their encodes.


Not so.

Studios had already aligned themselves to particular formats before either side launched, so the market was distorted at the outset.

The consumer was never given a fair choice between the two formats.

The simple answer as to why Disney and Fox would go neutral would be to increase their market share. Unless Blu-ray eliminates HD DVD, they will never have 100% of the Hi-Def market available to them.

As to compromised encodes, have you heard the expression “ The proof of the Pudding…” ? ;)

[Drongo]

No, all I'm asking is that no outside companies interfere..hence prolong this war. If the studio decide to support said format, so be it. But what sucks is that Toshiba (who doesn't have $150 million to be allocating to marketing, much less pay studios) all of the sudden gave P/DW $150 million out of the blue with no help from their biggest supporter.

Don't know if you were around for the VHS/Beta wars, but the formats fought amongst themselves without 3rd party "supporters" bribing studios.


I’m not sure that an ‘outside’ company has ‘interfered’.

I doubt if the entire unvarnished truth has been posted on the net, but we all draw conclusions from what we read. Maybe one day the truth will out, but I doubt it.

But one thing I’m fairly sure of is that both sides have probably been inducing studios with all sorts of goodies on both sides from well before a single Hi-Def product launch.

Yes, I remember the VHS/Beta war very well.

In fact I’ve talked to people ‘in the know’ at the time who know why there was really a war in the first place – and don’t think it’s got anything to do with the merits of ‘U’ loading vs ‘M’ loading.

No third party supporters bribing studios? Maybe not third party supporters…

Still Sony learned one lesson from all that – they bought a studio.

Mind you that didn’t help them with trying to establish Video 8 as a film format, or more recently UMD.

Fourth time lucky perhaps?

[poothedrew]

Yours is a moot point. Interlacing is not good and should be avoided.
720p has a lower spatial resolution, obviously and so details are far less than at 1080p. Trust me, the human eye can clearly detect the difference between the two. A lower resolution implies that there are less high frequencies on the screen which leads to less detailed objects on every picture along with more aliasing effects.

You are the one trying to mislead people with your arguments. Either you don't know what you are talking about or you have to follow an agenda to prove that HD-DVD is better at any cost. Otherwise, why are you trying to state things that are just not true and plain incorrect ?

The optimal viewing distance from any screen is on average 1.5x times the screen diagonal. Not everyone is like the others, video coding and video technologies have been and are developed taking into account the perceptual vision of test subjects in order to fine tune everything on average levels able to achieve the best results for everyone, which is not the best for a single person. Some people can grasp more details than others both on video and audio. There are people with better eye vision than other people. So telling that from a given distance no one can tell the difference and see more details than others it's just plain incorrect.

Interesting that most AV experts disagree with you including THX which were the 1.5 number comes from dude.

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

Despite the article title the truth of the matter is that the beneifts don't really happen until about 53 inch screen 6.8 to 9.3 feet away.

Spacial resolution? Are you talking about colour space?
Last time I checked resolution was the number of pixels not the number of colour bits per pixel?

[Drongo]

Why not, go ahead.

The US is the only market that's still up for grabs, at worst it's going to be 50/50 in this market, the rest of the world is firmly in the Blu-ray camp. The simultaneous launch of HD-DVD and Blu-ray standalones, plus the PS3, in the rest of the world, has meant HD-DVD did not gain early ground as they did in the US.

I guess it's HD-DVD's problem if they don't provide the format copy protection and region coding that Disney and FOX believe to be absolutely essential. Even New Line, who's movies are distributed by Warner, are delaying their releases due to lack of region coding.

HD-DVD fans were in favour of letting the consumer decide in the early days, now the formats struggling, they're in favour of buying studio exclusivity, who'd have though it, a HD-DVD fan moving the goalposts.


I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on almost everything in your post. :)

As I said the smaller sales volumes outside North America means that any outcome is less certain.

I find it strange that you regard it HD-DVD’s problem regarding region coding.

I regard it as Disney and Fox’s problem if I cannot buy one of their discs because it’s regionally coded.

Still they were convinced that DiVX was the way to go at the beginning of DVD; were they not?

I’m not sure what your last paragraph means.

All I’m saying is that one cannot complain about exclusivity on one side, if there are exclusive studios on the other.

It’s crazy to suggest that the consumer has decided anything, when because of exclusivity, they have done anything but that.

[Drongo]

You don't know what you are talking about here, really. Interlacing is a legacy technology included in the HDTV standard just for backward compatibility purposes but everyone in the field should know that it should be avoided at any cost, unless there is a desperate need to reduce the needed bandwidth. In the '40s when the SDTV standards were developed they had to come up with interlacing in order to lower transmission and manufacturing costs (there were valves at the time), otherwise the original proposed standard was for something above 40Hz progressive... Even at the time everyone knew that progressive was the way to go to achieve the best quality. If technology allowed that at a lower cost in the '40s then the whole interlacing stuff wouldn't exist today.
Interlacing corrupts the motion flow axis of every object on the screen, even using the best and most complex deinterlacing algorithms with motion compensation, there is no way to reconstruct the original progressive source, only a good or very good approximation of it.




Really?

Obviously we had all better stop watching anything sourced or recorded on digital video then….

[xAgonyxScenex]

my net has been out for 2 days and i refuse to go through and read 18 pages of posts. But for those who have read all the way through and been keeping up with this....maybe you can let mek now if these points have been touched on. Because in my mind there really is no argument here.

While Microsoft may be throwing out money to make this war go on longer. They are in no way doing it so they can perfect digital downloads and strong hold their way into that. WAAAAAYYY to many factors keep that from being mainstream right now.

1.) Storage space. Hard drives are not big enough right now to hold mass amounts of movies.

2.) File size. This also deals with storage space. The file size for a true high-def movie is going to be enormous. 15+ gigs. When you download high-def movies through say XBOX live, your downloading a 2gig file, and when you play it, it looks good, but you can tell right away its not true high def. Not in the least. ENORMOUS difference.

3.) Internet speed. Internet speeds are not fast enough to quickly download 15+ gigs for 1 movie. People are impatient. And ones that are fast enough are not affordable.

4.) And lastly, people like having physical products. People like to be able to take a disc to a friends place and watch a movie there, instead of having to bring an entire XBOX for example. We wont see digital downloads taking over until the first 3 problems are solved, and you would have to figure out a way to get mass amounts of storage space on something fairly small and easy to hook up at a friends. This wont happen for YEARS. Digital downloads will still happen, but it will remain a niche thing for a long while.

I love you Michael...but lay off the sauce before you post if u get my drift =P you crazy conspirator you =)

Hope the work on Transformers 2 is going awesome!

P.S.

i think a big way for this war to end quicker is for all the damn format neutral people to stop being format neutral!! Pick one side please =)

[wingzero]

Really?

Obviously we had all better stop watching anything sourced or recorded on digital video then….

?? What is your point ? Are you trying telling that all digital sources are interlaced, perhaps ? That's far from true. I really don't know what are you trying to achieve with such a silly and incorrect statement.

[wingzero]

Interesting that most AV experts disagree with you including THX which were the 1.5 number comes from dude.

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

Despite the article title the truth of the matter is that the beneifts don't really happen until about 53 inch screen 6.8 to 9.3 feet away.

Spacial resolution? Are you talking about colour space?
Last time I checked resolution was the number of pixels not the number of colour bits per pixel?

This article gives a better technical explanation with a mathematical and physics background of what HDTV was designed for and why an higher spatial resolution is needed:

---
http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0079/t.1990.html

A principal advantage of HD over SD video is the ability to view larger images from closer distances.

The design goal for HDTV was to facilitate viewing at a distance of three picture heights from the screen as opposed to the five- to seven-picture-height design goal for NTSC. What is the relationship between resolving power, screen resolution and viewing distance from the screen?

---

That statement alone on the article should be enough to understand what HDTV is all about and why you don't need to move further away from the screen as you tried to tell. Actually it's the other way around. Higher the spatial resolution then higher the high frequencies being portrayed which means more details and then less distance is needed from the screen for the human eye to interpolate and compensate for a lack of available details.

Obviously if you have no clue about how things work, if you can't understand the difference and relationship between spatial resolution, temporal resolution and the frequency domain then it's highly unlikely you could follow any detailed technical explanation. I can understand that an article with just a couple of graphs derived from some other sources could look professional, cool and seem to be right but it's not the way these quite complex things should be debated if you want to discuss at the low level. Colour space systems should be looked at in a separate way, although when watching a video all these things get assembled together.

[nelson]

1.) Storage space. Hard drives are not big enough right now to hold mass amounts of movies.

2.) File size. This also deals with storage space. The file size for a true high-def movie is going to be enormous. 15+ gigs. When you download high-def movies through say XBOX live, your downloading a 2gig file, and when you play it, it looks good, but you can tell right away its not true high def. Not in the least. ENORMOUS difference.

What do you think, Microsoft is going to give you the slightly compressed 1080p file?

Please. I downloaded Superman Returns on XBox live and it was all but 2GB that downloaded in 30min at a 720p resolution.


3.) Internet speed. Internet speeds are not fast enough to quickly download 15+ gigs for 1 movie. People are impatient. And ones that are fast enough are not affordable.

See above.


4.) And lastly, people like having physical products. People like to be able to take a disc to a friends place and watch a movie there, instead of having to bring an entire XBOX for example. We wont see digital downloads taking over until the first 3 problems are solved, and you would have to figure out a way to get mass amounts of storage space on something fairly small and easy to hook up at a friends. This wont happen for YEARS. Digital downloads will still happen, but it will remain a niche thing for a long while.


iTunes proves that people don't mind having the digital versions of albums, movies, and books.

It's not a matter of when, but how someone perfects it... like Apple did with music.

[Bumblebee1983]

Okay, perfect timing here:

I'm watching the previews to Blades of Glory (another Dreamworks/Paramount production) and up pops a Transformers preview.

At the end of the preview it says...coming to DVD soon...on BLU RAY and HD DVD.

WHAT THE FUCK????? I'm so very confused!

[D3lta]

Okay, perfect timing here:

I'm watching the previews to Blades of Glory (another Dreamworks/Paramount production) and up pops a Transformers preview.

At the end of the preview it says...coming to DVD soon...on BLU RAY and HD DVD.

WHAT THE FUCK????? I'm so very confused!

Blades of Glory came out before Transformers and before Toshiba paid Paramount.:rolleyes:

[Bumblebee1983]

Blades of Glory came out before Transformers and before Toshiba paid Paramount.:rolleyes:

But not long before TF...if I recall correctly.

So it was originally going to be put in blu ray too? I mean not like I care...but I remember reading a little while back that Spiderman 3 was only going to be released on Blu Ray format, nothing else.

