Wow e1618978. You're starting to sound logical like a HD-DVD proponent. So answer me this. If 25GB is fine for MOST movies and both HD-DVD and Blu Ray meet these requirements explain to me again why we need Blu Ray? HD-DVD went through the DVD Forum process and met all design goals for the nextgen DVD replacement.
As for MPEG2 vs the newer codecs. MPEG2 is the best if you want an easy load but it's certainly not better than the AVC or VC-1 if quality is your goal. ATI, Amberella and other companies are developing products to speed up the newer codecs so I doubt processing issues will be a factor beyond the 2nd generation units.
HD-DVD was approved via dirty tricks, not because it was better.
"Why do we need Blu-ray" is the wrong type of question - it assumes that there is a person or group that will decide which one wins. It isn't a centralised decision, market forces will decide the winner (and market forces look to make Blu-ray dominate HD-DVD).
Are you suggesting that VC-1 can produce a higher quality video stream than MPEG-2? If so, your information does not match anything that I have read. Even past the first couple generations, an easier CPU load is a huge advantage in cost reduction, noise reduction, and size reduction of the units.
HD-DVD was approved via dirty tricks, not because it was better.
Absurd.
Toshiba submitted AOD and it was ratified. The companies that broke off and went Blu Ray did so because they want more of the licensing pie.
Quote:
"Why do we need Blu-ray" is the wrong type of question - it assumes that there is a person or group that will decide which one wins. It isn't a centralised decision, market forces will decide the winner (and market forces look to make Blu-ray dominate HD-DVD).
The question is very valid and an honest one. The DVD Forum sought to help guide the creation of a unified nextgen format. They received submittals from various companies. Sony never submitted Blu Ray so the question begs "why did they go roque and what was their issue with Toshiba's AOD?" The answer isn't really a technical one it's a financial one IMO.
Quote:
Are you suggesting that VC-1 can produce a higher quality video stream than MPEG-2? If so, your information does not match anything that I have read. Even past the first couple generations, an easier CPU load is a huge advantage in cost reduction, noise reduction, and size reduction of the units.
Only with the qualifier that the bitstream is under 25Mbps. MPEG2 is a mature codec that has been mastered very well. AVC and VC-1 are new and it'll take a bit for engineers to optimize them but they are hitting the ground running very well. The HD-DVD trailer for King Kong is AVC at 18Mbps and it just looks stunning. I realize MPEG2 is easier but I believe HD-DVD and advanced codecs make for a more logical step up from red laser DVD.
2. HD-DVD only needs the advanced codecs to compensate for its small size, no other advantage is given.
3. Nothing else that you have said makes HD-DVD a "more logical step" than Blu-ray.
1. Advanced codecs coupled with Blu Ray's extra capacity is exciting indeed.
2. Pretty much. 30GB would hold a feature length film in MPEG2 but once you tallied up extras and higher bitrate audio things would get pretty tight.
3. The logical step is this. If HD-DVD had scrapped the notion of easy legacy support they could have made the disc more exciting. However the design goals of AOD were to preserver the structure of DVD but enhance it through Blue Laser technology. The disc is bonded in the same manner as DVD allowing the use of current replication equipment. The numerical aperture is very close meaning you can support red laser DVD and HD-DVD with the same OPU.
Hollywood's goals were simple. They wanted coverage for their feature length films on one disc and one side. They wanted room for extras and other content. They wanted better DRM protection and a better interactivity layer. AOD provides all of this thus I have to wonder aloud why Blu Ray exists.
I personally think Blu Ray is a technological marvel but is simply overkill for what consumers need really.
I know some people are going to love this but no DL Blu-Ray Rom discs until October apparently, although the article isn't completely clear. That could be the timeline to hit 50 million discs a month and the DL part could just be some time between now and then. Anyway first run looks to be single layer.
