- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD? — Page 6
- Time
- Post link
23.97 fps is effectively 24p.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
Or would both blu-ray and hddvd having 24 fps playback give them yet another thing to have in common and be yet another reason for why you should just get a combo player?!
EDIT: yea sorry for all that. I did some digging and I'm now almost totally positive it's exactly 24.000 frames per second for both hddvd and blu-ray. I stumbled upon a forum where people were talking about "cadence" which is something I've heard brought up around here before.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
the thing that really pisses me off though is all the releases with mpeg-2 crap which is what caused artefacting on dvd to begin with.
VC-1 and avc titles are much better looking.
24 frames per second playback is also a must so blu ray wins again.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
- Time
- Post link
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
- Time
- Post link
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
- Time
- Post link
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005
i actually prefer blu ray since it has uncompressed PCM which hd-dvd titles do not.
the thing that really pisses me off though is all the releases with mpeg-2 crap which is what caused artefacting on dvd to begin with.
VC-1 and avc titles are much better looking.
24 frames per second playback is also a must so blu ray wins again.
HD-DVD players can decode uncompressed PCM. Whether the studios are putting it on the discs is another matter. See here.
Both formats do 24p as well. See the previous link.
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005
wow so you are able to do something george lucas can't avoid major artefacting and blockiness like the awful gout.
i actually prefer blu ray since it has uncompressed PCM which hd-dvd titles do not.
the thing that really pisses me off though is all the releases with mpeg-2 crap which is what caused artefacting on dvd to begin with.
VC-1 and avc titles are much better looking.
24 frames per second playback is also a must so blu ray wins again.
HD-DVD players can decode uncompressed PCM. Whether the studios are putting it on the discs is another matter. See here.
Both formats do 24p as well. See the previous link.
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005
wow so you are able to do something george lucas can't avoid major artefacting and blockiness like the awful gout.
This has nothing to do with mpeg2 and everything to do with Lucas using a laserdisc master from 1997. Any other DVD that has been remastered properly doesn't have this problem. Please stop blaming mpeg2 on what is so clearly a Lucas problem.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005
i actually prefer blu ray since it has uncompressed PCM which hd-dvd titles do not.
the thing that really pisses me off though is all the releases with mpeg-2 crap which is what caused artefacting on dvd to begin with.
VC-1 and avc titles are much better looking.
24 frames per second playback is also a must so blu ray wins again.
i actually prefer blu ray since it has uncompressed PCM which hd-dvd titles do not.
the thing that really pisses me off though is all the releases with mpeg-2 crap which is what caused artefacting on dvd to begin with.
VC-1 and avc titles are much better looking.
24 frames per second playback is also a must so blu ray wins again.
The thing that really pisses ME off is people making comments like that. There's enough confusion for the average consumer already with 2 rival formats.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Good, unbiased article.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ferris209
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/Commentary:_Specs_vs._Reality/1096
Good, unbiased article.
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/Commentary:_Specs_vs._Reality/1096
Good, unbiased article.
"The bit rate alone is a meaningless statistic and says nothing about the quality of the compression work. It is equally possible to create a lousy video image with a high bit rate, or a great image with a low bit rate, depending on the complexity of the content and how well the work is done."
So, to prove how bit rate is "meaningless" he tells us how a video can have "great" image quality with a low bit rate so long as the image isn't complicated in the first place. Hehe, by that logic, comparing an HDTV to an SDTV is also meaningless since it is "equally possible" for a skilled technician to create a "great" image with both low resolution and high resolution "depending on the complexity of the content."
While Blu-ray's superiority as a format doesn't translate to the general viewing of HDTV video, that sure as hell doesn't mean that its higher bit rate and a greater storage space is "meaningless." Perhaps people might like to work with content of even higher complexity and, if so, Blu-ray would be capable of that. For a simple example, additional "special features" for a movie release are possible on a BD. When you move away from movies and start talking about general data management, there are all sorts of reasons why we'd want Blu-ray to be the dominant format in the market.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
While Blu-ray's superiority as a format doesn't translate to the general viewing of HDTV video, that sure as hell doesn't mean that its higher bit rate and a greater storage space is "meaningless." Perhaps people might like to work with content of even higher complexity and, if so, Blu-ray would be capable of that. For a simple example, additional "special features" for a movie release are possible on a BD. When you move away from movies and start talking about general data management, there are all sorts of reasons why we'd want Blu-ray to be the dominant format in the market.
While Blu-ray's superiority as a format doesn't translate to the general viewing of HDTV video, that sure as hell doesn't mean that its higher bit rate and a greater storage space is "meaningless." Perhaps people might like to work with content of even higher complexity and, if so, Blu-ray would be capable of that. For a simple example, additional "special features" for a movie release are possible on a BD. When you move away from movies and start talking about general data management, there are all sorts of reasons why we'd want Blu-ray to be the dominant format in the market.