Verrraaa interesting indeed....

[dobyblue]

Blades of Glory came out before Transformers and before Toshiba paid Paramount.:rolleyes:
No it didn't - Paramount announcement was August 21st, 2007.
Blades of Glory was released August 28th, 2007.

[Bumblebee1983]

No it didn't - Paramount announcement was August 21st, 2007.
Blades of Glory was released August 28th, 2007.

And the plot thickens....*scratches chin*

[dobyblue]

1) How is Blu-Ray "obviously superior"?
1a) 1080p is 1080p is 1080p


Yes, in terms of resolution.
But if you were to watch 1080p at 1 Mbps and then at 100 Mbps, you'd see a massive difference, so it's not as cut and dry as you'd like to put it.

[dobyblue]

I won't argue with the interalacing because it's really moot the "1080i" players play 720P which fine for most users.

People are paying good money for a 1080p tv that is smaller than 50 inches when the reality is that the human eye can't even tell the difference at more than 6 feet away. Yes the picture looks better in the store when you are a foot away but other than geek factor you are paying for nothing.

(Don't know about you but 6 feet is too close the tv for me.)

So I think the lesson here is numbers and buzz words can often be misleading.

You're missing one major point though - 1080p content on a 1080p television does not hit the processing, interlacing, cadence, etc., realm that players which output 1080i or sets that don't display or handshake 1080p go through.

Hence with a 1080p set, even at 40", you're avoiding all motion artifacting caused by processing of the signal. That you could very well notice on only size set.

[Bumblebee1983]

You're missing one major point though - 1080p content on a 1080p television does not hit the processing, interlacing, cadence, etc., realm that players which output 1080i or sets that don't display or handshake 1080p go through.

Hence with a 1080p set, even at 40", you're avoiding all motion artifacting caused by processing of the signal. That you could very well notice on only size set.

How many consumers do you think pay attention to those minute details?

I know I certainly wouldn't. :)

[dobyblue]

Not so.

Studios had already aligned themselves to particular formats before either side launched, so the market was distorted at the outset.

The consumer was never given a fair choice between the two formats.
It is absolutely so, the consumer was given a fair choice and when it came to paramount and Warner titles, the consumer picked Blu-ray and it was regardless of genre.

[poothedrew]

This article gives a better technical explanation with a mathematical and physics background of what HDTV was designed for and why an higher spatial resolution is needed:

---
http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0079/t.1990.html

A principal advantage of HD over SD video is the ability to view larger images from closer distances.

The design goal for HDTV was to facilitate viewing at a distance of three picture heights from the screen as opposed to the five- to seven-picture-height design goal for NTSC. What is the relationship between resolving power, screen resolution and viewing distance from the screen?

---

That statement alone on the article should be enough to understand what HDTV is all about and why you don't need to move further away from the screen as you tried to tell. Actually it's the other way around. Higher the spatial resolution then higher the high frequencies being portrayed which means more details and then less distance is needed from the screen for the human eye to interpolate and compensate for a lack of available details.

Obviously if you have no clue about how things work, if you can't understand the difference and relationship between spatial resolution, temporal resolution and the frequency domain then it's highly unlikely you could follow any detailed technical explanation. I can understand that an article with just a couple of graphs derived from some other sources could look professional, cool and seem to be right but it's not the way these quite complex things should be debated if you want to discuss at the low level. Colour space systems should be looked at in a separate way, although when watching a video all these things get assembled together.

I doubt you could produce a document of a technical nature that I would have no clue about in fact if you know it so well you should be able to explain it to laymen.

Either I'm not making my point clear or you just don't seem to be reading what I write.

I am not saying you can't tell the difference there is a world of a difference I have a 108" screen in a dedicated theatre room.

The average consumer with a 43 inch LCD at the common living room viewing distance will not be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.

At 10 feet a good quality 720p 40" lcd looks identical to 1080p one in fact I would recomend most people buy a better qualtiy 720p screen that a cheap 1080 one at that size. Mostly because of what a better quality screen shows SD material.

[dobyblue]

How many consumers do you think pay attention to those minute details?

I know I certainly wouldn't. :)

Yes you would - have you seen the differences?

http://www.hqv.com/%2FcontentEngine%2FcontentImages%2Fimg_compare_cad enc.jpg

http://www.hqv.com/%2FcontentEngine%2FcontentImages%2Fimg_compare_dei nterlace.jpg

You don't think you'd rather have the set that gives the results on the right handside if it was only a matter of a few hundred dollars difference?

[Bumblebee1983]

Yes you would - have you seen the differences?

http://www.hqv.com/%2FcontentEngine%2FcontentImages%2Fimg_compare_cad enc.jpg

http://www.hqv.com/%2FcontentEngine%2FcontentImages%2Fimg_compare_dei nterlace.jpg

You don't think you'd rather have the set that gives the results on the right handside if it was only a matter of a few hundred dollars difference?

Okay with that said...

does anyone have blu ray screen shots I could compare to the hd screen shots I've seen? :cool:

[dobyblue]

I am not saying you can't tell the difference there is a world of a difference I have a 108" screen in a dedicated theatre room.

The average consumer with a 43 inch LCD at the common living room viewing distance will not be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.

At 10 feet a good quality 720p 40" lcd looks identical to 1080p one in fact I would recomend most people buy a better qualtiy 720p screen that a cheap 1080 one at that size. Mostly because of what a better quality screen shows SD material.

This all depends on the display and how it handles different resolutions. I'd rather have the cheap 1080 if it handled deinterlacing and cadence detection properly than the expensive 720p one that did not. It also depends on whether it can handle 3:2 cadence, deinterlacing and how well it does on motion resolution.

(And before anyone suggests that TV's pass tests based on their costs and build quality....they absolutely do not - the new 92 series 52" Aquos from Sharp fails deinterlacing tests, yet with 1080p material it's gorgeous, although not on the same pictue quality level as a Pioneer or Panasonic plasma which are the cream of the crop right now for black levels and motion resolution)

[poothedrew]

You're missing one major point though - 1080p content on a 1080p television does not hit the processing, interlacing, cadence, etc., realm that players which output 1080i or sets that don't display or handshake 1080p go through.

Hence with a 1080p set, even at 40", you're avoiding all motion artifacting caused by processing of the signal. That you could very well notice on only size set.
Then switch to 720p.

[Drongo]

?? What is your point ? Are you trying telling that all digital sources are interlaced, perhaps ? That's far from true. I really don't know what are you trying to achieve with such a silly and incorrect statement.


It is you who is being silly and incorrect, if you had read and understood my posts correctly you would not have responded as you have.

Firstly I said that this was not really forum for technical discussion, I thought it was for the discussion of Mr. Bays work and this thread is an extension of his recent comments about the both Hi-Def formats.

However I pointed out that the assumption that 1080p is inherently better than 1080i is wrong.

And it is.

I fully understand that interlacing is a legacy technology.


I understand that in some respects it is outmoded. But we live in world of numerous frame rates as well interlaced and progressive. We have to deal with all variations thereof.

You are wrong in saying:



even using the best and most complex deinterlacing algorithms with motion compensation, there is no way to reconstruct the original progressive source, only a good or very good approximation of it.
If 1080i is correctly deinterlaced, it will be indistinguishable from 1080p.


My whole point has been to say that as far as both formats are concerned; it is the average person with the average display who will decide their fate. I own both formats, and I enjoy both formats.

There is little too choose between them and picture quality is not a discriminating factor between the two.

It was you who wrote about interlacing:


everyone in the field should know that it should be avoided at any cost and


Interlacing corrupts the motion flow axis of every object on the screen
Being so dismissive of something that can produce superlative images, is what prompted my somewhat sarcastic response.

It’s regrettable that you failed to comprehend that.

[dobyblue]

Okay with that said...

does anyone have blu ray screen shots I could compare to the hd screen shots I've seen?

Not at full resolution, but Zona has some cool shots of Spider-man 3 on Blu-ray vs. the DVD.

(Oh and you mentioned something about Spider-man 3 supposed to be on Blu-ray exclusively - that hasn't changed, it is exclusive to Blu-ray as are the other two movies)

DVD

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6238/90473951bt2.png

Blu-ray

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9223/49277519fe9.png

Pirates 3

DVD

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/8734/78674428jz4.png

Blu-ray

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/8356/46290260gv4.png

It's baffling that some people can suggest there's very little difference between DVD and the HD DVD/Blu-ray 1080p discs.

[dobyblue]

Then switch to 720p.

The source is 1080p, why would you want to switch to 720p. The whole point is to avoid processing on the source.

[poothedrew]

This all depends on the display and how it handles different resolutions. I'd rather have the cheap 1080 if it handled deinterlacing and cadence detection properly than the expensive 720p one that did not. It also depends on whether it can handle 3:2 cadence, deinterlacing and how well it does on motion resolution.

(And before anyone suggests that TV's pass tests based on their costs and build quality....they absolutely do not - the new 92 series 52" Aquos from Sharp fails deinterlacing tests, yet with 1080p material it's gorgeous, although not on the same pictue quality level as a Pioneer or Panasonic plasma which are the cream of the crop right now for black levels and motion resolution)

I would NEVER buy a 720p / 1080i screen at 52" 40 and below yes. I have installed CI version of that screen and IT's FANTASTIC.

I agree with you on plasma too simply remarkable image.

[dobyblue]

If 1080i is correctly deinterlaced, it will be indistinguishable from 1080p.


I agree providing it is a progressive source, which in the case of HD DVD and Blu-ray it is.

However the number of sets that fail interlacing tests is alarming.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/images/downloads/1080p%20TV%20Test%20Nov06%20Home%20Theater%20Magaz ine.jpg

http://www.hometheatermag.com/images/archivesart/1107hookHDTVrez.jpg

[Drongo]

It is absolutely so, the consumer was given a fair choice and when it came to paramount and Warner titles, the consumer picked Blu-ray and it was regardless of genre.


Not really.

More studios align with one format, so the consumer’s incentive is to choose a format based on studio support and not technology.

More players sell to the format with the greatest studio support.

Therefore more software sells to the format with the greatest number of players.

Self fulfilling prophecy scenario – very little to do with choosing the format they want based on technological merit, features or price.

[No1fan]

Just give us Transformers on Blu-ray with enough capacity to allow for an even better transfer and PCM/TrueHD sound, as the director and majority of Hi def owners want!

Buying off Paramount has maintained the 2-1+ software ratio in favour of Blu-ray, thanks to the return of FOX, losing Paramount again would see the ratio move to 80-20+, and the effective end of HD-DVD in the US.

[poothedrew]

Not at full resolution, but Zona has some cool shots of Spider-man 3 on Blu-ray vs. the DVD.