I know some people are going to love this but no DL Blu-Ray Rom discs until October apparently, although the article isn't completely clear. That could be the timeline to hit 50 million discs a month and the DL part could just be some time between now and then. Anyway first run looks to be single layer.
You'll hear no snickers from me. 25GB SL discs are fine for %90 of movies even with MPEG2. The 50GB discs really allow for the ability to toss in a bunch of extra stuff and max the audio quality.
Hell if Sony is smart they'll dub the 50GB discs Blu Ray Superbit and market the hell out of them.
You'll hear no snickers from me. 25GB SL discs are fine for %90 of movies even with MPEG2. The 50GB discs really allow for the ability to toss in a bunch of extra stuff and max the audio quality.
Hell if Sony is smart they'll dub the 50GB discs Blu Ray Superbit and market the hell out of them.
For 120 minutes of movie and sound only.... would you prefer MPEG2 or MPEG4 on the 25GB SL BD? Or maybe a better question is which will produce better PQ w/out compression artifacts....?
I'm all for MPEG2 on BD-50, but I'd rather have MPEG4/H264 codec on the BD-25. I'm interested in HD for the PQ, but nothing else.... BTW, I do have HD format music on SACD/DVD-A already.
I personally think Blu Ray is a technological marvel but is simply overkill for what consumers need really.
I totally disagree with you on this: I don't think that the needs of the consumer will will be met until we are using higher capacity holographic drives. You are stuck thinking one disk = one movie. Think TV shows. If you gave the option to consumers of having all of a series on one disk instead of 50 or more, they would choose one (and be more likely to buy tv series). Personally there are about 8 TV series that I would buy if they came out on one disk, and I know that there are a lot of others who feel the same way. The capacity of both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are far too small for what consumers could really use.
Does anyone wants to speculate as to when the studios might reach a tipping point in terms of day-and-date releases of high-def DVDs along with SD? (In order to remain neutral, I will refer to high-def only as The Format of Choice.) At what point will SD DVD sales start to shrink because people are holding out for the Format of Choice version? I know that I myself, even though I don't yet have a player, have started to look at DVDs and think "Hmm, do I want that new director's cut of 'Kingdom of Heaven'? Or should I wait for the FOC version?"
I'd like to be optimistic and think it will be as early as late this year, when this summer's big movies start to hit the shelves. So we could see movies like "X-Men" and "Superman Returns" in high-def along with the SD versions. If there are some blockbusters this summer, it would certainly give a push to the new Formats of Choice to make them available as soon as possible, and help push player sales for the holidays.
In a perfect world, I'd like to think that at some point I, and everyone else who wishes to do so, could just switch from buying SD to high-def discs for new releases (although of course SD versions will also be released for quite a while), and then start to replace whatever we want to upgrade as back-catalogue titles get released. Or will it be a more disorderly transition, with some movies released in both SD and high-def versions and some only in SD for now?
AVC and VC-1 are new and it'll take a bit for engineers to optimize them but they are hitting the ground running very well.
One of the interesting things about MPEG-2 is that it's mostly a transform codec, meaning that it's relatively easy to synthesize onto parallel execution units. This means that you can burn it onto a cheap FPGA, and anything that can go onto a cheap FPGA is going to become a ubiquitous technology. Take, for example, the ARM core. Any piece of electronics, including your mac, is likely to have anywhere from one to fifty ARMs in it.
Statistical and procedural compression codecs are much harder to synthesize onto hardware. The only thing that will ever yield a cheap, reliable H.264 or VC-1 ASIC is Moore's Law, and we can be guaranteed that it won't be cool-running.
I'm not saying that there won't be cheap, good H.264 and VC-1 hardware in the next few years, but it won't be comparatively as cheap as MPEG-2 hardware is now. This is because it requires a lot more memory and cooling hardware, neither of which follow Moore's law. The ability to utilize MPEG-2 is a very big deal.
Found this article today. It states that both Sony and Panasonic are slated for June to ship 25GB AND 50GB media with TDK, Memorex, Verbatim, and Imation to follow...
Engadget is saying no image constraint token until 2010 at least.
I still believe Blu-Ray provides the best option for numerous fields. It can be used in HD players but also makes a good storage medium, albeit one that's severely outdone by HDDs but optical disks are far less prone to failure. And it'll provide a competitive storage medium for camcorders. There's no question DVD camcorders are popular and I just can't see HD-DVD having the capacity for HD recording in camcorders moving forward.
I think mini Blu Ray discs would be nice for camcorders but I think Panasonic has the penultimate solution. Flash memory. My top choice would be 1" drives using perp recording but if that's not a feasible choice then flash memory seems poised for success. No moving parts and easy power consumption. In 5 years we'll probably have access to 32GB flash memory if not more at an affordable price. That's going to give a whole heap of recording time.
The lack of ICT until 2010 is a shocker. It's amazing to me that Fox fought so hard for BD+ only to see every studio onboard for ICT disable.
Maybe they realise ICT is a platform killer? A lot of people bought LCDs and plasmas before HDTV or HDMI was born. They are perfectly good 1024x768 screens that may only be a few years old. Rebuying for just a DRM ridden port just isn't going to happen en mass.
My guess is ICT is doomed, they just won't admit it yet.
Engadget is saying no image constraint token until 2010 at least.
Oh mommy please make it be true!
I think ICT was a non-starter anyway. The AACS standards in Japan won't even allow it until 2010. If you can't implement it everywhere, there's no point in implementing it in only select markets. Not, of course, that anything related to this tech rollout has gotten anywhere near a whiff of logic.
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
Wow e1618978. You're starting to sound logical like a HD-DVD proponent. So answer me this. If 25GB is fine for MOST movies and both HD-DVD and Blu Ray meet these requirements explain to me again why we need Blu Ray? HD-DVD went through the DVD Forum process and met all design goals for the nextgen DVD replacement.
As for MPEG2 vs the newer codecs. MPEG2 is the best if you want an easy load but it's certainly not better than the AVC or VC-1 if quality is your goal. ATI, Amberella and other companies are developing products to speed up the newer codecs so I doubt processing issues will be a factor beyond the 2nd generation units.
HD-DVD was approved via dirty tricks, not because it was better.
"Why do we need Blu-ray" is the wrong type of question - it assumes that there is a person or group that will decide which one wins. It isn't a centralised decision, market forces will decide the winner (and market forces look to make Blu-ray dominate HD-DVD).
Are you suggesting that VC-1 can produce a higher quality video stream than MPEG-2? If so, your information does not match anything that I have read. Even past the first couple generations, an easier CPU load is a huge advantage in cost reduction, noise reduction, and size reduction of the units.
HD-DVD was approved via dirty tricks, not because it was better.
Absurd.
Toshiba submitted AOD and it was ratified. The companies that broke off and went Blu Ray did so because they want more of the licensing pie.
"Why do we need Blu-ray" is the wrong type of question - it assumes that there is a person or group that will decide which one wins. It isn't a centralised decision, market forces will decide the winner (and market forces look to make Blu-ray dominate HD-DVD).
The question is very valid and an honest one. The DVD Forum sought to help guide the creation of a unified nextgen format. They received submittals from various companies. Sony never submitted Blu Ray so the question begs "why did they go roque and what was their issue with Toshiba's AOD?" The answer isn't really a technical one it's a financial one IMO.
Are you suggesting that VC-1 can produce a higher quality video stream than MPEG-2? If so, your information does not match anything that I have read. Even past the first couple generations, an easier CPU load is a huge advantage in cost reduction, noise reduction, and size reduction of the units.
Only with the qualifier that the bitstream is under 25Mbps. MPEG2 is a mature codec that has been mastered very well. AVC and VC-1 are new and it'll take a bit for engineers to optimize them but they are hitting the ground running very well. The HD-DVD trailer for King Kong is AVC at 18Mbps and it just looks stunning. I realize MPEG2 is easier but I believe HD-DVD and advanced codecs make for a more logical step up from red laser DVD.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I realize MPEG2 is easier but I believe HD-DVD and advanced codecs make for a more logical step up from red laser DVD.
