Why they want 60FPS in movies is the real question. I've never even heard of this. You can only see 30 (evenly timed) max anyway. It's not like gaming where fps goes up, and down, and there are bog periods so the higher fps you get the better chance you'll not drop below 30. It seems totally unnecessary for movies.
IMAX SUCKS.
The human eye can see much more than 30 fps. You can even see more then 60 fps, that is why the flickering of a 60Hz monitor drives you crazy. For most people it takes somewhere between 70 and 80 Hz (refreshes per second) for an image to be flicker free.
The human eye can see much more than 30 fps. You can even see more then 60 fps, that is why the flickering of a 60Hz monitor drives you crazy. For most people it takes somewhere between 70 and 80 Hz (refreshes per second) for an image to be flicker free.
That's true and wrong at the same time. Although you'll notice flicker the human brain actually doesn't record motion that rapidly.
What the heck do you mean you can't see more than 30 fps!?
And I hope Blu Ray DIES. Sure it's great. But it's not the next standard. HD-DVD is. And it is backwards compatible. I hope Apple doesn't use this tech and have a mishap like they did with freakin' DVD-RAM. NO NO NO. Stupid non-standard Sony. They just started supporting MP3. And there are press releases like it's some new innovation. Wow! Only about...10 years behind everyone else. Sony sucks. The only thing they ever did right was the Walkman. Nintendo invented the Playstation. </anti-Sony rant>
That depends. I havn't heard any "for sure" comments, but if Blu-Ray doesn't support H.264, and only supports MPEG2, any advantage they have in capacity is gone.
And I hope Blu Ray DIES. Sure it's great. But it's not the next standard. HD-DVD is. And it is backwards compatible.
Depends on what your definition of "standard" is.
Why HD-DVD? Because it's backed by the "official" DVD consortium? That consortium is corrupt beyond reason. The Microsoft/Intel/Warner moneymachine stonewalled to get Windows Media 9 approved on the thing, to the upset of everyone else in the forum (they know that when you give Microsoft any power in a given industry, they'll use it to push you out of it). Sony, on the other hand, had to support WM9 in Blu-Ray because Microsoft threatened that they wouldn't support the format in Longhorn. Go go gadget monopoly.
And it's not like the DVD Forum is making the disc, or providing its specifications. That work is being done entirely by Toshiba/NEC. Just like Sony/Panasonic is providing the spec for Blu-Ray. Each format has lots of support from differing studios.
Blu-Ray IS the superior format, and it SHOULD be the next standard. HD-DVD isn't the "format for the future" when they're capped at 30GB, and Sony's already demonstrating 8-layer 200 gigabyte discs.
As for backwards compatibility, dual-laser readers will continue to drop in cost. And if it's mandatory in the cheap HD-DVD standard, why wouldn't companies oblige to offer it as a feature for their Blu-Ray drives, even though technically it's not an official part of the specification. Plus, MPEG-2 is part of the Blu-Ray spec, so any codec issues are solved.
And here's one of my idiosyncratic reasons why I think Blu-Ray is better:
The discs are contained within (optional) cartridges. I'm very careful when handling my media, but cracks, scratches, and the like are inevitable. When both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are pushing oppressive DRM, leaving me without the ability to make backups of my stuff, I want my copy to last. And since the trays will support the standard DVD groove on the interior, similar to how normal CD-ROM trays also have a tinier groove for mini-CD's, you don't have to give up support for the old discs, either.
That depends. I havn't heard any "for sure" comments, but if Blu-Ray doesn't support H.264, and only supports MPEG2, any advantage they have in capacity is gone.
Blu-Ray now supports H.264, MPEG-2, and WM9, just like HD-DVD.
Blu-Ray now supports H.264, MPEG-2, and WM9, just like HD-DVD.
Do you have any links? I have seen a few people claim this, but never with any links to back it up. If it is true, then it does seem that Blu-Ray has the lead (although I hate the damn cartrige idea, but I heard they are working on a version to ditch it).
But it doesn't matter. The soupier technology has lost before. At this point, it all will come down to studio support (which actually Blu-Ray looks to possibly have an advatage here). Which ever formats has more/better studio support will win out. The consumer wants a wide range of movies. If both formats look "close enough" quality wise, the winner will be which ever format has more movies, and a wide range of movies at that.