(Oh and you mentioned something about Spider-man 3 supposed to be on Blu-ray exclusively - that hasn't changed, it is exclusive to Blu-ray as are the other two movies)

DVD

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6238/90473951bt2.png

Blu-ray

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9223/49277519fe9.png

Pirates 3

DVD

http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/articulos/compa_piratas3/piratas3_dvdalta4.jpg

Blu-ray

http://www.zonadvd.com/imagenes/articulos/compa_piratas3/piratas3_blualta4.jpg

It's baffling that some people can suggest there's very little difference between DVD and the HD DVD/Blu-ray 1080p discs.

Regardless of format / superiority HD movies are so good that I forget I am at home.

[Drongo]

I agree providing it is a progressive source, which in the case of HD DVD and Blu-ray it is.

However the number of sets that fail interlacing tests is alarming.



No disagreement from me there on either point.

But as I said earlier, that's a case for a better display and not the inherent 'superiority' of one format over another.

[dobyblue]

Not really.

More studios align with one format, so the consumer’s incentive is to choose a format based on studio support and not technology.

More players sell to the format with the greatest studio support.

Therefore more software sells to the format with the greatest number of players.

Self fulfilling prophecy scenario – very little to do with choosing the format they want based on technological merit, features or price.

You're giving far too much credit to the consumer to know that sort of thing.
Perhaps now they're starting to realise what's going on, but Warner's Blu-ray's have been outselling their HD DVD's all year, as did Paramount's releases like Shooter and Disturbia.

The HD DVD of "300" was touted as having all kinds of new features...plus it plays on your DVD player! If that doesn't appeal to millions more than the Blu-ray I don't know what would......yet the Blu-ray has outsold the HD DVD 2:1

[Drongo]

Regardless of format / superiority HD movies are so good that I forget I am at home.


Amen to that!

It is the films and not the formats that is important.

It's quite sad that those of us who have a common love of film are so divided because of two similar but slightly different types of optical discs.

Absurd and very sad :(

[dobyblue]

I won't support HD DVD because I learnt my lesson from SACD and DVD-Audio.
I have a rather nice collection of both, but I'm constantly with my ear to the ground starving for new releases and that's the same future HDM has if one doesn't win by January 2009. The masses will lose interest and stick with the sure bet - DVD.

One wins by then in a manner that the public can see (all studios releasing on one format, even if one or two of them are still neutral) then HDM stands a great chance of making it.

I don't want to be starving for content.

[Drongo]

You're giving far too much credit to the consumer to know that sort of thing.
Perhaps now they're starting to realise what's going on, but Warner's Blu-ray's have been outselling their HD DVD's all year, as did Paramount's releases like Shooter and Disturbia.

The HD DVD of "300" was touted as having all kinds of new features...plus it plays on your DVD player! If that doesn't appeal to millions more than the Blu-ray I don't know what would......yet the Blu-ray has outsold the HD DVD 2:1


Too much credit to the consumer? :confused:

So now you're saying that they haven't decided anything?

If that's the case it isn't the consumer who has decided which format is winning....

At the moment the high def market is so small and insular that combo discs are not being bought by non Hi-Def owners in significant numbers, if it all.

The Blu-ray version of 300 has outsold the HD-DVD version simply because Blu-ray has a larger installed base of players - no other reason.

[dobyblue]

Too much credit to the consumer? :confused:

So now you're saying that they haven't decided anything?

If that's the case it isn't the consumer who has decided which format is winning....


No I meant in terms of knowledge. I thought that much was obvious from my post.

[poothedrew]

Amen to that!

It is the films and not the formats that is important.

It's quite sad that those of us who have a common love of film are so divided because of two similar but slightly different types of optical discs.

Absurd and very sad :(

I'm just pissed I have to buy a Blu Ray player those Spiderman pics put me over the edge....

:)

[Drongo]

I won't support HD DVD because I learnt my lesson from SACD and DVD-Audio.
I have a rather nice collection of both, but I'm constantly with my ear to the ground starving for new releases and that's the same future HDM has if one doesn't win by January 2009. The masses will lose interest and stick with the sure bet - DVD.

One wins by then in a manner that the public can see (all studios releasing on one format, even if one or two of them are still neutral) then HDM stands a great chance of making it.

I don't want to be starving for content.

I understand and respect that point of view even though I disagree with it.

And I'm speaking as someone who owns (and collects) both DVD-A and SACD.

As it's late, I will say three things.

Firstly, both sides are at fault for not agreeing a common format. There should have only been one Hi-Def format launched.

Secondly, only wanting one format launched is not the same thing as wanting one format to die off. There are negatives for everyone in losing one of the formats.

Finally, both sides realistically need to look at their language and actions. If both formats become so entrenched that they cannot be defeated, both sides will have to deal with each other.

[Drongo]

No I meant in terms of knowledge. I thought that much was obvious from my post.

I don't think it takes too much knowledge to ask the salesman which format has the greater support...

[Bumblebee1983]

Not at full resolution, but Zona has some cool shots of Spider-man 3 on Blu-ray vs. the DVD.

(Oh and you mentioned something about Spider-man 3 supposed to be on Blu-ray exclusively - that hasn't changed, it is exclusive to Blu-ray as are the other two movies)

DVD

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6238/90473951bt2.png

Blu-ray

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9223/49277519fe9.png

Pirates 3

DVD

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/8734/78674428jz4.png

Blu-ray

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/8356/46290260gv4.png

It's baffling that some people can suggest there's very little difference between DVD and the HD DVD/Blu-ray 1080p discs.

About the Spiderman trilogy....they are also on regular DVD, not just blu ray.

And I see a very subtle difference. I suppose it's much like upconverting from regular DVD to HDMI connection.

*shrug*

I dunno, I'm going to stick with HD because that's what my favorite titles are mainly on.

[rdjam]

dubyblu, master of personal attacks.

Rather than deal with my point, you wish to launch repeated personal attacks, as though that somehow discredits anything I said.

Deal with it, duby. You're super-sensitive to our campaign because it makes you feel threatened.

Over 7,000 HD DVD supporters workign as one... thanks for the promotional plug. I got quite a few signups thanks to you ;)

And, BTW, I do not spout misinformation. The truth is great, but I blow big holes in some of the misinformation that folks like you spout.

"bay knows more..."??? So you're saying that Bay has made an unequivocal statement here that MS is lying and that he knows that they paid for Paramount? Get a life.

And actually - HD DVD is outselling Bluray 2 to 1 on dedicated players - yes, here on Earth...
rdjam - one of the biggest fountains of misinformation on the internet nad one of the loudest voices behind the HD DVD propaganda campaign.

Here is rdjam's website - judge for yourself - www.campaignhd.com (http://www.campaignhd.com)

All MS said is they "didn't write any cheques" - hardly a denial of offering $150 million in incentives.

Bay knows far more than you do rdjam - he knows how much better Blu-ray is and apprently so does hte majority of this planet. Nowhere on Earth does HD DVD outsell Blu-ray, despite Toshiba's desperation price cuts.

[D3lta]

No it didn't - Paramount announcement was August 21st, 2007.
Blades of Glory was released August 28th, 2007.

What I meant was that the Blades of Glory discs were already made and ready to ship to stores/already shipped to stores before the deal between Toshiba and Paramount happened, therefore they didn't change the ad.

[AussieBladeRunner]

I am currently leaning towards the HD-DVD camp but only for 2 reasons. 1. I like the picture in picture mode offered in HD-DVD to show the green screen stuff against the final cut of the film (which I believe blu-ray cannot currently do) as I am interested in the movie making process and 2. Most importantly that HD-DVD is region free. It is hard for anyone within the US to appreciate the frustration that consumers feel in either not being able to get version of movies or special edition compilations that are available in the US (or UK) but not available overseas and then when they are we get ripped off. A case in point is the 5 disc version of Blade Runner the final cut is available on Amazon for around US$30 whereas in Australia it is AU$90. Even accounting for the exchange rate of around US87c we are being ripped off in a major way.

The HD-DVD format allows consumers to get non-pirated content for a realistic price. This is the reason a lot of retailers outside of the US will not stock HD-DVD as consumers will import the discs. This is not the case with Blu-Ray as it enforces the region BS introduced by standard DVD's so you have to buy the content locally. The question is why? Why should it be any different to buying T-shirts or car parts from wherever the hell I please.

Sony is no innocent victim here. Even when I saw the new 40Gb version of the PS/3 for US$399 I thought well that's cheap enough to pick one up but it translated into being available locally for AU$699 WTF!! Sony owns 2 of the studios doing only blu-ray versions of movies so they are just as guilty as the Toshiba/Microsoft/Paramount conspiracy. So it comes down to a case for format as to which I prefer: Transformers and Star Trek or Die Hard and Spiderman.

There is currently only one hero in all of this mess and that is Samsung with the combo-player. That will be the only solution to this awful mess which will no doubt be repeated in years to come due to corporate self interest.

Coincidentally, Apple is a culprit of just as big a mess by preventing me from buying songs from the US or Japanese iTunes sites when they are not available on the local site. Why? It's not as if I am not paying for them. Is my money not as good as anyone elses? It's just plain crazy.

The really silly thing is that these corporations try to justify some of these actions as a means to combat piracy but instead it just drives people to try to circumvent the system.

(Sorry, venting completed)

[D3lta]

I am currently leaning towards the HD-DVD camp but only for 2 reasons. 1. I like the picture in picture mode offered in HD-DVD to show the green screen stuff against the final cut of the film (which I believe blu-ray cannot currently do) as I am interested in the movie making process

I can understand reason 2, but...

For reason 1, the PiP with the green screen was only available in the HD DVD version of 300, it's not in every movie.

Blu-ray is now also capable of doing PiP since Profile 1.1 has become a standard and many companies including Sony, Disney, LionsGate and Fox will be releasing content with PiP.

[Ranger]

This all depends on the display and how it handles different resolutions. I'd rather have the cheap 1080 if it handled deinterlacing and cadence detection properly than the expensive 720p one that did not. It also depends on whether it can handle 3:2 cadence, deinterlacing and how well it does on motion resolution.

(And before anyone suggests that TV's pass tests based on their costs and build quality....they absolutely do not - the new 92 series 52" Aquos from Sharp fails deinterlacing tests, yet with 1080p material it's gorgeous, although not on the same pictue quality level as a Pioneer or Panasonic plasma which are the cream of the crop right now for black levels and motion resolution)

I actually own the Sharp LC-52D92U. Home Theater Mag is wrong. I've run their same tests using the same Silicon Optix HD DVD test disc at 1080i60. It passes both the deinterlacing test as well as the 3:2 cadence test.

