Bay HD comments

[dobyblue]

Talk about spreading misinformation! We'll have to see which way the wind blows for Warner. So far they are not leaning BD. What are the obvious signs?

1. BDA had a love-fest recently. Warner did not bother to send even the head of their HD DVD group, nor anyone of the rank of SVP. In contrast all other studios were represented by their studio heads.

2. Warner had no presentation at the BDA love-fest.

3. Dan Silverberg VP of HD Media Development said something about Warner being committed to BD. This was inferred as being Warner was leaning BD. Next day Warner corporate slapped Dan SIlverberg on the wrist and totally discounted that they were leaning to BD. Also said Q4 numbers were one factor for them.

4. Since the start of 2007 it was widely publicized by the BDA that Warner would catch up their HD DVD backlog. Yet, Warner has relesed 3 exclusive titles on HD DVD for 2007 (Matrix Trilogy) and only 2 catch up titles. So the deficit grew. BDA put out comments associated to Dan Silverberg which said Warner was going to release a 'title wave' on BD. Never happened!

5. Warner has teamed up with MSFT, Paramount and Universal to create an advanced interactivity group for HDM.

6. Warner did not contribute to the 'I Do Blu' campaign...

7. Warner CEO is on record saying they are not interested in game console sales and 300 sales were attributed mainly to game console owners and hence not their target market in the long term.

None of this points to Warner as even remotely considering BD as a format of choice. They will be neutral as long as HD DVD establishes a sizeable standalone hardware market. Toshiba is getting there

And you even work for a BDA company. You should know better

Talk about misinformation. I presume you're referring to the High Def Conference 2.0 which was held by Home Media Magazine, not the BDA. Why are you telling lies?

As for Warner, you can spout all the propaganda you want to try and misdirect people, while supporters of Blu-ray tout real facts.

Smoke on this one:



Toshiba will never have a "sizeable standalone market" as long as they're the only ones making HD DVD players.

Warner did contribut to the I Do Blu campaign - or does some other studio suddenly own the Harry potter movies?

Again, stop the lies.

[dobyblue]

Stinger, in case you don't get that picture, Warner's #1 Blu-ray title has sold more than their #1 and #2 HD DVD titles combined!!

It's no wonder anyone with common sense would come to the conclusion that Warner will drop HD DVD in 2008.

[dobyblue]

1. I'd give you some bonus points if you can put actual numbers next to those %. Like I said, the actual difference is less than 20K on most weeks.

2. Problem with UMD was not how many companies were backing it. It was a movie format that relied on a game console to help it sell movies. Once the novelty died, once games became available.....people lost interest in the movies.

3. As for hardware. I don't see anyone spending much money on BD hardware research. The current Panny has less features than the G1 Panny, the current Sammy BD player is lower end than the 1200 and the dual player is their high end player, Sony has 3 players (none of which has network connectivity, just like their G1 player, but plays CD finally). The new Pioneer looks exactly like their G1 with the same features!

Philips has stopped making a player and Sharp released a player they announced 2 years ago!

The fact that we have no 2.0 compatible players and not sure if the panny is 1.1 compatible yet, to me says that no one is doing any work on the hardware side. Looks like Sammy, LG, Denon etc are all betting on dual format players. Certainly if you combine these with the comments from the CEO of Sony, things are not as bullish for BD as the Neilsen % implies.

How comprehensive is Neilsen in any case?

Wow Stinger you are just full of lies.

Over 50 members of the more prominent HD media sites have seen the DMP-BD30 display the 1.1 features on the upcoming Fox title "Sunshine" directed by Danny Boyle.

Samsung will announce more standalone Blu-ray players at CES 2008, not more dual format players. The BD-P5000 is a one off, likely to fulfill some part of their contract as 49% ownership of the TSST; Toshiba Samsung Storage Technologies

Denon have only mentioned that their next "consideration" would be a dual format player, but their first release is a Blu-ray player. Same goes for Loewe, Marantz and Daewoo.

Sharp commented just three months ago that their goal is to be the #1 manufacturer of Blu-ray players. Oh yes, didn't they also unveil their new Blu-ray Cinema System?

