I was interested in what was happening earlier, and I got this from the wiki that I hate so much.
Quote:
from wikipedia
For video, all BD-ROM players must be able to decode three codecs: MPEG-2 (the standard also used for DVDs); MPEG-4's H.264/AVC; and VC-1, a codec based on Microsoft's Windows Media 9.
So there is no inferiority in the what the hardware can read it's just what they used in the disks.
"CONTINUED"
Quote:
from wikipedia
All Blu-ray movies released so far have chosen to use the ten year old MPEG-2 technology (that all standard DVDs use) rather than the much newer VC-1 compression technology that most HD-DVD movies use.
Now why they are not using the same codec for these movies is beyond me. But if this goes back, and fourth between these codecs on two players option 3 will be your best viewing option.
Buy the disk with the best MPEG, or AVC; and VC-1 format used, and then use this player.
Looks like Blu-Ray backers at CES are gettin it on! Maybe we'll get Blu-Ray drives in Macintels after all? Who knows, but so far 2006 is shaping up to be very exciting...
I just posted this elsewhere, but I found the following on digg this morning, what to expect and what not to except at WWDC: there's a lot of talk about Blu-ray
What?? This guy is an Apple confidante? Superior storage yes costs less an emphatic "no".
Q. Why the delay?
A. Consumers are very nervous and confused about these formats. Why do they need it? What are the benefits? Originally, Blu-ray was a slam-dunk. But HD-DVD gained traction. After the launch of the PS3, the general consensus is Blu-ray will be named the winner. The brand name ?Blu-ray? will be stronger. Better awareness for consumers. Currently, HD-DVD has the edge by name alone.
Named winner by who? The PS3 is a game console and I do believe that it will spark movie purchases I'm just not so sure on the amount. Microsoft will be marketing an HD DVD add on for the 4+ million Xbox360 out there that is strictly for movie watching so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Q. Who will win, Blu-ray or HD-DVD?
A. (laughs) Blu-ray, of course. Reasons? Apple, Sony, Dell, HP, Disney, Fox. Better content and the PS3. If your computer and PS3 support Blu-ray, you?re obviously going to buy Blu-ray movies.
ok I've had enough. I read some of the other points and clearly this guy isn't an Apple insider. He's mentioned nothing than we have speculated here on the boards. <sigh> I was hoping for so much more.
ok I've had enough. I read some of the other points and clearly this guy isn't an Apple insider. He's mentioned nothing than we have speculated here on the boards. <sigh> I was hoping for so much more.
The janitor at Apple could have told as much. That interview didn't shed much light on what to expect at wwdc IMO.
What?? This guy is an Apple confidante? Superior storage yes costs less an emphatic "no".
Q. Why the delay?
A. Consumers are very nervous and confused about these formats. Why do they need it? What are the benefits? Originally, Blu-ray was a slam-dunk. But HD-DVD gained traction. After the launch of the PS3, the general consensus is Blu-ray will be named the winner. The brand name ?Blu-ray? will be stronger. Better awareness for consumers. Currently, HD-DVD has the edge by name alone.
Named winner by who? The PS3 is a game console and I do believe that it will spark movie purchases I'm just not so sure on the amount. Microsoft will be marketing an HD DVD add on for the 4+ million Xbox360 out there that is strictly for movie watching so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Q. Who will win, Blu-ray or HD-DVD?
A. (laughs) Blu-ray, of course. Reasons? Apple, Sony, Dell, HP, Disney, Fox. Better content and the PS3. If your computer and PS3 support Blu-ray, you?re obviously going to buy Blu-ray movies.
ok I've had enough. I read some of the other points and clearly this guy isn't an Apple insider. He's mentioned nothing than we have speculated here on the boards. <sigh> I was hoping for so much more.
So do you have any idea why they are encoding in MPEG2 still instead of any of the better/newer formats? Because it seems obvious these first few releases are going to tank because of it. People read, and I'm not buying anything on blu ray until they offer something better. If underworld, and Underworld evolution are using the lesser quality sound because the size of the MPEG2 encoding isn't leaving enough room for better quality sound Why would I buy it? I would like to start a collection of favorites again like I have on DVD, but this seems like shit.
New collection:
Start with:
Le Pacte des loups, Brotherhood of the Wolf - 3 disc version.
