Bay HD comments

[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.

[Bumblebee1983]

Blades of Glory came out before Transformers and before Toshiba paid Paramount.

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.

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?





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?





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?

[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



Blu-ray



Pirates 3

DVD



Blu-ray



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.

[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



Blu-ray



Pirates 3

DVD



Blu-ray



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