The tester should have noticed the mistake when he noted that the Sharp D62U series TV that shipped 6 months earlier (and is the lower cost brother to the D92U) passed both the deinterlacing and 3:2 cadence test.

This is all high end, brand new stuff though. There are millions of HDTV's in people's homes that only accept 720p or 1080i input. There's no benefit to those people in spending extra money for a 1080p player. The HD-A2 or HD-A3 are a great choice for people who are part of that installed base. They're also much cheaper than the cheapest Blu-ray player.

[Ranger]

I can understand reason 2, but...

For reason 1, the PiP with the green screen was only available in the HD DVD version of 300, it's not in every movie.

Blu-ray is now also capable of doing PiP since Profile 1.1 has become a standard and many companies including Sony, Disney, LionsGate and Fox will be releasing content with PiP.

How many players are shipping today that actually support 1.1? Can it be upgraded to support 2.0, or do you need to buy a new player to get the web enabled features and software downloads you get in every HD DVD player?

[poothedrew]

How many players are shipping today that actually support 1.1? Can it be upgraded to support 2.0, or do you need to buy a new player to get the web enabled features and software downloads you get in every HD DVD player?
I would assume a PS3 could be upgraded via software if not already is 2.0 I really don't know.

If they USB slot then perhaps wireless network access, without a network port access to the web can be ... challenging.

Again I have no idea but it sounds like existing hardware would be difficult.

[Ranger]

I would assume a PS3 could be upgraded via software if not already is 2.0 I really don't know.

If they USB slot then perhaps wireless network access, without a network port access to the web can be ... challenging.

Again I have no idea but it sounds like existing hardware would be difficult.

There's only one Blu-ray 1.1 player available today. The recently released Panasonic DMP-BD30 ($499). It can't be upgraded to profile 2.0 or do software downloads because it has no ethernet port.

People expect the PS3 to get software updates someday for 1.1 and 2.0, but Sony has never actually said they will deliver these updates for the PS3. In the mean time it certainly doesn't have any 1.1 or 2.0 capabilities.

[darinp2]

Over 7,000 HD DVD supporters workign as one...

And, BTW, I do not spout misinformation.Looks like 7k supporters you can mislead. Just a couple of examples of misinformation from you. Your brother sent out an email to your supporters claiming that if Lionsgate started using VC-1 it would mean that they would have HD DVD encodes along the way. That was not true and I told you so. Having to run a short program to modify a file structure or change some flags (Blu-ray doesn't have interlaced flags for progressive content) so it would be compatible with Blu-ray doesn't mean that it was compatible with HD DVD before that. It shouldn't have been hard for you to figure out that your claim wasn't true (including that Amir would have loved to have said that I was wrong and you were right, but he would have looked like an idiot and liar if he did, since I was right, he knew it and other knowledgable people knew it). Despite that, in 2 different conversations you continued to defend that your claim was true. If you again claim that you and your brother's claim was true then you are either still very ignorant with respect to VC-1, or dishonest. Those are really the only 2 choices there. Have you figured out that you were wrong yet? Did you ever correct that misinformation with your supporters, or did you want them to continue to believe false information? Despite the claim from both of you (your brother probably got the misinformation from you) and all the releases Lionsgate and Disney have done since then, I bet none of them were compatible with HD DVD.

As another example of you not understanding stuff related to VC-1 despite it seemingly being one of the main reasons you support HD DVD, you claimed that most HD DVDs were under 12Mbps (which of course would be ABR), to support that HD DVD's bitrate limitations don't matter. I pointed out that this <12Mbps claim wasn't true and you continued to argue, but wouldn't address that one. Along the way your thread with that false claim magically disappeared, then you started a new thread and complained about people arguing in the previous one (while still not coming clean on your false claim). Then much later you claimed that you meant it for recent titles. But that still wasn't true (and you must not have realized that). I pointed that out and to this day have never seen you acknowledge that. Have you figured out yet that most HD DVDs with VC-1 aren't under 12Mbps ABR (even recent ones)?

You seem to have some lack of understanding when it comes to VC-1, but with a delusion that you understand more about it than you do. And you seem to base much of your love of HD DVD on what you think you know about VC-1 and bitrates. I'm still not sure of all the reasons you push for HD DVD, especially when I believe you've talked about being able to afford a 3 chip DLP projector, the kind of device where things like having higher bitrates available are likely to make some of the most difference, even with VC-1. But maybe you have some underlying reason to support HD DVD (like a hate of Sony for some reason) and your support isn't actually based on what the formats will be able to deliver over the years. If Michael Bay has really looked at the capabilities of both formats then his support of Blu-ray could very well be based on what it will be able to deliver over the years.

BTW: Sorry to bring this to this forum, but of all the people into this format war I think rdjam is one of the most likely to mislead people and I wouldn't want to see him pulling some of the same stuff here.

--Darin

[h0mi]

Laughing and insulting to whom? The people watching 5 star PQ encodes in MPEG-2 of X Men 3, MI:3, etc? MPEG-2 can look just as good as MPEG-4 and VC-1 because of Blu-ray's bandwidth.


According to the tier thread at AVS, the highest ranked mpeg-2 encode is Crank, Tier 1, and only 6 mpeg-2 titles are better than tier 2. MI:3 is listed as a tier 2 title, as is xmen last stand.

I tend to be skeptical about claims that format/specs is the most important element of PQ (or AQ)... judging from other people's reactions to the data at hand, my view is that studio effort plays a far greater role than anything else in delivering a good or bad HD disc. There are just too many "bronze" or tier level 3 (or worse) discs (regardless of codec) to conclude otherwise. So I won't say that mpeg-2 is necessarily an inferior codec to the others. However, studios appear to be doing a better job with VC-1 or AVC in delivering superior PQ.

[wingzero]

However I pointed out that the assumption that 1080p is inherently better than 1080i is wrong.

And it is.

I fully understand that interlacing is a legacy technology.


I understand that in some respects it is outmoded. But we live in world of numerous frame rates as well interlaced and progressive. We have to deal with all variations thereof.

You are wrong in saying:


If 1080i is correctly deinterlaced, it will be indistinguishable from 1080p.




No, you are wrong. Interlacing corrupts the optical flow axis of every object on the screen, there is no way to reconstruct the original progressive data in a perfect way. Even the most complex algorithms running on very expensive hardware (which is a set of DSPs and a massive amount of memory doing the job at insane speed, calculating motion vectors with high precision down to 2x,4x,8x or more sub-pixel resolutions) can't give you anything more than a very good approximation of the original progressive source. There will always be a certain level of motion artifacts and approximation error. Going interlaced it's a very bad idea if you want to achieve the best quality.

[Drongo]

No, you are wrong. Interlacing corrupts the optical flow axis of every object on the screen, there is no way to reconstruct the original progressive data in a perfect way. Even the most complex algorithms running on very expensive hardware (which is a set of DSPs and a massive amount of memory doing the job at insane speed, calculating motion vectors with high precision down to 2x,4x,8x or more sub-pixel resolutions) can't give you anything more than a very good approximation of the original progressive source. There will always be a certain level of motion artifacts and approximation error. Going interlaced it's a very bad idea if you want to achieve the best quality.


Even the person who has disagreed with me about almost everything, agrees with me about this:


http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6340&postcount=198


Some links posted earlier:

http://www.bigscreen.com/about/help.php?id=47


Both HD DVD and Blu-ray store movie-based video on the discs in 1080p at 24 frames per second (fps). Some players do not output 1080p, but rather 1080i due to the circuitry implemented in the player for cost-savings or product maturity reasons.
Most displays are not capable of accepting a 1080p signal at 24 frames per second. More than likely, they need a 1080p signal at 60 frames per second (if they can take 1080p at all), so the conversion from 24 fps to 60 fps still needs to happen somewhere (this conversion is called 3:2, or 2:3, pulldown). The fact that most TV's cannot handle 1080p24 is why most HD DVD players and Blu-ray players alike output 1920x1080 at 60 fps in either interlaced or progressive fashion.


Does this mean that you're losing picture quality if your player is outputting 1080i, or your TV is only capable of accepting 1080i? As long as your TV is capable of displaying 1920x1080 pixels on the screen, and its internal circuitry was designed properly, there won't be any difference between a 1080i and 1080p input. The HDTV will deinterlace the 1080i signal, create a 1080p signal from it, and then display it to you. Unlike in the old days of analog video, there is no information lost or artifacts introduced as a result of the deinterlacing process. All the information is there, it just has to be reassembled. And


http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoff...061080iv1080p/ (http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/)



Short Version


What this all means is this:
• When it comes to movies (as in HD DVD and Blu-ray) there will be no visible difference between the 1080i signal and the 1080p signal, as long as your TV correctly de-interlaces 1080i. So even if you could input 1080p, you wouldn't see a difference (because there is none).

[darinp2]

No, you are wrong. Interlacing corrupts the optical flow axis of every object on the screen, there is no way to reconstruct the original progressive data in a perfect way. Even the most complex algorithms running on very expensive hardware (which is a set of DSPs and a massive amount of memory doing the job at insane speed, calculating motion vectors with high precision down to 2x,4x,8x or more sub-pixel resolutions) can't give you anything more than a very good approximation of the original progressive source. There will always be a certain level of motion artifacts and approximation error. Going interlaced it's a very bad idea if you want to achieve the best quality.I think you are confusing actually going interlaced (like shooting interlaced) with taking a progressive source and packaging it within an interlaced signal. In that case there should be no motion vectoring because there is a mathematically correct way to take those fields and put them back together to get the progressive source. With things that are shot interlaced and where the fields are from different points in time there really is no correct way to put them together. Just better and worse ways to all sorts of calculations like you described trying to figure out how objects move, etc.

--Darin

[wingzero]

I think you are confusing actually going interlaced (like shooting interlaced) with taking a progressive source and packaging it within an interlaced signal. In that case there should be no motion vectoring because there is a mathematically correct way to take those fields and put them back together to get the progressive source. With things that are shot interlaced and where the fields are from different points in time there really is no correct way to put them together. Just better and worse ways to all sorts of calculations like you described trying to figure out how objects move, etc.

--Darin

No, you are the one confusing things up. I understand that those sites and forums you and others are referring to are considered by the general public to be experts but that they are no more than marketeers, really. They spread incorrect information about how things really work, anyone with a basic knowledge of video coding and signals theory should see that.

Whenever you go interlaced you corrupt the optical flow axis, there is no 100% perfect nor magic mathematical way to reconstruct the signal back to its original progressive source. Any interlaced display or conversion from progressive causes issues on the time axis and affects the spatial resolution as well. Interlaced signals use half bandwidth than the original progressive source. In the analogue era before everything went digital, interlacing was the most used lossy compression scheme. It lowers spatio-temporal resolution, it decreases the needed bandwidth and the tradeoff is that you lose on overall perceived quality.