Since the studios seem to be content with just giving us higher bit rate mpeg2 video, as seen here http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php, I'd say it is pretty meaningless. They have so much more space to work with, yet instead of getting movies in the superior VC-1 or AVC codec, we're getting the same old mpeg2. They only seem to use AVC or VC-1 when they're space constrained, like with HD-DVD.
As for data management, I don't know anyone that's even using regular DVDs for anything more than offsite archival purposes. They certainly aren't using it for regular backups and they most certainly wouldn't be using Blu-Ray for regular backups either. 50 GB still isn't enough for anything other than moving a large database across sites that aren't linked by a network. But since USB hard drives are much cheaper than BD burners and media, that's used instead. For general backups, we're sticking with tapes. For "live" backups, we're mirroring onto external hard drives. Blu-Ray wouldn't even come into the equation, much like DVDs don't either.
I dread the day when software comes on a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc. I can't imagine how long that software will take to install (Adobe Dreamweaver and Illustrator CS3 already take 30 mins each, and they're on DVD).
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Since the studios seem to be content with just giving us higher bit rate mpeg2 video, as seen here http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php, I'd say it is pretty meaningless. They have so much more space to work with, yet instead of getting movies in the superior VC-1 or AVC codec, we're getting the same old mpeg2. They only seem to use AVC or VC-1 when they're space constrained, like with HD-DVD.
Mpeg2 can look great if the movie isn't too long and/or you have a double-layered Blu-ray.
Originally posted by: lordjedi
As for data management, I don't know anyone that's even using regular DVDs for anything more than offsite archival purposes. They certainly aren't using it for regular backups and they most certainly wouldn't be using Blu-Ray for regular backups either. 50 GB still isn't enough for anything other than moving a large database across sites that aren't linked by a network. But since USB hard drives are much cheaper than BD burners and media, that's used instead. For general backups, we're sticking with tapes. For "live" backups, we're mirroring onto external hard drives. Blu-Ray wouldn't even come into the equation, much like DVDs don't either.
I dread the day when software comes on a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc. I can't imagine how long that software will take to install (Adobe Dreamweaver and Illustrator CS3 already take 30 mins each, and they're on DVD).
Since the studios seem to be content with just giving us higher bit rate mpeg2 video, as seen here http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php, I'd say it is pretty meaningless. They have so much more space to work with, yet instead of getting movies in the superior VC-1 or AVC codec, we're getting the same old mpeg2. They only seem to use AVC or VC-1 when they're space constrained, like with HD-DVD.
Mpeg2 can look great if the movie isn't too long and/or you have a double-layered Blu-ray.
Originally posted by: lordjedi
As for data management, I don't know anyone that's even using regular DVDs for anything more than offsite archival purposes. They certainly aren't using it for regular backups and they most certainly wouldn't be using Blu-Ray for regular backups either. 50 GB still isn't enough for anything other than moving a large database across sites that aren't linked by a network. But since USB hard drives are much cheaper than BD burners and media, that's used instead. For general backups, we're sticking with tapes. For "live" backups, we're mirroring onto external hard drives. Blu-Ray wouldn't even come into the equation, much like DVDs don't either.
I dread the day when software comes on a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc. I can't imagine how long that software will take to install (Adobe Dreamweaver and Illustrator CS3 already take 30 mins each, and they're on DVD).
I'm not saying this bonus would be huge, but it would still be something. Things like PC games would have a sizable difference on a Blu-ray: faster installs, faster load times, more graphics, more cut scenes . . . I dunno, I don't really care that much. If Blu-ray can't be the dominant format, then I'd hope something even better comes along pretty soon.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I'm not saying this bonus would be huge, but it would still be something. Things like PC games would have a sizable difference on a Blu-ray: faster installs, faster load times, more graphics, more cut scenes . . . I dunno, I don't really care that much. If Blu-ray can't be the dominant format, then I'd hope something even better comes along pretty soon.
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Since the studios seem to be content with just giving us higher bit rate mpeg2 video, as seen here http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php, I'd say it is pretty meaningless. They have so much more space to work with, yet instead of getting movies in the superior VC-1 or AVC codec, we're getting the same old mpeg2. They only seem to use AVC or VC-1 when they're space constrained, like with HD-DVD.
Mpeg2 can look great if the movie isn't too long and/or you have a double-layered Blu-ray.
But why even bother when VC-1 and AVC are superior? They could save space and make the extras in HD as well. Right now, on most releases, the movie is in hi-def while the extras are all in SD (generally 480p I believe).