Sharp, which had one of the more prominent Blu-ray displays at IFA, showed their upcoming BD-HP20 Blu-ray Player which will be available shortly. While Sharp has previously released Blu-ray recorders in Japan this will be their first Blu-ray player available to consumers. The BD-HP20 features 1080p/24, HDMI 1.3, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Digital+, DTS-HD, 7.1-channel audio output, as well as a quick start mode that should speed up the time it takes to load Blu-ray discs. The BD-HP20 will be released in the US and Europe in September and the price will be $550 and €599 respectively.

Sharp also displayed their BD-MPC70 Blu-ray Home Cinema System, which comes complete with a 7.1 high fidelity sound system including amplifier and speakers. The BD-MPC70 features 1080p/24, HDMI 1.3, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Digital+, DTS-HD, 7.1-channel surround sound and a next generation audio formats decoder, which we assume means internal decoding of Dolby TrueHD. As the BD Home Cinema System won't be released until Spring 2008 it will have to support at least Profile 1.1. The price for the whole setup will be around €6,000 in Europe. While this system might not appeal to the average consumer at this price, we liked what we saw and heard.

The BD-P1400 is only lower than the BD-P1200 where DVD scaling is concerned, which is hardly a #1 priority for a Blu-ray buyer, unlike what we keep hearing from team HD DVD. Even Craig Kornblau from Universal, one of the most outspoken members of the HD DVD Propaganda Campaign, said that if (he probably meant "when" but I'll fgo with what he said verbatim) HD DVD fails you've at least got a great upscaling DVD player. Wow, talk about confidence.

Philips have stopped making a player? Someone should tell that to them then, because in September at IFA 2007 in Berlin they unveiled their new Blu-ray player for the European market.

http://www.blu-ray.com/ifa2007/#philips

Philips debuted their new BDP7100 Blu-ray player at IFA, which besides playing back Blu-ray discs also supports upconversion of DVDs to 1080p. The player features 1080p/24, HDMI 1.3, Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Digital+, DTS-HD, 7.1-channel surround sound and is backwards compatible with DVD/CD. It also features HDMI-CEC for convenient control of devices with one remote control, as well as an Ethernet port for software upgrades. The BDP7100 will be available in Europe later this year for around €600. We weren't able to get any information about their plans for the US.

[dobyblue]

Oh and Stinger, didn't Funai, JVC, Hitachi, Mitsubishi and JVC showcase upcoming Blu-ray hardware they've been working on too? So much for no research into hardware going on.

Let's count now shall we?

Philips, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, Funai, Daewoo, LG, JVC, Sharp, Pioneer, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Denon and Marantz

Now what's going on with hardware on Toshiba's side, I mean HD DVD's side.

1) Toshiba

That's it. Oh yes we have a player from Venturer. Let's look inside that player shall we?

Toshiba HD-A3



The Venturer player



The Onkyo? An HD-XA2.

So far ONLY Toshiba have done R&D into HD DVD standalones. Dual format players account for 3% of the market. LG will not stick with those numbers for much longer.

[dobyblue]

The new Pioneer looks exactly like their G1 with the same features!

Wow, I didn't know the G1 Pioneer could bitstream trueHD and dts-HD Master Audio.

I didn't think that was possible with HDMI 1.2!!

Oh I get it, you're just lying again.

[bootman]

Apologies if this was previously posted. (way too many posts to go through)






Source:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/11/30...ding-november/

[darinp2]

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.

There is no motion compensation with a 1080p24 source sent with a 1080i60 signal when done correctly, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Motion compensation is for when you don't have all the information for certain points in time, like 1080i60 sources. Motion compensation of those sources is very complicated because there is no correct way to do it, just better and worse ways. So, you can keep spending money trying to get more accurate results. That does not apply to 1080p24 sources sent within 1080i60 signals.

Take an example of a DVDO VP50 scaler being sent a 1080i signal from a movie on HD DVD or Blu-ray that is 1080p24, where the VP50 is connected to a display with 1080p24. With the VP50 set to lock onto the cadence it will reconstruct the frames and send frames to the display. At that point it doesn't matter that the display got 1080p24 from the VP50 instead of from the player, unless something was done incorrectly. It is full frames where each pixel, whether in an even or an odd line, is from the same point in time, unlike 1080i sources where the even and odd lines are from different points in time. Do you know what a scaler like that does for a source that is originally 1080p24 and which it has been told to lock to at 24?