[wingzero]

Even the person who has disagreed with me about almost everything, agrees with me about this:


http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6340&postcount=198


Some links posted earlier:

http://www.bigscreen.com/about/help.php?id=47

And


http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoff...061080iv1080p/ (http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/)

Those sites are incorrect. Those people clearly show that they don't have a clue about how things really work. They lack a signals theory, optics and video coding background mainly.
Telling that there is no difference between an interlaced and a progressive signal and that there is a way to reconstruct the original progressive source 100% with no errors it's more than misleading, it's just false.

[LadiesMan217]

Biggest thread in board history?

[dobyblue]

No, you are the one confusing things up. I understand that those sites and forums you and others are referring to are considered by the general public to be experts but that they are no more than marketeers, really. They spread incorrect information about how things really work, anyone with a basic knowledge of video coding and signals theory should see that.

Whenever you go interlaced you corrupt the optical flow axis, there is no 100% perfect nor magic mathematical way to reconstruct the signal back to its original progressive source. Any interlaced display or conversion from progressive causes issues on the time axis and affects the spatial resolution as well. Interlaced signals use half bandwidth than the original progressive source. In the analogue era before everything went digital, interlacing was the most used lossy compression scheme. It lowers spatio-temporal resolution, it decreases the needed bandwidth and the tradeoff is that you lose on overall perceived quality.

Yes there is a way and it's very simple mathematics.
When a 1080p24 source is converted to 1080i60, it simply scans the odd 540 lines then the even 540 lines for the first frame. For the second frame it scans the odd 540 lines, then the even 540 lines, then the odd 540 lines again, it repeats this 2:3 telecine ad naseum.
To convert it back to 1080p24 it simply discards every second frames third field, thus removing all the extra occurences of each 540 odd line scan, and places the original 1080 line frame back together.
It doesn't involve compression at all, because the original compression has already been done to the 1080p24 source.
If the source is 1080p60 and you have to convert it to 1080i60, then it's impossible to reconstruct the original progressive source and data is lost, but outside of video games there are no 1080p60 sources available to consumers.

Due to the massive lack of true interlaced displays, vertical filtering is an all but forgotten process. Most shows are derived from a 1080p24 source, including the ones broadcast in 1080i and 720p.

[dobyblue]

According to the tier thread at AVS, the highest ranked mpeg-2 encode is Crank, Tier 1, and only 6 mpeg-2 titles are better than tier 2. MI:3 is listed as a tier 2 title, as is xmen last stand.

I tend to be skeptical about claims that format/specs is the most important element of PQ (or AQ)... judging from other people's reactions to the data at hand, my view is that studio effort plays a far greater role than anything else in delivering a good or bad HD disc. There are just too many "bronze" or tier level 3 (or worse) discs (regardless of codec) to conclude otherwise. So I won't say that mpeg-2 is necessarily an inferior codec to the others. However, studios appear to be doing a better job with VC-1 or AVC in delivering superior PQ.

I would agree with you, MPEG-2 is not "worse" than VC-1 or AVC, it's just not as efficient and needs more bandwidth to look as good. When that bandwidth is provided however, the results are stellar.

Crank is easily a Tier 0 title, regardless of what's written on HD DVD-friendly sites like AVS.

[wingzero]

Yes there is a way and it's very simple mathematics.
When a 1080p24 source is converted to 1080i60, it simply scans the odd 540 lines then the even 540 lines for the first frame. For the second frame it scans the odd 540 lines, then the even 540 lines, then the odd 540 lines again, it repeats this 2:3 telecine ad naseum.


You don't know what you are talking about. Referring to now ancient plain telecine pulldown based techniques without taking into account motion compensation and hybrid motion compensation algorithms (working at the field, frame or both levels) is wrong.
Plain classic telecine techniques can't fix the signal much, that's the reason why motion compensation technology took over and it's used in consumer products as well. It's since the '90s at least that motion compensation has been in use in the consumer sector and on cheap devices. I know that you are repeating what other sites are claiming with all their pulldown,telecine,2:2 2:3 3:2 5:5 cadence stuff and such, but that doesn't exist in the real world. Those sites are spreading incorrect information to the general public, either for their own ignorance in the field or following someone's agenda, I don't know but what I know is that they are not telling the truth about how things work.

You think that a motion picture is a lego toy, you can disassemble and re-assemble it at will with no consequences and it will always get back to how it originally was. Well, that is not the case at all. You have to think and look at the spatial and temporal domains as well as take into account the frequency domain. You can't look just at the picture on the screen and you see "I can put frames back with this telecine cadence and they will reconstruct the original signal perfectly" , no, that is not true, that is wrong. It doesn't work that way. Telecine pulldown techniques were invented before digital motion compensation algorithms in order to make frame rate conversions and perform deinterlacing but they are far from perfect. Motion compensation dominated the industry in the last 20 years approx now, practically no one uses plain outdated telecine pulldown. At the very least hybrid telecine+motion compensation schemes are used to perform the needed tasks to save on costs, although cheaper implementations usually prefer fast block-matching motion compensation algorithms which can be calculated at insane speeds even on very cheap low-end DSPs nowadays and with acceptable results.



To convert it back to 1080p24 it simply discards every second frames third field, thus removing all the extra occurences of each 540 odd line scan, and places the original 1080 line frame back together.
It doesn't involve compression at all, because the original compression has already been done to the 1080p24 source.
If the source is 1080p60 and you have to convert it to 1080i60, then it's impossible to reconstruct the original progressive source and data is lost, but outside of video games there are no 1080p60 sources available to consumers.


You contradict yourself. When you split a full frame into two fields you cause a corruption on the time axis, displaying first the odd and then the even lines (or viceversa) corrupts the optical flow axis. Why do you think and state that it would be perfect from 24Hz progressive to 60Hz interlaced but then you state that 60Hz progressive <-> 60Hz interlaced couldn't be achieved with no quality loss, uh ? You see, you just contradicted yourself. Mathematics are not applied like you think they are in the video coding fields, telecine pulldown techniques were a cheap way to do things in the past before digital motion compensation existed but it's far from a perfect technology and it's absolutely worse than motion compensation almost everytime.



Due to the massive lack of true interlaced displays, vertical filtering is an all but forgotten process. Most shows are derived from a 1080p24 source, including the ones broadcast in 1080i and 720p.

You are wrong once again. When you have to convert from 24Hz progressive to 50/60Hz interlaced or progressive then vertical filtering occours even if the spatial resolution doesn't change. Vertical filtering must be used to lower the side effects and prevent frequency aliasing on the time axis that result from a progressive<->interlaced conversion. Deinterlacing algorithms use various filtering techniques on both spatial and time axis to enhance the visual experience.

[tosvus]

I am currently leaning towards the HD-DVD camp but only for 2 reasons. 1. I like the picture in picture mode offered in HD-DVD to show the green screen stuff against the final cut of the film (which I believe blu-ray cannot currently do) as I am interested in the movie making process

Just a quick note that PiP is "faked" in some BD titles, due to it's higher capacity, it is able to store two versions of a movie, one with the pip "etched in". The first profile 1.1 players are coming out this month as well (panasonic), plus PS3 will 99% likely support it as well, covering 75% of all BD-owners so far. The first real 1.1 titles are coming out early next year I believe.

PIP is also an extra that not all movies (on either format) will have.

[dobyblue]

You don't know what you are talking about. Referring to now ancient plain telecine pulldown based techniques without taking into account motion compensation and hybrid motion compensation algorithms (working at the field, frame or both levels) is wrong.
Plain classic telecine techniques can't fix the signal much, that's the reason why motion compensation technology took over and it's used in consumer products as well. It's since the '90s at least that motion compensation has been in use in the consumer sector and on cheap devices. I know that you are repeating what other sites are claiming with all their pulldown,telecine,2:2 2:3 3:2 5:5 cadence stuff and such, but that doesn't exist in the real world. Those sites are spreading incorrect information to the general public, either for their own ignorance in the field or following someone's agenda, I don't know but what I know is that they are not telling the truth about how things work.

You think that a motion picture is a lego toy, you can disassemble and re-assemble it at will with no consequences and it will always get back to how it originally was. Well, that is not the case at all. You have to think and look at the spatial and temporal domains as well as take into account the frequency domain. You can't look just at the picture on the screen and you see "I can put frames back with this telecine cadence and they will reconstruct the original signal perfectly" , no, that is not true, that is wrong. It doesn't work that way. Telecine pulldown techniques were invented before digital motion compensation algorithms in order to make frame rate conversions and perform deinterlacing but they are far from perfect. Motion compensation dominated the industry in the last 20 years approx now, practically no one uses plain outdated telecine pulldown. At the very least hybrid telecine+motion compensation schemes are used to perform the needed tasks to save on costs, although cheaper implementations usually prefer fast block-matching motion compensation algorithms which can be calculated at insane speeds even on very cheap low-end DSPs nowadays and with acceptable results.



You contradict yourself. When you split a full frame into two fields you cause a corruption on the time axis, displaying first the odd and then the even lines (or viceversa) corrupts the optical flow axis. Why do you think and state that it would be perfect from 24Hz progressive to 60Hz interlaced but then you state that 60Hz progressive <-> 60Hz interlaced couldn't be achieved with no quality loss, uh ? You see, you just contradicted yourself. Mathematics are not applied like you think they are in the video coding fields, telecine pulldown techniques were a cheap way to do things in the past before digital motion compensation existed but it's far from a perfect technology and it's absolutely worse than motion compensation almost everytime.



You are wrong once again. When you have to convert from 24Hz progressive to 50/60Hz interlaced or progressive then vertical filtering occours even if the spatial resolution doesn't change. Vertical filtering must be used to lower the side effects and prevent frequency aliasing on the time axis that result from a progressive<->interlaced conversion. Deinterlacing algorithms use various filtering techniques on both spatial and time axis to enhance the visual experience.

I have not contradicted myself at all.
1080p60 to 1080i60 loses information.
You cannot go to half the frame rate and then magically recreate the information that is lost.
1080p24 is less information than 1080i60, hence one is possible and the other is not.
I don't think you've thought this through well enough.
As for suggesting that the time axis is altered, that's completely false when it is reconstructed properly. If I were to give you one jisaw piece every second that contained two pieces put together, then starter giving you those pieces one at a time every half a second and instructing you to put them back together, you could still place those pieces down every second intact. I'm just delivering them to you in a different method. That is all interlacing is. In this case it adds one extra odd field for every second frame.
It's very simple interlacing and deinterlacing. What you're describing is more related to interlaced source material.
There are professional industry test discs you can use to test a displays ability to correctly deinterlace 1080i material and 3:2 cadence, like the “FPD Benchmark Software for Professionals” 1080i Blu-ray Test Disc.
When using a 1080p24 source, yes it's very much like a Lego toy, but with today's HDTV's it's like having a 2 year olf try and put it back together. AS the tests clearly show, less than 20% of sets recognize 3:2 cadence and only 60% pass deinterlacing tests. That's what is complicated, not the technology itself. Just like any digital signal, it's all 0's and 1's.