Plus, I wonder how many consumers have HDTVs to be able to take advantage of a high def dvd (20%...less?) What advatage will a consumer have to adapot a high def dvd player if they don't have a hdtv? Will they see any benifit? Could the whole thing flop?
And I hope Blu Ray DIES. Sure it's great. But it's not the next standard. HD-DVD is. And it is backwards compatible.
The only way HD-DVD is backward compatible is with a DVD layer. The Blu-Ray camp could probably do this too, though their discs wouldn't be blessed with the "DVD" logo. They wouldn't be anyway, so it's no loss.
(although I hate the damn cartrige idea, but I heard they are working on a version to ditch it)
They've developed a hard-coat plastic bottom that's resistant to even permenant marker.
I don't see why you have some arbitrary hatred for cartriges. They're a lot more indestructable than thin discs, and work in the same drive as non-cartridge discs.
I don't see why you have some arbitrary hatred for cartriges. They're a lot more indestructable than thin discs, and work in the same drive as non-cartridge discs.
You can't see why I have an arbitrary haterd? Isn't the definition of arbitrary "based on or subject to individual discretion or preference". So it is my "individual preference". I just don't care for cartriges to hold my media. I didn't like it on my first CD player, my first CD burner, and I don't like it now. I have never had a problem with scratced disks (except for ones I burned my self). I have also never had a disk snap in half, or shatter while trying to put it in my DVD player. So I don't see the need to "armor" all my disks.
I have also never had a disk snap in half, or shatter while trying to put it in my DVD player. So I don't see the need to "armor" all my disks.
Smaller scratches are necessary to make the higher density discs fail. That's because the data is packed so tightly that the same one inch scratch now destroys 8 times as much data.
Do you have any links? I have seen a few people claim this, but never with any links to back it up. If it is true, then it does seem that Blu-Ray has the lead (although I hate the damn cartrige idea, but I heard they are working on a version to ditch it).
But it doesn't matter. The soupier technology has lost before. At this point, it all will come down to studio support (which actually Blu-Ray looks to possibly have an advatage here). Which ever formats has more/better studio support will win out. The consumer wants a wide range of movies. If both formats look "close enough" quality wise, the winner will be which ever format has more movies, and a wide range of movies at that.
Plus, I wonder how many consumers have HDTVs to be able to take advantage of a high def dvd (20%...less?) What advatage will a consumer have to adapot a high def dvd player if they don't have a hdtv? Will they see any benifit? Could the whole thing flop?
Those should answer your doubts as to Blu-Ray supporting the H.264 and VC-1 advanced codecs and non-cartridge discs. Also, I have to disagree with you that the "winner will be which ever format has more movies, and a wide range of movies at that." Although somewhat true, you have to look at the fact that the Hollywood studios will put a hefty part of their decision in whose format will have better protection from pirating. Also, it doesn't matter that the "soupier technology has lost before" that doesn't mean history will repeat itself. Especially since, in my opinion, Sony is in a much better position with support from Pioneer, Philips, Panasonic, HP, and essentially almost every other company who deals with current DVD technology with the exception of Toshiba and NEC.
As for the statement:
And I hope Blu Ray DIES. Sure it's great. But it's not the next standard. HD-DVD is. And it is backwards compatible.
I'm not sure where your distaste for Sony comes from, but the "standard" you speak of comes from a body whose members tweaked the way absentee votes were counted just so they could ratify their own (Toshiba/NEC) format, knowing full well that the Blu-Ray members were not present at the time. So much for "standard." And, as it has been mentioned previously, Blu-Ray IS FULLY backward compatible. Here's a link:
As for me, I sure hope Blu-Ray THRIVES as it is a format that was meant, from the time it was created, to be a next generation high definition format whereas HD-DVD , in my eyes, is a compromise, and a lesser format.
Well, its all but over now. With blu-ray being back by 3 studios (Sony, MGM, and now Fox), I don't see how HD-DVD will win this. That is unless studios put out disks for both formats...
Well, its all but over now. With blu-ray being back by 3 studios (Sony, MGM, and now Fox), I don't see how HD-DVD will win this. That is unless studios put out disks for both formats...
From what I remember from the news, Fox declined to comment if they will publish movies in both formats, so HD-DVD may not be completely out-of-the-race yet. If HD-DVD can convince the studios to publish in both formats (at least initially) then HD-DVD still has a chance.