Originally posted by: lordjedi
As for data management, I don't know anyone that's even using regular DVDs for anything more than offsite archival purposes. They certainly aren't using it for regular backups and they most certainly wouldn't be using Blu-Ray for regular backups either. 50 GB still isn't enough for anything other than moving a large database across sites that aren't linked by a network. But since USB hard drives are much cheaper than BD burners and media, that's used instead. For general backups, we're sticking with tapes. For "live" backups, we're mirroring onto external hard drives. Blu-Ray wouldn't even come into the equation, much like DVDs don't either.
I dread the day when software comes on a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc. I can't imagine how long that software will take to install (Adobe Dreamweaver and Illustrator CS3 already take 30 mins each, and they're on DVD).
Since the studios seem to be content with just giving us higher bit rate mpeg2 video, as seen here http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php, I'd say it is pretty meaningless. They have so much more space to work with, yet instead of getting movies in the superior VC-1 or AVC codec, we're getting the same old mpeg2. They only seem to use AVC or VC-1 when they're space constrained, like with HD-DVD.
Mpeg2 can look great if the movie isn't too long and/or you have a double-layered Blu-ray.
But why even bother when VC-1 and AVC are superior? They could save space and make the extras in HD as well. Right now, on most releases, the movie is in hi-def while the extras are all in SD (generally 480p I believe).
Originally posted by: lordjedi
As for data management, I don't know anyone that's even using regular DVDs for anything more than offsite archival purposes. They certainly aren't using it for regular backups and they most certainly wouldn't be using Blu-Ray for regular backups either. 50 GB still isn't enough for anything other than moving a large database across sites that aren't linked by a network. But since USB hard drives are much cheaper than BD burners and media, that's used instead. For general backups, we're sticking with tapes. For "live" backups, we're mirroring onto external hard drives. Blu-Ray wouldn't even come into the equation, much like DVDs don't either.
I dread the day when software comes on a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc. I can't imagine how long that software will take to install (Adobe Dreamweaver and Illustrator CS3 already take 30 mins each, and they're on DVD).
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I'm not saying this bonus would be huge, but it would still be something. Things like PC games would have a sizable difference on a Blu-ray: faster installs, faster load times, more graphics, more cut scenes . . . I dunno, I don't really care that much. If Blu-ray can't be the dominant format, then I'd hope something even better comes along pretty soon.
Why would having a bigger disk give you a faster install or faster load times? Every PC game I've ever played install itself onto the hard drive and only uses the disc to make sure you have the game (which is pretty easily cracked). You'd get more graphics and more cut scenes, but a lot of those things are starting to become available through digital distribution. Take a look at Steam. You don't even have to leave your house to buy the game. You but the game in advance, they start preloading content onto your computer. When the game is released, it gets unlocked and you start playing. If you ever need to reinstall your system, you can back the game up or just redownload it. A lot of gamers would love more graphics, but I think you'd find that fewer want more cut scenes (unless it's a Final Fantasy game). The more you're taken out of the game and just watching cut scenes, the more it's like watching a movie and not playing a game.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
This format war, as upsetting as it may be at times, is NOT a life or death matter. Kittens will not be slaughtered if either side wins, and your favorite movies will still be there on DVD when the dust eventually settles.
Expect the HD-DVD camp to respond accordingly:
I am the BASF of the film community. I don’t make the films you watch. I make the films you watch better.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
But why even bother when VC-1 and AVC are superior? They could save space and make the extras in HD as well. Right now, on most releases, the movie is in hi-def while the extras are all in SD (generally 480p I believe).
I don't know. Maybe all they want to put on the disc is the movie. A lot of releases are like that on DVD right now.
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Why would having a bigger disk give you a faster install or faster load times?
But why even bother when VC-1 and AVC are superior? They could save space and make the extras in HD as well. Right now, on most releases, the movie is in hi-def while the extras are all in SD (generally 480p I believe).
I don't know. Maybe all they want to put on the disc is the movie. A lot of releases are like that on DVD right now.
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Why would having a bigger disk give you a faster install or faster load times?
Well, a BD is bigger in terms of storage space but not disc size. Otherwise, the read/write times have nothing to do with disc space. It has to do with the configuration of the data on the BD. I'm not sure, but I think that's the main reason why BDs couldn't be manufactured on existing DVD production machinery.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Well, a BD is bigger in terms of storage space but not disc size. Otherwise, the read/write times have nothing to do with disc space. It has to do with the configuration of the data on the BD. I'm not sure, but I think that's the main reason why BDs couldn't be manufactured on existing DVD production machinery.