It is that last step where your logic falls flat.
1. Those codecs are also present in Blu-ray.
2. HD-DVD only needs the advanced codecs to compensate for its small size, no other advantage is given.
3. Nothing else that you have said makes HD-DVD a "more logical step" than Blu-ray.
Originally posted by e1618978
It is that last step where your logic falls flat.
1. Those codecs are also present in Blu-ray.
2. HD-DVD only needs the advanced codecs to compensate for its small size, no other advantage is given.
3. Nothing else that you have said makes HD-DVD a "more logical step" than Blu-ray.
1. Advanced codecs coupled with Blu Ray's extra capacity is exciting indeed.
2. Pretty much. 30GB would hold a feature length film in MPEG2 but once you tallied up extras and higher bitrate audio things would get pretty tight.
3. The logical step is this. If HD-DVD had scrapped the notion of easy legacy support they could have made the disc more exciting. However the design goals of AOD were to preserver the structure of DVD but enhance it through Blue Laser technology. The disc is bonded in the same manner as DVD allowing the use of current replication equipment. The numerical aperture is very close meaning you can support red laser DVD and HD-DVD with the same OPU.
Hollywood's goals were simple. They wanted coverage for their feature length films on one disc and one side. They wanted room for extras and other content. They wanted better DRM protection and a better interactivity layer. AOD provides all of this thus I have to wonder aloud why Blu Ray exists.
I personally think Blu Ray is a technological marvel but is simply overkill for what consumers need really.
Originally posted by Telomar
I know some people are going to love this but no DL Blu-Ray Rom discs until October apparently, although the article isn't completely clear. That could be the timeline to hit 50 million discs a month and the DL part could just be some time between now and then. Anyway first run looks to be single layer.
You'll hear no snickers from me. 25GB SL discs are fine for %90 of movies even with MPEG2. The 50GB discs really allow for the ability to toss in a bunch of extra stuff and max the audio quality.
Hell if Sony is smart they'll dub the 50GB discs Blu Ray Superbit and market the hell out of them.
Originally posted by hmurchison
You'll hear no snickers from me. 25GB SL discs are fine for %90 of movies even with MPEG2. The 50GB discs really allow for the ability to toss in a bunch of extra stuff and max the audio quality.
Hell if Sony is smart they'll dub the 50GB discs Blu Ray Superbit and market the hell out of them.
For 120 minutes of movie and sound only.... would you prefer MPEG2 or MPEG4 on the 25GB SL BD? Or maybe a better question is which will produce better PQ w/out compression artifacts....?
I'm all for MPEG2 on BD-50, but I'd rather have MPEG4/H264 codec on the BD-25. I'm interested in HD for the PQ, but nothing else.... BTW, I do have HD format music on SACD/DVD-A already.
I know understand that all the codecs involved will be able to deliver transparency and the only question is at what bitrate?
However 25GB SL Blu Ray is a lot sexier with a new shiny codec to utilize.
figured out how to make BluRay discs with a much higher success
rate. If I remember correctly, foreign disc manufacturers had about
20-25% success rate. This American firm got it up to 80-85%. Does
anyone remember the link to that story?
Originally posted by hmurchison
I personally think Blu Ray is a technological marvel but is simply overkill for what consumers need really.
I totally disagree with you on this: I don't think that the needs of the consumer will will be met until we are using higher capacity holographic drives. You are stuck thinking one disk = one movie. Think TV shows. If you gave the option to consumers of having all of a series on one disk instead of 50 or more, they would choose one (and be more likely to buy tv series). Personally there are about 8 TV series that I would buy if they came out on one disk, and I know that there are a lot of others who feel the same way. The capacity of both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are far too small for what consumers could really use.