I've heard from multiple sources that Sony didn't have their VC-1 tools ready months ago for the encodes. Warner should be moving to VC-1 for future Blu-Ray releases as well.
i was just fishing through my cd's today and started to realize.....
"if i bought hd-dvd or bluray, that means i'd have to replace all these dvd's if i want true hd, i'm' going to need a new player, and if i want storage for all these cd's and files, i'll need a new player in my car, a new drive in my MBP"
NO THANKS.
i dont see either format taking over for another 2-3 years tops.
BRay is no great shakes dude(tte)s, the medium might be high in storage - good backup media - but the movie world seems to talk otherwise on movie quality.
BRay is no great shakes dude(tte)s, the medium might be high in storage - good backup media - but the movie world seems to talk otherwise on movie quality.
I says that this article is hardly "the movie world" and that it is incredibly too early to be coming to the conclusion that Blu-ray is "no great shakes dude(tte)s."
First off, one title is offered in VC-1 while the other is offered in MPEG2. Second, we are talking about one disc that has dual layers and has 30 GB (the HD DVD disc) while using the more efficient codec in VC-1 and the other that only is a single layer disc and has 25 GB (the Blu-ray disc) while using the less efficient MPEG2 codec. Hardly an Apples to Apples comparison.
I'll be more interested to see what happens when Blu-ray will be using
1) H.264 to go up against titles in VC-1
and
2) 50 GB dual layer discs this fall
Then, I think you will have a more even comparison,...or a more lopsided one in favor of Blu-ray. Still too early to claim a victor or for one of the formats to snatch the victory.
Here's why they're still using MPEG2 - they don't need to use anything else. A BR disk is 30 GB, and an HD-DVD is 25 GB. Even in HD, that's still a lot of space relative to a DVD, so they can fit all the extended features/etc on there. Thus, no reason to bother with compression.
A senior exec at Pioneer stated he believe it'd be 2009 before it was all decided and the next generation DVD format had reasonable acceptance.
i'm still all for HD-DVD. i dont like sony, i dont like what they do with security and privacy, and i dont like the price.
people have this notion that because blu-ray can offer more storage that people will automatically want that. yet what are we supposed to fill exactly? personally a majority of it will be wasted space.
some people assume because the space will be there, that everyone will use it, or take advantage of it. bull fing sh8t they will. i'm personally tired of the argument.
you think every studio is going to fill worthless movies with extra features? and where would that cost go? straight to the consumer? probably, and i say ha!
same for the gaming industry. i'll be damned to see ps3 games come out for 70-80 dollars.
Sure - I am all for BRay - I am also aware of the useless mpeg2 codec usage - one would wonder - first impression - should be stunning - so that people are awed ... don't know why a lackluster player or a codec or a combination would be put out - almost like they are bored ... finishing touch - the last mile ...
Thinking aloud ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by marzetta7
I says that this article is hardly "the movie world" and that it is incredibly too early to be coming to the conclusion that Blu-ray is "no great shakes dude(tte)s."
First off, one title is offered in VC-1 while the other is offered in MPEG2. Second, we are talking about one disc that has dual layers and has 30 GB (the HD DVD disc) while using the more efficient codec in VC-1 and the other that only is a single layer disc and has 25 GB (the Blu-ray disc) while using the less efficient MPEG2 codec. Hardly an Apples to Apples comparison.
I'll be more interested to see what happens when Blu-ray will be using
1) H.264 to go up against titles in VC-1
and
2) 50 GB dual layer discs this fall
Then, I think you will have a more even comparison,...or a more lopsided one in favor of Blu-ray. Still too early to claim a victor or for one of the formats to snatch the victory.
Sure - I am all for BRay - I am also aware of the useless mpeg2 codec usage - one would wonder - first impression - should be stunning - so that people are awed ... don't know why a lackluster player or a codec or a combination would be put out - almost like they are bored ... finishing touch - the last mile ...
Thinking aloud ...
Mpeg2 is a good codec! It just makes things a bit large. And, according to that smart guy in this thread who explained this to me earlier, it's not much different than Mpeg4 at these bitrates.
At point, people are going to realize that codecs can only make things so small.
So do you have any idea why they are encoding in MPEG2 still instead of any of the better/newer formats?
MPEG2 isn't really worse that the other formats in terms of image quality. It just doesn't compress as much. To tell you the truth, I'd make a wager that MPEG2 delivers a higher SNR than do the newer formats.
