Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 440

Thread: Bay HD comments

  1. #226
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post
    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 Motion compensation dominated the industry in the last 20 years approx now, practically no one uses plain outdated telecine pulldown.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.

  2. #227
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AussieBladeRunner View Post
    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.

  3. #228
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wingzero View Post
    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.
    Last edited by dobyblue; 12-06-2007 at 08:29 AM.

  4. #229
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tosvus View Post
    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.

  5. #230
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Ranger; 12-06-2007 at 08:53 AM.

  6. #231
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post
    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.
    Last edited by wingzero; 12-06-2007 at 09:06 AM.

  7. #232
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    13

    Default

    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!

  8. #233
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AussieBladeRunner View Post
    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.
    Last edited by No1fan; 12-06-2007 at 09:21 AM.

  9. #234
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger View Post
    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.

  10. #235
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1

    Default

    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.

  11. #236
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wingzero View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wingzero
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wingzero
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wingzero
    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?

  12. #237
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbay View Post
    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!

    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...?

  13. #238
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1

    Default

    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.

  14. #239
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post
    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.

  15. #240
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post
    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?
    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.

    ----

  16. #241
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6

    Default

    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!

  17. #242
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrsmith View Post
    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!!!! I think they spiked your HD-DVD Kool-Aid... 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.....
    Last edited by Gman; 12-06-2007 at 11:02 AM.

  18. #243
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wingzero View Post
    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.

    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).

    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.

  19. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post
    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?
    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.

  20. #245
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TauRus View Post
    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?

  21. #246
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger View Post
    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?


    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), etc.


  22. #247
    Junior Member jkwest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3

    Default

    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!!

  23. #248
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post
    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.
    Last edited by wingzero; 12-06-2007 at 11:24 AM.

  24. #249
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CptGreedle View Post

    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), 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.

  25. #250
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wingzero View Post
    The article you quoted looks nice
    Thank you, it's very easy to understand when it's put in diagram form.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •