Bay HD comments

[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?

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?

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



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.

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

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...&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/

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...&postcount=198


Some links posted earlier:

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

And


http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoff...061080iv1080p/

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.