It's also proven. There's hardware MPEG2 decoders that work great, and also totally-proven software that won't product artifacts or crash. . . ever. I think it's a plus that Blu-ray can use MPEG2, because it will help cut costs for early hardware and media production.
MPEG2 isn't really worse that the other formats in terms of image quality. It just doesn't compress as much. To tell you the truth, I'd make a wager that MPEG2 delivers a higher SNR than do the newer formats.
It's also proven. There's hardware MPEG2 decoders that work great, and also totally-proven software that won't product artifacts or crash. . . ever. I think it's a plus that Blu-ray can use MPEG2, because it will help cut costs for early hardware and media production.
I don't think that Sony is using the mpeg2 decoders that you mentioned because all of the BluRay
reviews compared to HD-DVDs have been consistently negative & they all can't be blamed
Sure - I am all for BRay - I am also aware of the useless mpeg2 codec usage - one would wonder - first impression - should be stunning - so that people are awed ... don't know why a lackluster player or a codec or a combination would be put out - almost like they are bored ... finishing touch - the last mile ...
Thinking aloud ...
I wondered the same thing. As Murch had mentioned earlier, it is possible that the tools for H.264 or VC-1 weren't ready yet, but should be in future releases. Another possiblility is that the BDA wanted to get the Blu-ray format out there so that the public knew there was a competing HD format before HD DVD could gain any traction. Who knows? I too, would think the BDA would leverage H.264 since it looks so fantastic on Apple's website. Maybe when we get the "cool" interactive features and extras that have been promised or when we receive 50 GB dual layered discs from Blu-ray. Heck, at 50GB, I think the use of MPEG2 at a higher bit rate will look quite pristine, it's just that you don't have that luxury on a single layer 25 GB disc.
Comments
from wikipedia
For video, all BD-ROM players must be able to decode three codecs: MPEG-2 (the standard also used for DVDs); MPEG-4's H.264/AVC; and VC-1, a codec based on Microsoft's Windows Media 9.
So there is no inferiority in the what the hardware can read it's just what they used in the disks.
"CONTINUED"
from wikipedia
All Blu-ray movies released so far have chosen to use the ten year old MPEG-2 technology (that all standard DVDs use) rather than the much newer VC-1 compression technology that most HD-DVD movies use.
Now why they are not using the same codec for these movies is beyond me. But if this goes back, and fourth between these codecs on two players option 3 will be your best viewing option.
Buy the disk with the best MPEG, or AVC; and VC-1 format used, and then use this player.
New lasers from Ricoh read both HD DVD and Blu-ray
Competition is a good thing. If they both exist they will competing with better menus, better web links from disks for home media systems, and so on.
Universal player is the ultimate way to go.
The Weinsteins have announced their HD DVD movies.
12/5 - Clerks II, Derailed, Wolf Creek, Scary Movie 4
12/12 - DOA: Dead or Alive
12/26 - Pulse, The Matador
Glad to see Clerks II coming so fast. Rumor has it the Weinsteins own the rights to the Directors Cut of Kill Bill.
Looks like Blu-Ray backers at CES are gettin it on! Maybe we'll get Blu-Ray drives in Macintels after all? Who knows, but so far 2006 is shaping up to be very exciting...
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4241959&EDATE=
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...75&newsLang=en
http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/rele...tionFor=574032
I just posted this elsewhere, but I found the following on digg this morning, what to expect and what not to except at WWDC: there's a lot of talk about Blu-ray
http://www.dvdnewsroom.com/news/brea...xpect-at-wwdc/
the digg post is at:
http://digg.com/apple/Exclusive_inte..._iPods_at_WWDC
Q. Why Blu-ray?
A. Superior storage. Costs less.
What?? This guy is an Apple confidante? Superior storage yes costs less an emphatic "no".
Q. Why the delay?
A. Consumers are very nervous and confused about these formats. Why do they need it? What are the benefits? Originally, Blu-ray was a slam-dunk. But HD-DVD gained traction. After the launch of the PS3, the general consensus is Blu-ray will be named the winner. The brand name ?Blu-ray? will be stronger. Better awareness for consumers. Currently, HD-DVD has the edge by name alone.
Named winner by who? The PS3 is a game console and I do believe that it will spark movie purchases I'm just not so sure on the amount. Microsoft will be marketing an HD DVD add on for the 4+ million Xbox360 out there that is strictly for movie watching so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Q. Who will win, Blu-ray or HD-DVD?
