Originally posted by: ferris209
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.