Originally posted by mello
I read an article about a month ago about a small US company that
figured out how to make BluRay discs with a much higher success
rate. If I remember correctly, foreign disc manufacturers had about
20-25% success rate. This American firm got it up to 80-85%. Does
anyone remember the link to that story?
The company is Bluray Technologies. Marzetta7 knows the link. If I find it I'll post it.
Res...
you may be right. We may be downloading our future HD content right from the web using some sort of swarm technology.
movies along with PS3 games (Spiderman 3 combo disc seems like a
no brainer.) Also, I just read that TDK finalized their 200 gig blu-ray
discs. They're definitely price prohibitive currently but by the time
the next super HD format comes out it will probably be as ubiquitous
as CD-R discs.
Originally posted by mello
With the amount of space on Blu-ray discs companies could put
movies along with PS3 games (Spiderman 3 combo disc seems like a
no brainer.) Also, I just read that TDK finalized their 200 gig blu-ray
discs. They're definitely price prohibitive currently but by the time
the next super HD format comes out it will probably be as ubiquitous
as CD-R discs.
You could put all 3 Spider Man movies (with the exras) on a disk, and all 3 games.
I'd like to be optimistic and think it will be as early as late this year, when this summer's big movies start to hit the shelves. So we could see movies like "X-Men" and "Superman Returns" in high-def along with the SD versions. If there are some blockbusters this summer, it would certainly give a push to the new Formats of Choice to make them available as soon as possible, and help push player sales for the holidays.
In a perfect world, I'd like to think that at some point I, and everyone else who wishes to do so, could just switch from buying SD to high-def discs for new releases (although of course SD versions will also be released for quite a while), and then start to replace whatever we want to upgrade as back-catalogue titles get released. Or will it be a more disorderly transition, with some movies released in both SD and high-def versions and some only in SD for now?
Originally posted by hmurchison
AVC and VC-1 are new and it'll take a bit for engineers to optimize them but they are hitting the ground running very well.
One of the interesting things about MPEG-2 is that it's mostly a transform codec, meaning that it's relatively easy to synthesize onto parallel execution units. This means that you can burn it onto a cheap FPGA, and anything that can go onto a cheap FPGA is going to become a ubiquitous technology. Take, for example, the ARM core. Any piece of electronics, including your mac, is likely to have anywhere from one to fifty ARMs in it.
Statistical and procedural compression codecs are much harder to synthesize onto hardware. The only thing that will ever yield a cheap, reliable H.264 or VC-1 ASIC is Moore's Law, and we can be guaranteed that it won't be cool-running.
I'm not saying that there won't be cheap, good H.264 and VC-1 hardware in the next few years, but it won't be comparatively as cheap as MPEG-2 hardware is now. This is because it requires a lot more memory and cooling hardware, neither of which follow Moore's law. The ability to utilize MPEG-2 is a very big deal.
http://www.twice.com/article/CA6336670.html
I just see some movies coming on 50GB dual-layered discs come June/July in my opinion.
I still believe Blu-Ray provides the best option for numerous fields. It can be used in HD players but also makes a good storage medium, albeit one that's severely outdone by HDDs but optical disks are far less prone to failure. And it'll provide a competitive storage medium for camcorders. There's no question DVD camcorders are popular and I just can't see HD-DVD having the capacity for HD recording in camcorders moving forward.
The lack of ICT until 2010 is a shocker. It's amazing to me that Fox fought so hard for BD+ only to see every studio onboard for ICT disable.
My guess is ICT is doomed, they just won't admit it yet.
Originally posted by Telomar
Engadget is saying no image constraint token until 2010 at least.
Oh mommy please make it be true!
I think ICT was a non-starter anyway. The AACS standards in Japan won't even allow it until 2010. If you can't implement it everywhere, there's no point in implementing it in only select markets. Not, of course, that anything related to this tech rollout has gotten anywhere near a whiff of logic.