The typical consumer will be totally confused by the technical differences of the two. In the end, many of them will go with the familiar sounding (HD-)DVD format.
You sure it is per second? I thought since it was interlaced, it was "60" fields every 2 seconds, which give us the "30" fps. Since in each pass it only does half the fields, it is not doing all 60 fields in one pass (that would be progressive scan)
Actually, the frame rate is 59.97. It's two fields per frame. BUT there is a temporal difference between the two fields. One field is captured and the second field is captured 1/60th of second later.
Many people believe that the fields represent one progressive frame and that is not true. This is why de-interlacing video is tricky because of the temporal difference between the fields. I've always hated when standard interlaced video is described as 30 (or 29.97) frames per second when it is not. It's actually 59.97 lo-res frames per second.
NTSC is 720x486
DV & DVD is 720x480
These are all drop-frame frame rates:
480i is 59.94 interlaced
480p is 29.97 progressive
720p is 59.94 progressive, 29.97 progressive, 23.98 progressive
1080i is 59.94 interlaced
1080p is 59.94 interlaced, 29.97 progressive, 23.98 progressive
I've always hated when standard interlaced video is described as 30 (or 29.97) frames per second when it is not. It's actually 59.97 lo-res frames per second.
It's semantics really. What you are getting is 30 full frames worth of visual information every second, so I don't see a problem referring to it as such.
I'm still a fan of the cartridge, anyone else? I know TDK developed a special coating that allows bare Blu-ray discs to be even more durable than DVD predecessors, but it just seems the cartridge makes sense. You just don't have to worry about scratching your disc as much.
Also, I totally like the Sharp Blu-ray Disk player. Man, that thing looks good. Also, I noticed that Sharp has released a LCD HDTV that actually has HD resolution -- 1920 X 1080 and of course supports 1080p playback. It's a 45 incher and looks pretty sweet. You can see it here:
Comments
Originally posted by onlooker
Why they want 60FPS in movies is the real question. I've never even heard of this. You can only see 30 (evenly timed) max anyway. It's not like gaming where fps goes up, and down, and there are bog periods so the higher fps you get the better chance you'll not drop below 30. It seems totally unnecessary for movies.
IMAX SUCKS.
The human eye can see much more than 30 fps. You can even see more then 60 fps, that is why the flickering of a 60Hz monitor drives you crazy. For most people it takes somewhere between 70 and 80 Hz (refreshes per second) for an image to be flicker free.
Originally posted by Res
The human eye can see much more than 30 fps. You can even see more then 60 fps, that is why the flickering of a 60Hz monitor drives you crazy. For most people it takes somewhere between 70 and 80 Hz (refreshes per second) for an image to be flicker free.
That's true and wrong at the same time. Although you'll notice flicker the human brain actually doesn't record motion that rapidly.
And I hope Blu Ray DIES. Sure it's great. But it's not the next standard. HD-DVD is. And it is backwards compatible. I hope Apple doesn't use this tech and have a mishap like they did with freakin' DVD-RAM. NO NO NO. Stupid non-standard Sony. They just started supporting MP3. And there are press releases like it's some new innovation. Wow! Only about...10 years behind everyone else. Sony sucks. The only thing they ever did right was the Walkman. Nintendo invented the Playstation. </anti-Sony rant>
Originally posted by bunge
Blu-Ray is a better technology.
That depends. I havn't heard any "for sure" comments, but if Blu-Ray doesn't support H.264, and only supports MPEG2, any advantage they have in capacity is gone.
Originally posted by Aquatic
And I hope Blu Ray DIES. Sure it's great. But it's not the next standard. HD-DVD is. And it is backwards compatible.
Depends on what your definition of "standard" is.
Why HD-DVD? Because it's backed by the "official" DVD consortium? That consortium is corrupt beyond reason. The Microsoft/Intel/Warner moneymachine stonewalled to get Windows Media 9 approved on the thing, to the upset of everyone else in the forum (they know that when you give Microsoft any power in a given industry, they'll use it to push you out of it). Sony, on the other hand, had to support WM9 in Blu-Ray because Microsoft threatened that they wouldn't support the format in Longhorn. Go go gadget monopoly.
And it's not like the DVD Forum is making the disc, or providing its specifications. That work is being done entirely by Toshiba/NEC. Just like Sony/Panasonic is providing the spec for Blu-Ray. Each format has lots of support from differing studios.