[dobyblue]

Just a quick note that PiP is "faked" in some BD titles, due to it's higher capacity, it is able to store two versions of a movie, one with the pip "etched in". The first profile 1.1 players are coming out this month as well (panasonic), plus PS3 will 99% likely support it as well, covering 75% of all BD-owners so far. The first real 1.1 titles are coming out early next year I believe.

PIP is also an extra that not all movies (on either format) will have.
Correct - the Panasonic DMP-BD30 supports profile 1.1 and the first titles are coming out in January.

Fox's "Sunshine", Lions Gate's "War" and "3:10 to Yuma" and Sony's "Resident Evil 3" are all confirmed to have true PIP. Release dates are between Jan 1 and Jan 8.

[Ranger]

I have not contradicted myself at all.
1080p60 to 1080i60 loses information.
You cannot go to half the frame rate and then magically recreate the information that is lost.
1080p24 is less information than 1080i60, hence one is possible and the other is not.
I don't think you've thought this through well enough.
As for suggesting that the time axis is altered, that's completely false when it is reconstructed properly. If I were to give you one jisaw piece every second that contained two pieces put together, then starter giving you those pieces one at a time every half a second and instructing you to put them back together, you could still place those pieces down every second intact. I'm just delivering them to you in a different method. That is all interlacing is. In this case it adds one extra odd field for every second frame.
It's very simple interlacing and deinterlacing. What you're describing is more related to interlaced source material.
There are professional industry test discs you can use to test a displays ability to correctly deinterlace 1080i material and 3:2 cadence, like the “FPD Benchmark Software for Professionals” 1080i Blu-ray Test Disc.
When using a 1080p24 source, yes it's very much like a Lego toy, but with today's HDTV's it's like having a 2 year olf try and put it back together. AS the tests clearly show, less than 20% of sets recognize 3:2 cadence and only 60% pass deinterlacing tests. That's what is complicated, not the technology itself. Just like any digital signal, it's all 0's and 1's.

Let's not forget to mention that since 99% of movies are stored at 1080p24 and about 1% at 1080i60 it's irrelevant to talk about converting a 1080p60 source to 1080i60. There is also the small detail that neither Blu-ray or HD DVD can play a 1080p60 source to begin with.

[wingzero]

I have not contradicted myself at all.
1080p60 to 1080i60 loses information.
You cannot go to half the frame rate and then magically recreate the information that is lost.
1080p24 is less information than 1080i60, hence one is possible and the other is not.
I don't think you've thought this through well enough.


You are the one trying to think too much on your own without studying the theory everything is based on in practice.

1920x1080 at 60Hz interlaced is not more information than a 1920x1080 24Hz progressive signal.
In theory 1080i 60Hz should provide for roughly the same as 1080p 30Hz BUT in practice that is far from the case. Although the needed bandwidth it's on par with 1080p 30Hz, the result it's a really lower perceived spatio-temporal resolution, it's just how interlacing works along with its tradeoffs and issues.
You are not thinking correctly, you can't separate spatial and temporal information in the signal when studying what interlacing is doing and you must analyze everything in the frequency domain, at least. The study of interlacing issues can be extended to more dimensions, it has been analyzed by many researches at more than 64-Dimensions in order to find out way to minimize its impact and design better filters and techniques.




As for suggesting that the time axis is altered, that's completely false when it is reconstructed properly. If I were to give you one jisaw piece every second that contained two pieces put together, then starter giving you those pieces one at a time every half a second and instructing you to put them back together, you could still place those pieces down every second intact. I'm just delivering them to you in a different method. That is all interlacing is. In this case it adds one extra odd field for every second frame.
No. I'm not suggesting it, it's how things work in the real world. It's how things are designed. You fail to understand the relation between spatial and temporal resolution and the fact that signals theory implies converting to and studying signals in the frequency domain as well.
Things don't work as you think, sorry but that's not the case. Just don't spread misinformation, well known highly rated supposed to be technical sites are already doing it with all the myths about telecine/pulldown and such.



It's very simple interlacing and deinterlacing. What you're describing is more related to interlaced source material.
No. You fail to understand what interlacing is all about. I can undestand that you don't have a video coding and signals theory background, however what you are telling is not correct. There is no good interlacing versus bad interlacing here. Interlacing is always bad and should be avoided. There is no way to reconstruct a progressive source with no loss of information.



There are professional industry test discs you can use to test a displays ability to correctly deinterlace 1080i material and 3:2 cadence, like the “FPD Benchmark Software for Professionals” 1080i Blu-ray Test Disc.
Those discs are more marketing stuff than professional products. They can be used to give a rough calibration but they are not professional, they are not for developers but for consumer and prosumer markets.



When using a 1080p24 source, yes it's very much like a Lego toy, but with today's HDTV's it's like having a 2 year olf try and put it back together. AS the tests clearly show, less than 20% of sets recognize 3:2 cadence and only 60% pass deinterlacing tests. That's what is complicated, not the technology itself. Just like any digital signal, it's all 0's and 1's.No. You are wrong. There is no Lego toys stuff. 3:2 cadence nowadays is more a myth than truth. If you trust marketeers sites that ignore motion compensation completely then you are missing the whole point.
A signal being digital means nothing. It seems that you even fail to understand how quantization works. You can't just think that everything is digital then is perfect and simple, because it's not.

[No1fan]

Wow, 24 pages!

Then again, the HD-DVD camp know fullwell if Transformers and/or Paramount return to the BLu-ray camp, it's game up for HD-DVD.

It's such a shame a directors wishes are ignored and dismissed simply because HD-DVD as a format is not strong enough to lose Transformers and Paramount.

If paying off studios and selling standalones below cost is needed to prop up HD-DVD, and still take a beating in the US and the rest of the world, what does that say!

HD-DVD owners, understandably, are fighting tooth and nail to protect their investment after falling for the hype and unfulfilled promises!

[No1fan]

I am currently leaning towards the HD-DVD camp but only for 2 reasons. 1. I like the picture in picture mode offered in HD-DVD to show the green screen stuff against the final cut of the film (which I believe blu-ray cannot currently do) as I am interested in the movie making process and 2. Most importantly that HD-DVD is region free. It is hard for anyone within the US to appreciate the frustration that consumers feel in either not being able to get version of movies or special edition compilations that are available in the US (or UK) but not available overseas and then when they are we get ripped off. A case in point is the 5 disc version of Blade Runner the final cut is available on Amazon for around US$30 whereas in Australia it is AU$90. Even accounting for the exchange rate of around US87c we are being ripped off in a major way.


70% of US Blu-rays are region free, the majority of my collection is from the US with a few from the UK. Of the titles I have only Ratatouille and Die Hard are region coded. Without region coding Disney will not release on HD-DVD full stop, Newlines need for region coding means the HD-DVD version of new day and date releases are being delayed upto 6 months.. all Warner movies, including Blade Runner are region free on Blu-ray.

As pointed out above, the first PiP title will be released on Blu-ray early January, including Resident Evil, War, Shhot 'em up, Sunshine etc. Current titles like Ratatouille and Cars already have extremely advanced interactive features, without the need for PiP.

[No1fan]

There's only one Blu-ray 1.1 player available today. The recently released Panasonic DMP-BD30 ($499). It can't be upgraded to profile 2.0 or do software downloads because it has no ethernet port.

People expect the PS3 to get software updates someday for 1.1 and 2.0, but Sony has never actually said they will deliver these updates for the PS3. In the mean time it certainly doesn't have any 1.1 or 2.0 capabilities.

It's now been confirmed the PS3 will recieve a firmware upgrade in late December for 1.1 and 2.0.

[GoodBoy]

It was peer pressure (Michael's comments)

When Paramount made the HD-DVD exclusive announcement his richy richy blu-ray fanboy friends all complained to him, hence him making his bone-headed comment that he wouldn't make Transformers 2 if they went HD-DVD exclusive....

How mature can he be??

I do actually like some of his movies tho. But he's not a role model in any sense. His (recent) post on the forums says "Time will tell"

Yeah time will tell, by the end of 2008 the "War" will be a non-issue. Dual-format players will be the black friday deals... (My own "time will tell" prediction)

I don't see why he would continue this fan boy rhetoric after seeing Transformers on HD-DVD. It looked great, it sounded great.

[dobyblue]

You are the one trying to think too much on your own without studying the theory everything is based on in practice.

1920x1080 at 60Hz interlaced is not more information than a 1920x1080 24Hz progressive signal.
Actually it very much is more information.
1080i60 = 62,208,000 pixels per second.
1080p24 = 49,766,400 pixels per second.


In theory 1080i 60Hz should provide for roughly the same as 1080p 30Hz BUT in practice that is far from the case. Although the needed bandwidth it's on par with 1080p 30Hz, the result it's a really lower perceived spatio-temporal resolution, it's just how interlacing works along with its tradeoffs and issues.
You are not thinking correctly, you can't separate spatial and temporal information in the signal when studying what interlacing is doing and you must analyze everything in the frequency domain, at least. The study of interlacing issues can be extended to more dimensions, it has been analyzed by many researches at more than 64-Dimensions in order to find out way to minimize its impact and design better filters and techniques.
No. I'm not suggesting it, it's how things work in the real world. It's how things are designed. You fail to understand the relation between spatial and temporal resolution and the fact that signals theory implies converting to and studying signals in the frequency domain as well.
Things don't work as you think, sorry but that's not the case. Just don't spread misinformation, well known highly rated supposed to be technical sites are already doing it with all the myths about telecine/pulldown and such.

Sure, the joke's on us and only you know the truth. Everyone else on the planet is severly misguided.
Sorry, but you've provide sweet bugger all to back up what you're saying and darin and I have provided plenty of sources. People like Gary Merson aren't getting paid to sell you a TV, they're providign the manufacturers with results that show where they ahave deficiencies with their sets. That's not what I know as marketing.


No. You fail to understand what interlacing is all about. I can undestand that you don't have a video coding and signals theory background, however what you are telling is not correct. There is no good interlacing versus bad interlacing here. Interlacing is always bad and should be avoided. There is no way to reconstruct a progressive source with no loss of information.
Absolutely there is good deinterlacing and you can go from 1080p24 > 1080i60 > 1080p24 losslessly. With 1080p24 the source is progressive. All a 1080p24 conversion does has been beautifully illustrated. It's simple maths. It doesn't need quantum physics to explain it.
You can type all day but at the end of the day you've shown nothing to back up your theories.


