I'm lovin my PS3! (mini-review / first impressions)
Jun 19, 2007 at 3:33 PM Post #31 of 50
Quote:

Can you explain with a little more detail on how raw capacity relates to quality using the same codec? Is there a less-lossy, less compressible function in a codec that is not would not be available with 30GB but does work at 50GB? Thanks


Not sure, but a 128kbps mp3 sounds better than a 64kbps mp3. Would that not work for video compression as well?

I see this was already mentioned above...sorry it took me a while to hit the save button...
 
Jun 19, 2007 at 3:39 PM Post #32 of 50
Quote:

Originally Posted by ex0du5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
kool bubba, all you need is basic computer knowledge to know that 50GB, using the same codecs, will yield a higher quality than the 30GB counterpart.


Too bad it doesn't work that way most of the time. For example since Warner started supporting both formats they use the exact same usually VC-1 encoded transfer for both the hd-dvd and blu-ray versions.

Personally I'll support both formats until one wins. The toshiba hd-dvd players are damn cheap right now and the ps3 while not having many games yet is still a versatile piece of hardware.
 
Jun 19, 2007 at 4:05 PM Post #33 of 50
Quote:

Originally Posted by tkam /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Too bad it doesn't work that way most of the time. For example since Warner started supporting both formats they use the exact same usually VC-1 encoded transfer for both the hd-dvd and blu-ray versions.

Personally I'll support both formats until one wins. The toshiba hd-dvd players are damn cheap right now and the ps3 while not having many games yet is still a versatile piece of hardware.



See here's the thing. Some studios decide to do the exact same encode for both versions, and so instead of filling a 50GB Blu-Ray, they dumb it down to a 30GB HD-DVD.

Once HD-DVD is out of the picture, they can focus on higher quality 50GB encodes. And don't forget, uncompressed audio takes a whopping 4.8MBit/second. Uncompressed audio is likely to be a standard on Blu-Ray (all recent releases seem to have it), while the space on HD-DVD just doesn't allow for it, without having to reduce visual quality. Take a look at HD-DVD, the highest audio codec they seem to be using is Dolby TrueHD.
 
Jun 19, 2007 at 4:18 PM Post #34 of 50
Quote:

Originally Posted by ex0du5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
See here's the thing. Some studios decide to do the exact same encode for both versions, and so instead of filling a 50GB Blu-Ray, they dumb it down to a 30GB HD-DVD.

Once HD-DVD is out of the picture, they can focus on higher quality 50GB encodes. And don't forget, uncompressed audio takes a whopping 4.8MBit/second. Uncompressed audio is likely to be a standard on Blu-Ray (all recent releases seem to have it), while the space on HD-DVD just doesn't allow for it, without having to reduce visual quality. Take a look at HD-DVD, the highest audio codec they seem to be using is Dolby TrueHD.


Most studios will continue doing the same encode for both versions because it costs less. You're also putting too much weight into the space thing, both camps have already talked about being able to do 3 or more layers per disc increasing capacity beyond what is necessary today. Whether or not these discs could play on all the current players is a moot point for this discussion.

Remember what format "wins" will have very little to do with technical merits and which one has more space. It will have to do with studio support and the amount of content available. For now it seems like Blu-ray is winning this side of the battle.

I still think they need to actually make a decent inexpensive standalone blu-ray player though.

So for the time being if you want access to all possible HD content like I do your better off supporting both formats.
 
Jun 19, 2007 at 4:57 PM Post #35 of 50
Quote:

Originally Posted by ex0du5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Because you can choose how compressed you want it to be using that codec. A 25MBit/second video will look better than a 15MBit/second video, though the difference will not be apparent everywhere.


So when all is compared, what is the difference to a consumer buying a BluRay vs HD DVD (because I haven't looked into it)? Do they both use the same bitrate to encode a movie if average joe consumer watches it on a 1080p display? How long does a movie have to run before it exceeds the 30GB limit of the HD DVD? I guess it would be good to cut down the # of DVDs for extra features.

My question really is this a theoretical difference not really pressed with today's components or is it a real concern in A/V?
 
Jun 19, 2007 at 5:33 PM Post #37 of 50
Quote:

Originally Posted by donor /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I own neither but it appears to me as though Bluray is winning the battle.

I think their recent deal with Blockbuster was HUGE and really pushed them in front.

Of course this doesn't guarantee Bluray will emerge the victor here, but it is definitely a blow to the HD camp.


i thought theres no bluray po-R-n?
 
Jun 19, 2007 at 7:17 PM Post #38 of 50
Quote:

Originally Posted by itsborken /img/forum/go_quote.gif
So when all is compared, what is the difference to a consumer buying a BluRay vs HD DVD (because I haven't looked into it)? Do they both use the same bitrate to encode a movie if average joe consumer watches it on a 1080p display? How long does a movie have to run before it exceeds the 30GB limit of the HD DVD? I guess it would be good to cut down the # of DVDs for extra features.