Blu-Ray IS the superior format, and it SHOULD be the next standard. HD-DVD isn't the "format for the future" when they're capped at 30GB, and Sony's already demonstrating 8-layer 200 gigabyte discs.
As for backwards compatibility, dual-laser readers will continue to drop in cost. And if it's mandatory in the cheap HD-DVD standard, why wouldn't companies oblige to offer it as a feature for their Blu-Ray drives, even though technically it's not an official part of the specification. Plus, MPEG-2 is part of the Blu-Ray spec, so any codec issues are solved.
And here's one of my idiosyncratic reasons why I think Blu-Ray is better:
The discs are contained within (optional) cartridges. I'm very careful when handling my media, but cracks, scratches, and the like are inevitable. When both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are pushing oppressive DRM, leaving me without the ability to make backups of my stuff, I want my copy to last. And since the trays will support the standard DVD groove on the interior, similar to how normal CD-ROM trays also have a tinier groove for mini-CD's, you don't have to give up support for the old discs, either.
Originally posted by kupan787
That depends. I havn't heard any "for sure" comments, but if Blu-Ray doesn't support H.264, and only supports MPEG2, any advantage they have in capacity is gone.
Blu-Ray now supports H.264, MPEG-2, and WM9, just like HD-DVD.
Originally posted by Steve
Blu-Ray now supports H.264, MPEG-2, and WM9, just like HD-DVD.
Do you have any links? I have seen a few people claim this, but never with any links to back it up. If it is true, then it does seem that Blu-Ray has the lead (although I hate the damn cartrige idea, but I heard they are working on a version to ditch it).
But it doesn't matter. The soupier technology has lost before. At this point, it all will come down to studio support (which actually Blu-Ray looks to possibly have an advatage here). Which ever formats has more/better studio support will win out. The consumer wants a wide range of movies. If both formats look "close enough" quality wise, the winner will be which ever format has more movies, and a wide range of movies at that.
Plus, I wonder how many consumers have HDTVs to be able to take advantage of a high def dvd (20%...less?) What advatage will a consumer have to adapot a high def dvd player if they don't have a hdtv? Will they see any benifit? Could the whole thing flop?
Originally posted by Aquatic
And I hope Blu Ray DIES. Sure it's great. But it's not the next standard. HD-DVD is. And it is backwards compatible.
The only way HD-DVD is backward compatible is with a DVD layer. The Blu-Ray camp could probably do this too, though their discs wouldn't be blessed with the "DVD" logo. They wouldn't be anyway, so it's no loss.
Originally posted by kupan787
Do you have any links?
"Blu-ray group gets behind Microsoft tech"
(although I hate the damn cartrige idea, but I heard they are working on a version to ditch it)
They've developed a hard-coat plastic bottom that's resistant to even permenant marker.
I don't see why you have some arbitrary hatred for cartriges. They're a lot more indestructable than thin discs, and work in the same drive as non-cartridge discs.
Originally posted by Steve
I don't see why you have some arbitrary hatred for cartriges. They're a lot more indestructable than thin discs, and work in the same drive as non-cartridge discs.
You can't see why I have an arbitrary haterd? Isn't the definition of arbitrary "based on or subject to individual discretion or preference". So it is my "individual preference". I just don't care for cartriges to hold my media. I didn't like it on my first CD player, my first CD burner, and I don't like it now. I have never had a problem with scratced disks (except for ones I burned my self). I have also never had a disk snap in half, or shatter while trying to put it in my DVD player. So I don't see the need to "armor" all my disks.
Originally posted by kupan787
I have also never had a disk snap in half, or shatter while trying to put it in my DVD player. So I don't see the need to "armor" all my disks.
Smaller scratches are necessary to make the higher density discs fail. That's because the data is packed so tightly that the same one inch scratch now destroys 8 times as much data.
Originally posted by kupan787
Do you have any links? I have seen a few people claim this, but never with any links to back it up. If it is true, then it does seem that Blu-Ray has the lead (although I hate the damn cartrige idea, but I heard they are working on a version to ditch it).
But it doesn't matter. The soupier technology has lost before. At this point, it all will come down to studio support (which actually Blu-Ray looks to possibly have an advatage here). Which ever formats has more/better studio support will win out. The consumer wants a wide range of movies. If both formats look "close enough" quality wise, the winner will be which ever format has more movies, and a wide range of movies at that.