I'm guessing you understand that data can be encoded with an algorithm and the original can be obtained by applying the correct algorithm for reassembly. This applies to secret messages in wars, with rot13 being a simple example (each letter is rotated 13 spots to give something that look illegible, but roting again by 13 spots gets the original back). There is no estimating because there is an equation for reconstructing the original. 1080p24 sources sent in 1080i60 signals are much the same way. As long as the correct algorithm is applied the original is reconstructable. No need for motion compensation since there is nothing to compensate for. Getting the original data for the pixels is the goal. While the algorithm for taking interlaced fields from a progressive source and reconstructing the progressive source is more complicated than rot13, it isn't that complicated.

Do you disagree that NASA could choose to send individual images back from Mars in whatever form they want (1st pixel, then 20th pixel, then 8th pixel, etc.) and as long as they knew the algorithm (assuming no lossy compression) they could reconstruct the original images and when they were done there would be no way from comparing the original source to the calculated version to know whether the pixel values had been sent out of order or in order? 1080p24 to a 1080i60 signal is much like that. The data is just sent in a different order (and some of it is repeated), but the pixel information is still there.

If you want to argue that the pixel information isn't in there, please explain why you claim that. Do you think that if you look at a full frame within that 1080p24 some of the pixel values didn't get sent in the 1080i60 signal? What do you think those fields are in the 1080i60 signal if they don't represent the original frames (with half of each frame being sent as a field)? Would you claim that a 1080p24 source couldn't be sent with 1080i48 timings and then get reconstructed to 1080p24 correctly.

Do you know what 1080p24sf is and how the timing relates to 1080i48?

--Darin

[Whippersnapper]

Oh and Stinger, didn't Funai, JVC, Hitachi, Mitsubishi and JVC showcase upcoming Blu-ray hardware they've been working on too? So much for no research into hardware going on.

Let's count now shall we?

Philips, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, Funai, Daewoo, LG, JVC, Sharp, Pioneer, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Denon and Marantz

Now what's going on with hardware on Toshiba's side, I mean HD DVD's side.

1) Toshiba

That's it. Oh yes we have a player from Venturer. Let's look inside that player shall we?

Toshiba HD-A3



The Venturer player



The Onkyo? An HD-XA2.

So far ONLY Toshiba have done R&D into HD DVD standalones. Dual format players account for 3% of the market. LG will not stick with those numbers for much longer.

Wow, talk about putting lipstick on a pig!!

[Ranger]

Easy tiger, let's not let the FUD get out of control here.
TL51GB HD DVD-ROM discs have been approved, but that means they've simply agreed on the specifications and the DVD Forum has passed them. It doesn't mean they will work. If Toshiba can't get them to work on G1 players, they will not alienate 70,000 of the installed userbase. If they cannot get them to wsork on G2 players, that's even worse. According to Jim Armour from Toshiba, there's little reason right now to believe the 51GB disc will ever see the light of day where HD DVD as a home video format is concerned.

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=62615

DVDTimes: So, if that does come out, do you know if the current drives would be able to read it with a firmware update? Is there any likelihood that we'll ever see triple-layer film discs?
Jim Armour, Toshiba: Any likelihood... well, if we're actually creating the format, I think there's a likelihood. There is a likelihood - a 45gb capacity could be very useful. Whether drives can read it, I don't know - because, basically the specification hasn't been set. It's like when the first Dual Layer DVD-Rs came out, really old drives couldn't read it. [...] It could well be the same situation. Until the standard has been specified and ratified, you can't really say whether it'll be able to read it.


As for the reviews, I would agree that they are a good place to look to determine the quality of the two formats. I have compiled all the scored reviewws from www.highdefdigest.com, www.hometheaterspot.com, www.dvdtalk.com, www.upcomingdiscs.com and www.hometheaterforum.com and that equates to over 1,000 HD DVD reviews and over 1,000 Blu-ray Disc reviews. Here are the results.