Originally posted by: lordjedi
But why even bother when VC-1 and AVC are superior? They could save space and make the extras in HD as well. Right now, on most releases, the movie is in hi-def while the extras are all in SD (generally 480p I believe).
I don't know. Maybe all they want to put on the disc is the movie. A lot of releases are like that on DVD right now.
Well, it seems to me that the studios are quite content to take the existing mpeg2 version and just throw it on a BD since they have the space. When they don't have the space, they redo it in VC-1 and put it on the HD-DVD.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Why would having a bigger disk give you a faster install or faster load times?
But why even bother when VC-1 and AVC are superior? They could save space and make the extras in HD as well. Right now, on most releases, the movie is in hi-def while the extras are all in SD (generally 480p I believe).
I don't know. Maybe all they want to put on the disc is the movie. A lot of releases are like that on DVD right now.
Well, it seems to me that the studios are quite content to take the existing mpeg2 version and just throw it on a BD since they have the space. When they don't have the space, they redo it in VC-1 and put it on the HD-DVD.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Why would having a bigger disk give you a faster install or faster load times?
Well, a BD is bigger in terms of storage space but not disc size. Otherwise, the read/write times have nothing to do with disc space. It has to do with the configuration of the data on the BD. I'm not sure, but I think that's the main reason why BDs couldn't be manufactured on existing DVD production machinery.
That's incorrect. The read/write times have to do with how fast the disc is spinning. And the reason BDs couldn't be made on existing lines is because they use a different laser (blue diode). HD-DVD actually use the same color laser, it's just narrower, but not as narrow as a blue laser. BDs are bigger in terms of space simply because they're using a blue laser diode instead of a red one, so they can get the beam smaller, which allows you to pack more data into the same area. HD-DVD is backware compatible because it uses a red laser, so the width just has to be changed between a DVD and an HD-DVD.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
That's incorrect. The read/write times have to do with how fast the disc is spinning. And the reason BDs couldn't be made on existing lines is because they use a different laser (blue diode). HD-DVD actually use the same color laser, it's just narrower, but not as narrow as a blue laser. BDs are bigger in terms of space simply because they're using a blue laser diode instead of a red one, so they can get the beam smaller, which allows you to pack more data into the same area. HD-DVD is backware compatible because it uses a red laser, so the width just has to be changed between a DVD and an HD-DVD.
That's incorrect. The read/write times have to do with how fast the disc is spinning. And the reason BDs couldn't be made on existing lines is because they use a different laser (blue diode). HD-DVD actually use the same color laser, it's just narrower, but not as narrow as a blue laser. BDs are bigger in terms of space simply because they're using a blue laser diode instead of a red one, so they can get the beam smaller, which allows you to pack more data into the same area. HD-DVD is backware compatible because it uses a red laser, so the width just has to be changed between a DVD and an HD-DVD.
I think both HD DVD and Blu-ray use a 405nm blue laser.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
The read/write times have to do with how fast the disc is spinning.
The read/write times have to do with how fast the disc is spinning.
Yes, that's true, but you're incorrect in thinking you know what I'm talking about. BDs have a feature that allows them to have slightly faster read/write times for the same spin speed and, as I remember, that has to do with the way the data is configured on the physical disc. I'd have to look up that feature again just to let you know what it is though, and I don't really care enough at the moment to do that.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Yes, that's true, but you're incorrect in thinking you know what I'm talking about. BDs have a feature that allows them to have slightly faster read/write times for the same spin speed and, as I remember, that has to do with the way the data is configured on the physical disc. I'd have to look up that feature again just to let you know what it is though, and I don't really care enough at the moment to do that.
Originally posted by: lordjedi
The read/write times have to do with how fast the disc is spinning.
The read/write times have to do with how fast the disc is spinning.
Yes, that's true, but you're incorrect in thinking you know what I'm talking about. BDs have a feature that allows them to have slightly faster read/write times for the same spin speed and, as I remember, that has to do with the way the data is configured on the physical disc. I'd have to look up that feature again just to let you know what it is though, and I don't really care enough at the moment to do that.
According to the technical info at videohelp.com BD has a maximum data transfer rate of 54Mbit and HD DVD of 36.55Mbit (Link).
A BD can contain more data so if it spins about as fast as an HD DVD can't it be read quicker anyway?
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
A BD can contain more data so if it spins about as fast as an HD DVD can't it be read quicker anyway?
A BD can contain more data so if it spins about as fast as an HD DVD can't it be read quicker anyway?
Yep. I think there was another reason as well, though.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
I think both HD DVD and Blu-ray use a 405nm blue laser.
I think both HD DVD and Blu-ray use a 405nm blue laser.
this is correct