A. (laughs) Blu-ray, of course. Reasons? Apple, Sony, Dell, HP, Disney, Fox. Better content and the PS3. If your computer and PS3 support Blu-ray, you?re obviously going to buy Blu-ray movies.
ok I've had enough. I read some of the other points and clearly this guy isn't an Apple insider. He's mentioned nothing than we have speculated here on the boards. <sigh> I was hoping for so much more.
ok I've had enough. I read some of the other points and clearly this guy isn't an Apple insider. He's mentioned nothing than we have speculated here on the boards. <sigh> I was hoping for so much more.
The janitor at Apple could have told as much. That interview didn't shed much light on what to expect at wwdc IMO.
There's some errors in that link.
Q. Why Blu-ray?
A. Superior storage. Costs less.
What?? This guy is an Apple confidante? Superior storage yes costs less an emphatic "no".
Q. Why the delay?
A. Consumers are very nervous and confused about these formats. Why do they need it? What are the benefits? Originally, Blu-ray was a slam-dunk. But HD-DVD gained traction. After the launch of the PS3, the general consensus is Blu-ray will be named the winner. The brand name ?Blu-ray? will be stronger. Better awareness for consumers. Currently, HD-DVD has the edge by name alone.
Named winner by who? The PS3 is a game console and I do believe that it will spark movie purchases I'm just not so sure on the amount. Microsoft will be marketing an HD DVD add on for the 4+ million Xbox360 out there that is strictly for movie watching so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Q. Who will win, Blu-ray or HD-DVD?
A. (laughs) Blu-ray, of course. Reasons? Apple, Sony, Dell, HP, Disney, Fox. Better content and the PS3. If your computer and PS3 support Blu-ray, you?re obviously going to buy Blu-ray movies.
ok I've had enough. I read some of the other points and clearly this guy isn't an Apple insider. He's mentioned nothing than we have speculated here on the boards. <sigh> I was hoping for so much more.
So do you have any idea why they are encoding in MPEG2 still instead of any of the better/newer formats? Because it seems obvious these first few releases are going to tank because of it. People read, and I'm not buying anything on blu ray until they offer something better. If underworld, and Underworld evolution are using the lesser quality sound because the size of the MPEG2 encoding isn't leaving enough room for better quality sound Why would I buy it? I would like to start a collection of favorites again like I have on DVD, but this seems like shit.
New collection:
Start with:
Le Pacte des loups, Brotherhood of the Wolf - 3 disc version.
Sin City - Extended
V for Vendetta
Kill Bill 1, and 2
Pulp Fiction
I've heard from multiple sources that Sony didn't have their VC-1 tools ready months ago for the encodes. Warner should be moving to VC-1 for future Blu-Ray releases as well.
"if i bought hd-dvd or bluray, that means i'd have to replace all these dvd's if i want true hd, i'm' going to need a new player, and if i want storage for all these cd's and files, i'll need a new player in my car, a new drive in my MBP"
NO THANKS.
i dont see either format taking over for another 2-3 years tops.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/05/w...ay-comparison/
What says y'all ?
BRay is no great shakes dude(tte)s, the medium might be high in storage - good backup media - but the movie world seems to talk otherwise on movie quality.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/05/w...ay-comparison/
What says y'all ?
I says that this article is hardly "the movie world" and that it is incredibly too early to be coming to the conclusion that Blu-ray is "no great shakes dude(tte)s."
First off, one title is offered in VC-1 while the other is offered in MPEG2. Second, we are talking about one disc that has dual layers and has 30 GB (the HD DVD disc) while using the more efficient codec in VC-1 and the other that only is a single layer disc and has 25 GB (the Blu-ray disc) while using the less efficient MPEG2 codec. Hardly an Apples to Apples comparison.
I'll be more interested to see what happens when Blu-ray will be using
1) H.264 to go up against titles in VC-1
and
2) 50 GB dual layer discs this fall
Then, I think you will have a more even comparison,...or a more lopsided one in favor of Blu-ray. Still too early to claim a victor or for one of the formats to snatch the victory.
i dont see either format taking over for another 2-3 years tops.
A senior exec at Pioneer stated he believe it'd be 2009 before it was all decided and the next generation DVD format had reasonable acceptance.