By studio:

PQStudio
4.18 Buena Vista
4.01 Paramount
3.97 Sony
3.97 Warner
3.84 Fox
3.80 Weinstein
3.71 Universal
3.64 Lionsgate

SQStudio
4.38 Buena Vista
4.13 Sony
4.08 Fox
3.82 Paramount
3.80 Lionsgate
3.67 Warner
3.63 Universal
3.63 Weinstein

All numbers as of 10.30.07

Doby, you have a good sense of humor to bring up an interview that's over a year old (September 2006) as some kind of proof on the state of TL-51.

I take it you don't agree with wingzero then that we're going to see software upgrades for Blu-ray to support 100GB and 200GB discs?

So let's look at the PQ rankings

PQStudio
4.18 Buena Vista - Blu-ray exclusive
4.01 Paramount - HD DVD exclusive
3.97 Sony - Blu-ray exclusive
3.97 Warner - Neutral
3.84 Fox - Blu-ray exclusive
3.80 Weinstein - HD DVD exclusive
3.71 Universal - HD DVD exclusive
3.64 Lionsgate - Blu-ray exclusive

So this proves what? That Buena Vista cares more about PQ than Lionsgate? That Paramount cares more about PQ than Sony? That Warner cares more about PQ than Fox?

Or does it prove that Sony is releasing more new titles and Universal is releasing more catalog titles? Maybe it proves that when Warner releases catalog titles they do a better job of remastering than Universal?

The reality is that both formats deliver great results with modern codecs. If you're going to use Mpeg2 (a 12 year old codec) then the extra bandwidth and storage in Blu-ray help to overcome it's inefficiency. That's good news, because Mpeg2 is still the most commonly used codec on Blu-ray titles.

http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php

Mpeg2 - 38.11%
AVC/Mpeg4 - 35.44%
VC-1 - 26.46%

[Gman]

dolbyblue: good posts, I for one started out as neutral but then after seeing all the false BS posted by many members in another forum when it came to HD-DVD, I basically quit buying HD-DVDs.. I had 2 A2's crap out on me, and I through in the towel. Now I stick my money into Blu-Ray, I just don't think one company can do it alone and survive but then again MS, sure has held Toshiba's head above the water.

[wingzero]

There is no motion compensation with a 1080p24 source sent with a 1080i60 signal when done correctly, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Motion compensation is for when you don't have all the information for certain points in time, like 1080i60 sources. Motion compensation of those sources is very complicated because there is no correct way to do it, just better and worse ways. So, you can keep spending money trying to get more accurate results. That does not apply to 1080p24 sources sent within 1080i60 signals.

You don't have a clue, really. There is no "when done correctly". Old, outdated, legacy telecine pulldown techniques with no motion compensation and even more complex techniques was acceptable in the past when there were no other options to achieve the needed result but it was not perfect, it was a flawed design and any developer in the field should know that.

Take an example of a DVDO VP50 scaler being sent a 1080i signal from a movie on HD DVD or Blu-ray that is 1080p24, where the VP50 is connected to a display with 1080p24. With the VP50 set to lock onto the cadence it will reconstruct the frames and send frames to the display. At that point it doesn't matter that the display got 1080p24 from the VP50 instead of from the player, unless something was done incorrectly. It is full frames where each pixel, whether in an even or an odd line, is from the same point in time, unlike 1080i sources where the even and odd lines are from different points in time. Do you know what a scaler like that does for a source that is originally 1080p24 and which it has been told to lock to at 24?

You keep missing to understand that assembling and discarding fields from interlaced frames it's a flawed design. It's outdated technology you are talking about. "told to lock" , what ? There is no artificial intelligence there, it's all based on some type of algorithms. Without motion compensation techniques you will have no way to correctly reconstruct the optical flow axis, plain old telecine pulldown techniques you and others here keep repeating about over and over are flawed by design, it's a limited technology that doesn't take into account what really happens to the signal, it wasn't designed based on what happens in the frequency domain nor in a 3-D or n-D dimension analysis. Telecine pulldown it's pretty simple yes but it's pretty flawed as well. The industry moved past that technology long time ago with motion compensation and other complex techniques trying to solve the issue of approximating the best possible motion vectors reconstruction and limit the approximation errors boosting the overall perceived SNR and trying to reconstruct the original optical flow axis as much as possible.