Those discs are more marketing stuff than professional products. They can be used to give a rough calibration but they are not professional, they are not for developers but for consumer and prosumer markets.
Yes, just like those big phonies at the Imaging Science Foundation eh?
:rolleyes:

[sphdle1]

Does anyone out here want to challenge what I feel suits my films better in terms of look. I see every frame of my films over a hundred times before it is ever released. I know the lighting conditions I shot it and the result on the DI. I know the range. I know what the final product should look like - Blu Ray suits my films better. But that said - I don't a care about this format war because I have both formats in my screening room - I'm just filling you in on what people deep in the film industry feel ultimately is going on -

Transformers looks great even in DVD!!

Good to see you have the balls to be vocal about this! :D

Big fan of your work, but disappointed as you seem to be, regarding not having Transformers released on Blu-ray YET... One of my favorite movies is "The Island"... really disappointed that will have to wait a bit before out of Blu-ray :( That is one of those movies I can watch every second day and not get sick of it. I just 'get' that movie!

I hope other directors like Spielberg and Lucas start being vocal for Blu-ray as well.

I thought since this is my first post, I better make it a good one, or at least a good question with regard to your films and high-def. The main arguments I see the HD-DVD side using against Blu-ray is that HD-DVD can do all the extras (though now with profile 1.1 out, esepcially for all the PS3's this month, it is only limited to web based extras). On the Blu-ray side, one of the biggest arguments is the Transfer rates for audio & video, as well as, the picture/audio quality is better overall using AVC & PCM/or TrueHD, because you can fit the full highest quality audio/video on the 50GB Blu-ray disc...

So my question to you Michael is; As a director, if you had to choose between Audio/Video of the Film, or the ability to have Extras (Web based, PiP, etc.), which is more important to you...?
:confused:

[TauRus]

Despite the fact that both Blu-Ray and HD DVD support the same video and audio codecs, Blu-ray is still more advanced and forward looking, whereas HD DVD is honestly speaking a dead-end technology. I know way too many people are brainwashed to believe the differences are insignificant, but I have done quite a bit of reading and testing on my own to believe those differences are important. That is why it boggles my mind why some people would even want HD DVD to succeed? Why vote for mediocrity? Only to save a few buck short term, but lose a lot longer term? Are we all so short-sighted? Or so cheap?
I know many forum frequenters have agendas, some work for the involved corporations, some are tightly affiliated with them. But us, consumers, we need to sit back, wipe all of the propaganda we have been hearing from both sides off and see what makes a better option for us longer term. I have done that and I have a clear answer - Blu-ray.

[Ranger]

I would agree with you, MPEG-2 is not "worse" than VC-1 or AVC, it's just not as efficient and needs more bandwidth to look as good. When that bandwidth is provided however, the results are stellar.

Crank is easily a Tier 0 title, regardless of what's written on HD DVD-friendly sites like AVS.

Isn't Mpeg2 the real reason why Sony decided Blu-Ray needed the extra bandwidth? They had an investment in Mpeg2 encoding equipment and software that they wanted to preserve. In fact every title Sony released in 2006 was Mpeg2 encoded and they were telling the public that they were using Mpeg2 because it's better than AVC/Mpeg4 and VC-1.

They only bowed to the pressure after a lot of criticism from reviewers. These days Sony mostly releases in AVC/Mpeg4. It makes sense since Sony recently announced their new AVC/Mpeg4 encoding equipment.

Why are you critical of avsforum.com? I noticed that when you needed help understanding how deinterlacing and inverse telecine of 1080i60 works, you turned to the experts at AVS first. It's interesting that even a dyed in the wool Blu-ray supporter recognizes AVS has the best collection of experts on the Internet to provide an in depth explanation of this technology.

[wingzero]

Actually it very much is more information.
1080i60 = 62,208,000 pixels per second.
1080p24 = 49,766,400 pixels per second.

Sure, the joke's on us and only you know the truth. Everyone else on the planet is severly misguided.
Sorry, but you've provide sweet bugger all to back up what you're saying and darin and I have provided plenty of sources. People like Gary Merson aren't getting paid to sell you a TV, they're providign the manufacturers with results that show where they ahave deficiencies with their sets. That's not what I know as marketing.

Absolutely there is good deinterlacing and you can go from 1080p24 > 1080i60 > 1080p24 losslessly. With 1080p24 the source is progressive. All a 1080p24 conversion does has been beautifully illustrated. It's simple maths. It doesn't need quantum physics to explain it.
You can type all day but at the end of the day you've shown nothing to back up your theories.

Yes, just like those big phonies at the Imaging Science Foundation eh?
:rolleyes:

Acting childish and trying to insult me will give you no real advantage here. Clearly you can't understand what interlacing is about. There is no simple maths, it's hard math and very complex algorithms that developers and researchers invented over the years trying to limit the corruption created by interlacing. You can whine as much as you want but this is not just my opinion, it's a fact.

Some paragraphs and links to technical documents that maybe might enlighten your currently wrong understanding of some basic signals theory and video conding concepts...

---
http://www.ics.ele.tue.nl/~dehaan/pdf/21_ProRisk.pdf
Advanced de-interlacing techniques
E.B. Bellers and G. de Haan
Philips Research Laboratories
Television Systems Group


1 Introduction
Historically, interlacing has been introduced in video
signals to reduce bandwidth. A major drawback of the
interlaced scanning format on current bright high resolution
displays is the line flicker and serration of moving
edges. In the literature, several de-interlacing algorithms
have been proposed to reduce these artifacts, or
to serve as a base for other scan rate conversions.
De-interlacing may seem a straightforward application
of general Sample Rate Conversion (SRC) theory,
by just realizing an vertical upconversion of a factor
two. However, such an upconversion is only valid if
the signal satisfies the Nyquist criterion. Interlaced signals
are not vertically and temporally filtered prior to
subsampling in order to satisfy this Nyquist criterion.
Sampling in vertical and temporal direction is realized
in the camera, which means that prefiltering should be
realized in the optical path, which is very complicated
in practice.
In addition to this practical problem, an even more
fundamental problem exists. The two-dimensional upconversion
cannot be solved correctly, since we do
not know the temporal frequencies at the retina of a
movement-tracking observer. For a tracking observer,
very high temporal frequencies on the screen can be
transformed to lower frequencies or even DC at the
retina. Consequently, suppression of these frequencies
with a temporal lowpass filter, results in artifacts for this
observer.
Many de-interlacing algorithms have been proposed
in order to find a good balance between (hardware)
cost and quality of the de-interlacing process. These
de-interlacing algorithms range from simple intra-field
interpolation methods to Motion Compensated (MC)
methods, sometimes applying a generalization of the
sampling theorem (GST). This paper presents a brief
overview of some simple de-interlacing algorithms and
describes in more detail some interesting MC deinterlacing
methods. The evaluation of these algorithms
shows a preference for the algorithm based on a generalization
of the sampling theorem which is extended
with a protection mechanism.
Section 2 provides an overview, without pretending
to be complete, of several de-interlacing algorithms.
Section 3 briefly introduces the 3D Recursive Search
(3D-RS) block matcher of [1], which will be used in the
analysis for the MC de-interlacing methods. Section 4
shows the result of experiments with these algorithms
and finally in section 5 some conclusions are drawn.

5 Conclusions
Several de-interlacing techniques have been evaluated.
It has been shown that the MC de-interlacing methods
are generally superior over the non-MC methods
for moving sequences. The GST algorithm with the
selective median outperforms the other de-interlacing
methods. Only one sequence was found in which an alternative
method performs better. For complex motion
sequences (with no vertical high frequencies) the MC
median and TR method are found to be superior over
the other methods.
It can also be concluded that the objective improvement
of the TR method compared to the MC median
filtering is relatively small for the evaluated sequences.
Themajor difference, in favour of the TR method, is expected
for sequences with vertical velocities, since the
de-interlaced field in the TR algorithm allows better interpolation
filters to be used compared to field interpolation
in the MC median filter algorithm. This is partly
validated in the evaluation.
Another important conclusion of the evaluation is
based on the fact that from the MC spatio-temporal algorithms,
the high correlation between pixels in the current
field and the interpolated ones is only exploited in
the GST method. The benefit is obvious. However, it is
concluded that the success of MC de-interlacing algorithms
critically depends on a protection mechanism.

----

[CptGreedle]

As a videophile and a consumer of High definition, I am glad to see that not only are you voicing your opinion, but that your opinion seemingly against your own distributor is also the stronger voice of the people. Blu-ray continues to outsell HD DVD on every front except stand alone players, which Toshiba has absolute control over because they have no real competition in the HD DVD world while Blu-ray manufacturers compete with each other and do not want to loose the kind of money Toshiba seemingly loves to.
My honest opinion is that extras are just that, extras. They are nothing that determine if I am going to buy a movie or not, it is just a little bit something extra. I prefer the movie itself to be the point of the disc, the quality as high as possible, and the extras to remain out of the way. At no time should the extras of a film force the quality of the film itself to be lowered due to size and bandwidth restrictions.

However, it is because Paramount currently is not producing Blu-ray discs that I feel this actually benefits Blu-ray. Don't get me wrong, I would rather watch all Paramount films on Blu-ray (as I already own some before they had their choice made for them). I do however think that HD DVD has one and only one thing going for it, interactivity. Currently there are no Blu-ray movies capable of PiP in the same fashion that HD DVD has, however there are plenty of Blu-ray films that do have interactive content (such as Pixar's Cars). Next month, a handful of titles are being released that support the newest profile to allow for this interactivity, but some players will not support this, once again making this an extra that is not accessible to all the early adopters. However the best selling player, the PS3, will be upgraded to support this. There is one more feature that HD DVD has that BD lacks, and that is interactive content online. Personally I do not like this feature, but for those that care about it, Blu-ray can not yet sign online to access this content until sometime later in 2008. I do not know when, but I hope for the sake of Blu-ray, that it is before summer.
It is because of these interactivity problems that I think that Right Now it is good to keep Paramount away from Blu-ray. Surely they will want to put the best quality video and audio on their discs, and with Blu-ray they can. But soon they can also clearly add the next generation interactivity that HD DVD already enjoys. So for now, Paramount can continue to hold off on Blu-ray, but once the new profiles are out, i want to see all their library released on Blu-ray so that the best content is available with the best interactivity and the best quality.

In short, I think Paramount made a mistake, but I also think it can help further Blu-ray by waiting until the new interactive content is ready on Blu-ray and then releasing these titles in their full, unrestricted glory!