Plus, I wonder how many consumers have HDTVs to be able to take advantage of a high def dvd (20%...less?) What advatage will a consumer have to adapot a high def dvd player if they don't have a hdtv? Will they see any benifit? Could the whole thing flop?
Here are some links:
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#1.8
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#1.10
Those should answer your doubts as to Blu-Ray supporting the H.264 and VC-1 advanced codecs and non-cartridge discs. Also, I have to disagree with you that the "winner will be which ever format has more movies, and a wide range of movies at that." Although somewhat true, you have to look at the fact that the Hollywood studios will put a hefty part of their decision in whose format will have better protection from pirating. Also, it doesn't matter that the "soupier technology has lost before" that doesn't mean history will repeat itself. Especially since, in my opinion, Sony is in a much better position with support from Pioneer, Philips, Panasonic, HP, and essentially almost every other company who deals with current DVD technology with the exception of Toshiba and NEC.
As for the statement:
And I hope Blu Ray DIES. Sure it's great. But it's not the next standard. HD-DVD is. And it is backwards compatible.
I'm not sure where your distaste for Sony comes from, but the "standard" you speak of comes from a body whose members tweaked the way absentee votes were counted just so they could ratify their own (Toshiba/NEC) format, knowing full well that the Blu-Ray members were not present at the time. So much for "standard." And, as it has been mentioned previously, Blu-Ray IS FULLY backward compatible. Here's a link:
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#2.4
As for me, I sure hope Blu-Ray THRIVES as it is a format that was meant, from the time it was created, to be a next generation high definition format whereas HD-DVD , in my eyes, is a compromise, and a lesser format.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...97&newsLang=en
Also, looks like Sony will be shipping parts for next generation players in December:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200409/04-050E/
Originally posted by kupan787
Well, its all but over now. With blu-ray being back by 3 studios (Sony, MGM, and now Fox), I don't see how HD-DVD will win this. That is unless studios put out disks for both formats...
From what I remember from the news, Fox declined to comment if they will publish movies in both formats, so HD-DVD may not be completely out-of-the-race yet. If HD-DVD can convince the studios to publish in both formats (at least initially) then HD-DVD still has a chance.
The typical consumer will be totally confused by the technical differences of the two. In the end, many of them will go with the familiar sounding (HD-)DVD format.
Originally posted by kupan787
You sure it is per second? I thought since it was interlaced, it was "60" fields every 2 seconds, which give us the "30" fps. Since in each pass it only does half the fields, it is not doing all 60 fields in one pass (that would be progressive scan)
Actually, the frame rate is 59.97. It's two fields per frame. BUT there is a temporal difference between the two fields. One field is captured and the second field is captured 1/60th of second later.
Many people believe that the fields represent one progressive frame and that is not true. This is why de-interlacing video is tricky because of the temporal difference between the fields. I've always hated when standard interlaced video is described as 30 (or 29.97) frames per second when it is not. It's actually 59.97 lo-res frames per second.
NTSC is 720x486
DV & DVD is 720x480
These are all drop-frame frame rates:
480i is 59.94 interlaced
480p is 29.97 progressive
720p is 59.94 progressive, 29.97 progressive, 23.98 progressive
1080i is 59.94 interlaced
1080p is 59.94 interlaced, 29.97 progressive, 23.98 progressive
Originally posted by Northgate
I've always hated when standard interlaced video is described as 30 (or 29.97) frames per second when it is not. It's actually 59.97 lo-res frames per second.
It's semantics really. What you are getting is 30 full frames worth of visual information every second, so I don't see a problem referring to it as such.
20+ million people will have Blu-Ray in their homes via the back door by 2006.
http://www.blu-ray.com/ceatec2004/
I'm still a fan of the cartridge, anyone else? I know TDK developed a special coating that allows bare Blu-ray discs to be even more durable than DVD predecessors, but it just seems the cartridge makes sense. You just don't have to worry about scratching your disc as much.
Also, I totally like the Sharp Blu-ray Disk player. Man, that thing looks good. Also, I noticed that Sharp has released a LCD HDTV that actually has HD resolution -- 1920 X 1080 and of course supports 1080p playback. It's a 45 incher and looks pretty sweet. You can see it here:
http://www.moretosee.com
Are there any other comparable HDTVs to this one?