I'm guessing you understand that data can be encoded with an algorithm and the original can be obtained by applying the correct algorithm for reassembly. This applies to secret messages in wars, with rot13 being a simple example (each letter is rotated 13 spots to give something that look illegible, but roting again by 13 spots gets the original back). There is no estimating because there is an equation for reconstructing the original. 1080p24 sources sent in 1080i60 signals are much the same way. As long as the correct algorithm is applied the original is reconstructable. No need for motion compensation since there is nothing to compensate for. Getting the original data for the pixels is the goal. While the algorithm for taking interlaced fields from a progressive source and reconstructing the progressive source is more complicated than rot13, it isn't that complicated.

Now, what permutation has anything to do with this ? We are not debating encryption nor DRM techniques and schemes.
You are wrong. You keep repeating incorrect and wrong information as other websites and forums do but that doesn't mean that they become correct. There is no way to reconstruct the original signal perfectly and telecine pulldown is the worst way to do it, it's an outdated technology, it was ok to be used when it was invented and there was no better option but that has been no more for the last 15-20 years at least. Motion compensation is used everywhere, sometimes it got used in hybrid algorithms with telecine pulldown to reduce the amount of needed computation and lower costs but that's it, period.

Do you disagree that NASA could choose to send individual images back from Mars in whatever form they want (1st pixel, then 20th pixel, then 8th pixel, etc.) and as long as they knew the algorithm (assuming no lossy compression) they could reconstruct the original images and when they were done there would be no way from comparing the original source to the calculated version to know whether the pixel values had been sent out of order or in order? 1080p24 to a 1080i60 signal is much like that. The data is just sent in a different order (and some of it is repeated), but the pixel information is still there.

No, really, how old are you, 5 ? You keep jumping from argument to argument in a desperate hope to prove you right but writing NASA or encryption techniques of any kind is not going to prove you right at all. You are wrong on you assumptions and it's amazing that instead of reading some developers books or developers documents like the one I posted a link to here you keep repeating the same incorrect stuff over and over.

You have no understanding of what a pixel really is. You have no understanding of how quantization works. You think that you can assemble and disassemble pixels with no consequences to the signal. You fail to see the relation between the original image and the quantizied version of it. And when discussing about video you have no clue of the time axis and how creating fields to draw a picture affects the signal over it.

If you want to argue that the pixel information isn't in there, please explain why you claim that. Do you think that if you look at a full frame within that 1080p24 some of the pixel values didn't get sent in the 1080i60 signal? What do you think those fields are in the 1080i60 signal if they don't represent the original frames (with half of each frame being sent as a field)? Would you claim that a 1080p24 source couldn't be sent with 1080i48 timings and then get reconstructed to 1080p24 correctly.

Do you know what 1080p24sf is and how the timing relates to 1080i48?

--Darin

When you convert from progressive to interlaced you cause a corruption of the optical flow axis for every object on the screen, the signal bandwidth gets almost halved (and that's the reason why interlacing was invented in the first place, to save on costs!) with all its tradeoffs and issues. There are many advanced developers books showing how the signal gets affected by interlacing, there is no way to convert back and forth between progressive and interlaced with no loss and ancient telecine pulldown techniques based on just discarding fields/frames and reassembling them like slices in any given order can't solve the issue, instead it can add even more distortion to the signal, it's a flawed technology by design. That's the reason why more advanced and complex techniques were developed in the industry, motion compensation being the most used nowadays.

[max75]

So, hd-dvd exclusivity huh, well, someone with big pockets is behind that one. Why release on hddvd and dvd and not blu-ray?? I am thinking Mr Gates has dug deep to keep it off of the blu-ray discs to bolster the xbox360 sales as well as getting the technology ready for download only. Oh, and even then the xbox360 will be able to download it in future as well.

The Transformers deserve a blu-ray release, come on, never mind the tech specs of the format, what about the consumer who loves his/her films and can only afford a blu-ray player. That consumer does not want a shiny dvd when all it would take is for them to release it on blu-ray.