A senior exec at Pioneer stated he believe it'd be 2009 before it was all decided and the next generation DVD format had reasonable acceptance.
i'm still all for HD-DVD. i dont like sony, i dont like what they do with security and privacy, and i dont like the price.
people have this notion that because blu-ray can offer more storage that people will automatically want that. yet what are we supposed to fill exactly? personally a majority of it will be wasted space.
some people assume because the space will be there, that everyone will use it, or take advantage of it. bull fing sh8t they will. i'm personally tired of the argument.
you think every studio is going to fill worthless movies with extra features? and where would that cost go? straight to the consumer? probably, and i say ha!
same for the gaming industry. i'll be damned to see ps3 games come out for 70-80 dollars.
i cant wait to see how all this pans out.
Thinking aloud ...
I says that this article is hardly "the movie world" and that it is incredibly too early to be coming to the conclusion that Blu-ray is "no great shakes dude(tte)s."
First off, one title is offered in VC-1 while the other is offered in MPEG2. Second, we are talking about one disc that has dual layers and has 30 GB (the HD DVD disc) while using the more efficient codec in VC-1 and the other that only is a single layer disc and has 25 GB (the Blu-ray disc) while using the less efficient MPEG2 codec. Hardly an Apples to Apples comparison.
I'll be more interested to see what happens when Blu-ray will be using
1) H.264 to go up against titles in VC-1
and
2) 50 GB dual layer discs this fall
Then, I think you will have a more even comparison,...or a more lopsided one in favor of Blu-ray. Still too early to claim a victor or for one of the formats to snatch the victory.
Sure - I am all for BRay - I am also aware of the useless mpeg2 codec usage - one would wonder - first impression - should be stunning - so that people are awed ... don't know why a lackluster player or a codec or a combination would be put out - almost like they are bored ... finishing touch - the last mile ...
Thinking aloud ...
Mpeg2 is a good codec! It just makes things a bit large. And, according to that smart guy in this thread who explained this to me earlier, it's not much different than Mpeg4 at these bitrates.
At point, people are going to realize that codecs can only make things so small.
VC-1 like the HD-DVD version. It's made by the same company. BluRay can accept the VC-1
codec. You think Sony would go to someone that has a firm grasp of using H.264 like Apple. They
make great looking trailers on Apple.com. I remembered reading somewhere that Microsoft was
sending tech people to help make VC-1 movies so they would look awesome.
Blah blah blah
The bigger your font, the more valid your opinion, right?
So do you have any idea why they are encoding in MPEG2 still instead of any of the better/newer formats?
MPEG2 isn't really worse that the other formats in terms of image quality. It just doesn't compress as much. To tell you the truth, I'd make a wager that MPEG2 delivers a higher SNR than do the newer formats.
It's also proven. There's hardware MPEG2 decoders that work great, and also totally-proven software that won't product artifacts or crash. . . ever. I think it's a plus that Blu-ray can use MPEG2, because it will help cut costs for early hardware and media production.
MPEG2 isn't really worse that the other formats in terms of image quality. It just doesn't compress as much. To tell you the truth, I'd make a wager that MPEG2 delivers a higher SNR than do the newer formats.
It's also proven. There's hardware MPEG2 decoders that work great, and also totally-proven software that won't product artifacts or crash. . . ever. I think it's a plus that Blu-ray can use MPEG2, because it will help cut costs for early hardware and media production.
I don't think that Sony is using the mpeg2 decoders that you mentioned because all of the BluRay
reviews compared to HD-DVDs have been consistently negative & they all can't be blamed
on Samsung's faulty BluRay player.
Sure - I am all for BRay - I am also aware of the useless mpeg2 codec usage - one would wonder - first impression - should be stunning - so that people are awed ... don't know why a lackluster player or a codec or a combination would be put out - almost like they are bored ... finishing touch - the last mile ...
Thinking aloud ...
I wondered the same thing. As Murch had mentioned earlier, it is possible that the tools for H.264 or VC-1 weren't ready yet, but should be in future releases. Another possiblility is that the BDA wanted to get the Blu-ray format out there so that the public knew there was a competing HD format before HD DVD could gain any traction. Who knows? I too, would think the BDA would leverage H.264 since it looks so fantastic on Apple's website. Maybe when we get the "cool" interactive features and extras that have been promised or when we receive 50 GB dual layered discs from Blu-ray. Heck, at 50GB, I think the use of MPEG2 at a higher bit rate will look quite pristine, it's just that you don't have that luxury on a single layer 25 GB disc.