My question really is this a theoretical difference not really pressed with today's components or is it a real concern in A/V?


The concern is not large by any means.

You will still get great video and audio out of a 30GB HD-DVD. It's simply that Blu-Ray allows for better video (slightly) and uncompressed audio.

Watch a movie like Pirates of the Carribean on Blu-Ray if you want to see a superb BD video encode.

I wouldn't worry about the space issue all that much. I'd still much prefer Blu-Ray to become the pre-dominant format simply for Uncompressed PCM.
 
Jun 19, 2007 at 7:20 PM Post #39 of 50
Quote:

Originally Posted by ex0du5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
.I wouldn't worry about the space issue all that much. I'd still much prefer Blu-Ray to become the pre-dominant format simply for Uncompressed PCM.


OK, thanks for the explanation/clarification.
 
Jun 19, 2007 at 8:30 PM Post #40 of 50
No problemo
smily_headphones1.gif


It really isn't a huge deal for movies who wins.

If Blu-Ray were to win, as opposed to HD-DVD....it would be like SACDs replacing CDs. There is a definite improvement in quality, though it won't be noticeable by the general public.

But the biggest pro to Blu-Ray winning, is that if it wins the HD war, then it will most likely become the next generation of writeable computer media. I'd much prefer having 25GB discs to write to, rather than 15GB discs.
 
Jun 19, 2007 at 8:55 PM Post #41 of 50
Quote:

Originally Posted by ex0du5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
See here's the thing. Some studios decide to do the exact same encode for both versions, and so instead of filling a 50GB Blu-Ray, they dumb it down to a 30GB HD-DVD.


Actually, 50GB capacity is massive. You're talking about massive thoroughput to be able to run a 2 hour movie and fill all 50GB. There's no "dumbing down", there's just making the movie look as good as possible while not wasting excessive bitrates. 30GB on VC-1 can get you more than 3hrs of PERFECT compression, just take a look at King Kong. 50GB only can help extend the length or add extra features. Increasing the bitrate is a big waste of space, and it puts pressure on the formats to read as much data as fast as possible.

I don't know the specifics, but I believe HD-DVD has a max thoroughput of 29mb/sec or something around there. I know BluRay can get in the mid 40's, but that's a big waste unless using the mpeg2 codecs in fast action scenes. Mpeg4 and VC-1 is and pristine running in the teens and hitting the 20's in fast motion.
 
Jun 19, 2007 at 9:52 PM Post #42 of 50
All these talk about "bigger = better" contain a certain degree of ignorance. Bigger does not always mean better. Look at the contrast ratio of LCD HDTV/Monitor. Technically, higher contrast ratio means "sharper" image. Is that always the case? Does a monitor/screen with a higher ratio always look better in person? If you stroll through a BestBuy store, you will know that is not always the case.

As for the BluRay vs HDDVD, i believe the argument should not be which is becoming more popular or or more likely to dominate the market. It should be which company are willing to put more money into making their products become the dominant form. In the Blockbuster case, you know that it's gotten a pretty sweet deal in doing business with BluRay. In the end, it's not about which medium has better output performance, rather it's about which company has the better marketing strategy.
 
Jun 20, 2007 at 2:44 AM Post #43 of 50
Quote:

Originally Posted by penguindude /img/forum/go_quote.gif
All these talk about "bigger = better" contain a certain degree of ignorance. Bigger does not always mean better. Look at the contrast ratio of LCD HDTV/Monitor. Technically, higher contrast ratio means "sharper" image. Is that always the case? Does a monitor/screen with a higher ratio always look better in person? If you stroll through a BestBuy store, you will know that is not always the case.

As for the BluRay vs HDDVD, i believe the argument should not be which is becoming more popular or or more likely to dominate the market. It should be which company are willing to put more money into making their products become the dominant form. In the Blockbuster case, you know that it's gotten a pretty sweet deal in doing business with BluRay. In the end, it's not about which medium has better output performance, rather it's about which company has the better marketing strategy.


You're not comparing apples to apples here. A television is completely different than a storage medium.

A GB is a GB, nomatter where it's stored. The only other limiting factors are access time, and decay of the medium. But as we know, even 100GB Blu-Rays are rated to last over 100 years, and the access time does not in any way incapacitate the delivery of video content on the disc.

Your analogy is flawed.
 
Jun 20, 2007 at 5:25 AM Post #44 of 50
Yes, about the access time, that is one of my question. When the DVD ROM on my computer was first introduced, sometimes there is some lag between the videos, possibility due to reading speed/access time.

So, how is the reading speed/access time on the HD player and BR player in comparison, since I never seem both of them playing movies at the same time
 
Jun 20, 2007 at 5:26 AM Post #45 of 50
I bought a Wii (and have no intention of buying either a 360 or a PS3) because HD-TV's are still FAR too expensive... As for Blu-Ray VS HD-DVD, I think normal DVD will stay for a long while longer as the dominant format. Nobody I know has an HD-TV...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top