So come on, stop the in-fighting and let the consumer decide, blu-ray is great, hddvd is good and dvd is cheap and affordable. Just by releasing the film on all those formats the company can make a fortune. RELEASE IT.

[dobyblue]

Doby, you have a good sense of humor to bring up an interview that's over a year old (September 2006) as some kind of proof on the state of TL-51.

I take it you don't agree with wingzero then that we're going to see software upgrades for Blu-ray to support 100GB and 200GB discs?

So let's look at the PQ rankings

PQStudio
4.18 Buena Vista - Blu-ray exclusive
4.01 Paramount - HD DVD exclusive
3.97 Sony - Blu-ray exclusive
3.97 Warner - Neutral
3.84 Fox - Blu-ray exclusive
3.80 Weinstein - HD DVD exclusive
3.71 Universal - HD DVD exclusive
3.64 Lionsgate - Blu-ray exclusive

So this proves what? That Buena Vista cares more about PQ than Lionsgate? That Paramount cares more about PQ than Sony? That Warner cares more about PQ than Fox?

Or does it prove that Sony is releasing more new titles and Universal is releasing more catalog titles? Maybe it proves that when Warner releases catalog titles they do a better job of remastering than Universal?

The reality is that both formats deliver great results with modern codecs. If you're going to use Mpeg2 (a 12 year old codec) then the extra bandwidth and storage in Blu-ray help to overcome it's inefficiency. That's good news, because Mpeg2 is still the most commonly used codec on Blu-ray titles.

http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php

Mpeg2 - 38.11%
AVC/Mpeg4 - 35.44%
VC-1 - 26.46%

It's rich that you would chastize me for using a 2006 interview about TL HD DVD discs (which is pertinent because both HD45 and HD51 are both triple layer discs and the interview was with a TOSHIBA engineer), then you would turn around and suggest that MPEG-2 is still the most commonly used codec on BLu-ray. Now there isn't anything wrong with MPEG-2, but to suggest that it is STILL the most commonly used codec is typical HD DVD Propagana Group type stuff.

Let's look at 2007 shall we, the last 48 or so weeks.

MPEG-2 65 23.30%
AVC 132 47.31%
VC-1 82 29.39%

Still the most commonly used? I don't think so. Perhaps there are still more discs out there with MPEG-2, but only a fool would suggest that's not changing rapidly with all the great AVC encodes Panasonic are churning out for Disney and Fox and Sony's great AVC ecnodes as well.

[dobyblue]

You don't have a clue, really.
No, really, how old are you, 5 ?

Wow, this from the guy that lambasted me for being childish a few pages ago.

Yo'ure ignorant about film bud, that's just the way it is. I know you'd like to trry and convince us all that we're all under some big misunderstanding, all the video experts and test discs are all just for show and all the mathematics and science is wrong, but as you can ssee no-one is buying it so cut the shit and move on, be wrong, long gone.

[Robert Wood]

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!!

Yes. I'll challenge you. Just why exactly do you pefer Blu-ray over HD-DVD's ?? What differnence would your films be on either formats ?? I think in terms of costs to consumers like myself, HD-DVD is the better choice. I have a HD-DVD player for my Xbox 360 and the LG one that plays both formats and I nor anyone else can tell the differance in quality or sound. But again, in the end it is about cost. Oh, I almost forgot about my PS3 that does the Blu-Ray thing as well. I cannot even compare to argue about how to be a director and how you line up your shots etc. etc. but love your movies but besides your rants what exactly is your problem with HD-DVD ???

[nelson]

I think in terms of costs to consumers like myself, HD-DVD is the better choice. I have a HD-DVD player for my Xbox 360 and the LG one that plays both formats and I nor anyone else can tell the differance in quality or sound.

Cost? What cost? Production cost? Or hardware cost.

That little 360 HD DVD add on doesn't transmit true sound through through that little USB cable.

There is audible difference in sound between uncompressed and uncompressed. Difference in color space can be seen by the trained eye.

[Tobi]

Cost? What cost? Production cost? Or hardware cost.

That little 360 HD DVD add on doesn't transmit true sound through through that little USB cable.

There is audible difference in sound between uncompressed and uncompressed. Difference in color space can be seen by the trained eye.