[Gman]

Fear not. As far as HD-DVD is concerned, you need look only to the last most recent quarterly NPD standalone sales figures, which showed HD-DVD with a huge 53% to 44% lead and, separately, with a 69% sales lead in Europe. And what do you think the HD-DVD equivalent figures will be for THIS quarter ending this month, which will include the 90,000-plus HD-DVD one-day player sale? Universal, Paramount and Warners have all said they discount GAME machine sales and do not want to tie their financial fortunes to them. Europeans are no less price conscious than are Americans, and it is just a matter of time that the intrinsic cost advantages of the HD-DVD format will provide the same result over the pond as here. All together now, SAY BYE-BYE TO BLU-RAY!

Speaking of Alcohol give me whatever Mr. Smith is drinking!!!! :D I think they spiked your HD-DVD Kool-Aid... :D Lets see Bourne Ultimatum comes out on HD-DVD this week, and Blu-Ray group with have another BOGO free sale so you will loose another week, at least I can say your consistent with loosing most of the battles fought so far and you have a considerable head start.

CptGreedle: Very well put.....

[dobyblue]

Acting childish and trying to insult me will give you no real advantage here. Clearly you can't understand what interlacing is about. There is no simple maths, it's hard math and very complex algorithms that developers and researchers invented over the years trying to limit the corruption created by interlacing. You can whine as much as you want but this is not just my opinion, it's a fact.
Evil begets evil Mr. President.

There is no corruption caused by going from 1080p24 to 1080i60.
What you're getting at is correct, but also irrelevant to the current topic.


Native 1080p Material: A Hidden Reality


The amazing thing is that the whole 1080i vs. 1080p argument is more than just analogous to the 480i NTSC vs. 480p Progressive Scan DVD of yesteryear, so the groundwork for an understanding is already in place. The principles and math are all the same, only now at a higher resolution. If one understands why Progressive Scan DVD players even exist, then you should already be able to understand how and why 1080p not only exists, but is already ubiquitous.


We said that 1080p is the entire 1920 x 1080 raster sampled and/or displayed at one time. No fields. Just full, 1920 x 1080 frames. No jaggies. No line twitter. Just perfect pictures. The question is, at what temporal resolution? If it were captured with the same 60 Hz temporal resolution of 1080i60, it would indeed be well beyond the scope of today's HDTV transmission system as well as the new HD disc formats.


1080p exists today as a 24 frame-per-second format. The shorthand for this format is 1080p24. But if there is no medium to carry 1080p24 why should we care? We care for the same reason we cared about 480p Progressive Scan DVD: Because a p24 signal can be perfectly "folded" into an i60 carrier2.


Most of the HDTV material you could tune into tonight falls into one of two categories: either the material was shot with a digital camera at 1080p24, or it was shot on 35mm film and transferred to this very same 1080p24 digital format. With the exception of some sports and some other "live" shows, everything from sitcoms to dramas, and of course all movies, fall into this 1080p24 realm.


So how do we get our hands on this 1080p24 if the TV signals and discs are all 1080i60?


To find out we need to understand the transfer of 1080p24 to 1080i60 (which incidentally follows the exact same principal used to convert 24fps movies to yesteryear's i60 NTSC TV system for decades).


Lets consider a sequence of 4 frames. The first frame of the p24 source gets "cut" into two fields, the odds and the evens again. Each field contains exactly half of the original frame. But we can't carry on like that because we'd end up with 48 fields every second, not 60. For this reason we simply "double up" on one field every other frame.


In other words, the second frame of our sequence is still cut into two fields, but we repeat its first field. The third frame is cut into two fields, as is the fourth, but again we repeat its first field. So we end up with a 2-3 pattern in the fields.


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/images/1080p-23telecine.gif

Field B3 is a duplicate of B1, and D3 is a duplicate of D1.


So we get 10 fields from 4 original frames, or 60 fields from 24 frames every second.


To "reconstitute" the 1080p24 source, it is a relatively simple matter of weaving together the fields which came from each frame (and discarding the redundant ones).


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/images/1080p-23inverse.gif

It's that simple, with one little caveat: digital displays like LCDs and plasmas don't "operate" at 24 Hz. They refresh the image on their face at a rate of 60 Hz. So now that we have 1080p24 "reconstituted" as it were, we need to convert it to 1080p60. To do that, we use the same 2-3 cadence. That is, we show the first frame twice, the second we show three times, the third we show twice, and the fourth is shown three times. So from 24 frames each second, we get 60.


Some of you who are more conversant with the whole progressive scan DVD realm are probably already balking at this, citing the trouble we ran into there with regards to putting 24p on DVD and the bumps in the road with getting it back out. Those problems are fortunately for the most part a relic of the past. The issue in the DVD era was that films were first transferred to interlaced video. Often they were manipulated or even edited in that format on equipment, oblivious to the 2-3 cadence within, which would then break that cadence. We would then feed that potentially imperfect interlaced signal to a DVD video encoder which had to "detect" the film cadence within, more often than not with less than perfect results.


In this HD Digital era we are either shooting 1080p24 digital or we are transferring film to 1080p24. There is no interlaced intermediary. When it comes time to convert it to 1080i60 for transmission or storage on disc, we are feeding a perfect digital p24 stream to the encoder which turns out a 1080i60 signal with, for all intents and purposes, a "perfect" 1080p24 buried within. All it takes is correct video processing at our end (the high definition DVD player and/or display) to realize it.


2 You might have heard of a slight variation on this, known as Progressive Split Frame. It was a way for Sony to get their legacy gear, such as D5 tape, to handle 1080p24. It is essentially a 1080i48 signal which is carrying a 1080p24 source, consisting of a simple 2-2 cadence (as opposed to the 3-2 cadence being carried by 1080i60). While there have been a couple of projectors able to handle this format natively, it is at this time of little concern to consumers.

[poothedrew]

Actually it very much is more information.
1080i60 = 62,208,000 pixels per second.
1080p24 = 49,766,400 pixels per second.

Sure, the joke's on us and only you know the truth. Everyone else on the planet is severly misguided.
Sorry, but you've provide sweet bugger all to back up what you're saying and darin and I have provided plenty of sources. People like Gary Merson aren't getting paid to sell you a TV, they're providign the manufacturers with results that show where they ahave deficiencies with their sets. That's not what I know as marketing.

Absolutely there is good deinterlacing and you can go from 1080p24 > 1080i60 > 1080p24 losslessly. With 1080p24 the source is progressive. All a 1080p24 conversion does has been beautifully illustrated. It's simple maths. It doesn't need quantum physics to explain it.
You can type all day but at the end of the day you've shown nothing to back up your theories.

Yes, just like those big phonies at the Imaging Science Foundation eh?
:rolleyes:

I may be completly off base but I would think that if a film is shot 24 /fps that there would be no more "real" information watching it 1080p /60. Is that not the source of errors when players try to guess that information.

[Ranger]

Despite the fact that both Blu-Ray and HD DVD support the same video and audio codecs, Blu-ray is still more advanced and forward looking, whereas HD DVD is honestly speaking a dead-end technology. I know way too many people are brainwashed to believe the differences are insignificant, but I have done quite a bit of reading and testing on my own to believe those differences are important. That is why it boggles my mind why some people would even want HD DVD to succeed? Why vote for mediocrity? Only to save a few buck short term, but lose a lot longer term? Are we all so short-sighted? Or so cheap?
I know many forum frequenters have agendas, some work for the involved corporations, some are tightly affiliated with them. But us, consumers, we need to sit back, wipe all of the propaganda we have been hearing from both sides off and see what makes a better option for us longer term. I have done that and I have a clear answer - Blu-ray.

Can you help out with some facts? For example, why do you feel Blu-ray is superior? Have you ever seen Transformers, 300 or Shrek 3 on HD DVD? How do you feel they were inferior to Blu-ray? It wasn't the picture quality or sound quality. Maybe it was the web enabled content or other extras like PiP that HD DVD has that bothered you?

[CptGreedle]

Can you help out with some facts? For example, why do you feel Blu-ray is superior? Have you ever seen Transformers, 300 or Shrek 3 on HD DVD? How do you feel they were inferior to Blu-ray? It wasn't the picture quality or sound quality. Maybe it was the web enabled content or other extras like PiP that HD DVD has that bothered you?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v451/CptGreedle/hd_table.jpg

The bandwidth is better, the capacity is better, the hard coating/fingerprint and scratch resistance is better.....
more titles, more studios, more manufacturers, cheaper disc prices (here (http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd)), etc.
http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd/graphs/price-1-1-recent30.jpg (http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd)

[jkwest]

Way to go doby!:)

I back you up 100% Mr. Bay. Thank you for making a stand on this subject. There is a lot of FUD being slung from the red side in regards to this topic, I'm glad Blu-ray supporters are taking the high road and continue to fight back with stated facts and data. I am in waaaay over my head here, and anything that I would say would be an echo of what dobyblue has already stated, but, not in such an eloquent way.

Looking forward to Transformers 2 in Blu come summer of '09 hopefully.

Keep up the good work!!

[wingzero]

Evil begets evil Mr. President.

There is no corruption caused by going from 1080p24 to 1080i60.
What you're getting at is correct, but also irrelevant to the current topic.


The article you quoted looks nice and all with the animated GIFs but it's just plain wrong. The author of that article is spreading absolutely wrong information. Simple legacy telecine pulldown techniques he describes are not able to reconstruct the original progressive signal from an interlaced one. It's quite a silly statement when he even writes that simply discarding some fields would reconstruct the original progressive material. It's wrong, plain and simple.
Probably the Philips technical document I pointed you to is too advanced for you but that is how things really work. I already told you that it's no good to trust well known forums and web sites spreading incorrect information on the matter. Just like the article you posted with its animation here, those are incorrect on too many points.
It's not that if you repeat it many times then the legacy telecine pulldown becomes any better than what it really is. Quoting misleading websites and incorrect articles proves nothing. It's not how things work. And legacy stuff it's quite outdated nowadays, there are better options just like the motion compensation algorithms and techniques that that Philips document refers to.

[Ranger]

The bandwidth is better, the capacity is better, the hard coating/fingerprint and scratch resistance is better.....
more titles, more studios, more manufacturers, cheaper disc prices (here (http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd)), etc.


Funny that with all that extra bandwidth and capacity the reviews keep showing that the quality of titles in the two formats is the same and actually dependent on the original source material as opposed to other factors. With the new 51GB HD DVD discs will you still be arguing the capacity argument?

Tiles

366
http://www.hddvdstats.com/

422
http://www.blu-raystats.com/

But we really should strip out the Paramount titles on that Blu-Ray list, as they're not printing any more of them.

[dobyblue]

The article you quoted looks nice

Thank you, it's very easy to understand when it's put in diagram form.