Are you referring to the use of codecs in association to color space? If this is the case both formats can use either of the advance codecs so there's no difference there.

[darinp2]

When you convert from progressive to interlaced you cause a corruption of the optical flow axis for every object on the screen, the signal bandwidth gets almost halved (and that's the reason why interlacing was invented in the first place, to save on costs!) with all its tradeoffs and issues.

You are wrong about this for 1080p24 sources with 1080i60 signal types for those, so let's address that first. Interlacing doesn't save you in that case because 1080p24 takes less bandwidth than 1080i60. Do you understand that? You keep talking about interlacing as if the only application is reducing signal bandwidth and you are wrong. 1080i60 (60 fields or 30 frames per second) takes less bandwidth than 1080p60, but more bandwidth than 1080p24.

There are many advanced developers books showing how the signal gets affected by interlacing, there is no way to convert back and forth between progressive and interlaced with no loss ...

If I sent you a picture by sending the odd lines today and the even lines tomorrow, could you reconstruct the original?

That's the reason why more advanced and complex techniques were developed in the industry, motion compensation being the most used nowadays.

Motion compensation is for interlaced originals where the odd and even fields correspond to different points in time, not progressive originals which happen to be sent one field at a time, where each odd field has an even field for the same point in time and vis versa. I ask again since you ignored it the first time:

Do you know what 1080p24sf is and how the timing relates to 1080i48?

If you understand that, what takes more bandwidth, 1080p24sf or 1080i48? 1080p24sf or 1080p24? 1080i48 or 1080i60?

You can use all the claims that other people must be children if you want, but just the fact that you would claim, "the signal bandwidth gets almost halved" when we are talking about 1080p24 sources and 1080i60 signal types gives a good indication that you aren't following. Going from 1080p24 to 1080i60 most definitely does not almost halve the bandwidth. Going from 1080p60 to 1080i60 does. If we were talking about 1080p60 sources with 1080i60 signals then you would be right to be talking about almost halving the bandwidth and motion compensation. But that isn't what we are talking about here.

--Darin

[poothedrew]

Cost? What cost? Production cost? Or hardware cost.

That little 360 HD DVD add on doesn't transmit true sound through through that little USB cable.

There is audible difference in sound between uncompressed and uncompressed. Difference in color space can be seen by the trained eye.

Nelson, blu-ray has a maximum data transmission rate of 40Mbps USB 2.0 has a maximum data transmission 32 MBps greater than that of both BD and HD-DVD.

Although you are correct the "BEST" audio you can achieve is a 1.5MBps DTS stream with the 360 add-on your post implies it's a weakness of the USB connection which in reality it's a software issue.

[nelson]

Are you referring to the use of codecs in association to color space? If this is the case both formats can use either of the advance codecs so there's no difference there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but VC-1 doesn't support 4:4:4 color space, right?

[poothedrew]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but VC-1 doesn't support 4:4:4 color space, right?

Other than a bunch of engineers saying it should be part of the "Advanced" standard I have to assume it does not.

For me colour is one of the biggest HD WOW factors that exists. It is one the first things I notice when looking at HD material. IMHO it is what makes HD disks look so much like film.

[poothedrew]

This is a tough thing to admit but after reading some of this thread a doing some research I have to admit Blu-Ray is a better format.

I wish we could have the format inside the best HD-DVD players.

I wish we could have the fully baked standard that HD-DVD players, NIC ports and interactivity HDi is actually pretty good with Blu-Ray as the backend disc format.

I believe BD Java is mistake that puts a lot of programming effort into what should be a more flash style interface. Having written Java a common joke among us programmers is "Write once debug EVERYWHERE". This is a headache I feel that most content producers will just be scared of and limit interactivity to the large houses with dedicated programmers.

But that aside I will probably buy a BD player soon because there are too many movies I love on them more than any other technical reason.

[wingzero]

Wow, this from the guy that lambasted me for being childish a few pages ago.

Yo'ure ignorant about film bud, that's just the way it is. I know you'd like to trry and convince us all that we're all under some big misunderstanding, all the video experts and test discs are all just for show and all the mathematics and science is wrong, but as you can ssee no-one is buying it so cut the shit and move on, be wrong, long gone.

You see, you are acting childish again. Whining and insulting me will not make your incorrect statements true nor make the links to people spreading wrong information magically correct.

Feel free to go around telling how smart and cool you are along with the people you link at but if I were you I'd avoid doing that with any developer in the field that really knows how things work and are designed to work, unless you want them to laugh at you making deeply wrong statements and claims.
I never said that all mathematics and science is wrong, I told you that yours and that of people on links you provided is wrong, incorrect and based on outdated techniques. This is a fact, it's not my opinion, there is nothing to debate about.
But of course you have your freedom to go around telling that you know everything on the subject just like the people on those websites and forums you link to keep doing. However, like it or not, you are all wrong with that kind of statements. You need to study some basic optics,signals theory,human audiovisual perception and video coding concepts. Period.

[wingzero]

This is a tough thing to admit but after reading some of this thread a doing some research I have to admit Blu-Ray is a better format.

I wish we could have the format inside the best HD-DVD players.

I wish we could have the fully baked standard that HD-DVD players, NIC ports and interactivity HDi is actually pretty good with Blu-Ray as the backend disc format.

I believe BD Java is mistake that puts a lot of programming effort into what should be a more flash style interface. Having written Java a common joke among us programmers is "Write once debug EVERYWHERE". This is a headache I feel that most content producers will just be scared of and limit interactivity to the large houses with dedicated programmers.

But that aside I will probably buy a BD player soon because there are too many movies I love on them more than any other technical reason.

Well, I agree on the fact that Java is a real pain to code for. I always prefer C++ to Java or C#/.NET. Virtual Machines based languages like those ones in theory should simplify things a lot by having automatic memory management and garbage collectors avoiding the burden of using pointers for everything but the truth is that they end up closing the programmer in a so controlled environment that doing anything beyond what the virtual machine pre-compiled classes allow to do becomes almost if not completely impossible to achieve.
However being BD-J a subset of Java allows to re-use a lot of available code to do many more things than with other more limited language. BD players like the PS3 surely won't have issues running micro Java applets at very high speeds in any condition. Cheap BD players and badly coded firmwares might have troubles with early disc releases.

[sphdle1]

This is a tough thing to admit but after reading some of this thread a doing some research I have to admit Blu-Ray is a better format.

I wish we could have the format inside the best HD-DVD players.

I wish we could have the fully baked standard that HD-DVD players, NIC ports and interactivity HDi is actually pretty good with Blu-Ray as the backend disc format.

I believe BD Java is mistake that puts a lot of programming effort into what should be a more flash style interface. Having written Java a common joke among us programmers is "Write once debug EVERYWHERE". This is a headache I feel that most content producers will just be scared of and limit interactivity to the large houses with dedicated programmers.

But that aside I will probably buy a BD player soon because there are too many movies I love on them more than any other technical reason.

It is good to see you have such an open mind to do research, get the facts & to make such a big leap...good for you!

I am also an IT geek, but don't do as much programming as I do with IT security, networking communications/applications, database admin, etc. However, regarding the Java thing, I honestly don't know enough about it, but I like the fact that it is more of a world standard than a Microsoft standard, not that active-x is bad or even HDi, but I think it is good to go with what the world is standardizing on...I would assume that there are good reasons why Java is the standard.
But regardless of Java being a standard, the BDA and others are working hard to make sure a great variety of stable/debugged BD Java templates are available for studios to use which will make it much easier to produce & program the extras with much less effort, and I think the BDA has many resources available (programmers) to assist studios in this regard, to make the BD Java less programmer intensive & easier/more stable overall.

My programmer buddies that write in Java a great deal, also use that common joke you mention above, however we've discussed the whole BD Java thing on numerous occasions, and they think the BD Java won't be that programmer intensive, and feel confident that the templates & resources made available to studios will be very stable & help studios to produce extras with relative ease. They are up on the whole Blu-ray/BD Java stuff more than I am. At first they questioned it with similar concerns as you mentioned above, but as they researched it more, they don't think it will be an issue. I have to agree that it won't be an issue, when you really dig into it bit more and look at what's available.