HD-DVD to use WMV Codec (1 Viewer)

[Brian-W]

Nah, won't happen...they'll lose out on an already 6 million plus installed base. Manufacturers have already nixed this and made it clear to the studios.

What ->might

 

[Scott L]

There's nothing that can record beyond 480p from analog inputs. At AVS we've been pushing for such a card to manufacturers that visit the board but we don't get much feedback. The new players will most liekly have an HDMI output, no recording device will probably offer one of those for a long while.

 

[DaveF]

Nils - thanks for correcting me.

 

[Brian-W]

Discontinued W-VHS decks can record 1080i.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Sure, I have. SACD "around" and DVD-Audio in my own home (I have an RP-91). I have a couple of dts-audio CDs. I've been to DLP presentations at the theater (AMC's Pleasure Island at Disney) where the source audio was uncompressed PCM.

But, it doesn't change my stance.

As an option, I'm fine with lossless. As primary/frequently used audio, I don't care for it. Video fidelity needs more help than audio does, assuming we're already at high rate, properly mastered dts levels. Since the total output bitrate is limited, I'd prefer the bits be rationed proportionately.

Todd

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Todd,

There is no reason why MLP encoded PCM at 6-8 channels can't be combined with 1080p video using VC-9.

From others who are more familiar with VC-9 they say anything beyond about 15-20 Megabits/sec is wasted bandwidth because noticable quality doesn't really improve beyond that. Even MPEG-2 has a law of diminishing returns once you reach a certain bitrate.

MLP can pack a few hours of 24/96 PCM at 5.1 channels on a dual layered 9 Gig red laser DVD (and that includes a DTS and/or DD track plus some video), and so 15-30 Gigs on just an HD-DVD would work for an average length movie... and you'd still have room for possibly another audio channel or two if you didn't go hog wild on the extras on the same disc.

Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD have bitrates and capacities that can accommodate both. Obviously, Blu-Ray does have more capacity and they would have a lot more leeway, however there have been no indications yet that they are moving away from old fashioned MPEG-2 and going to a much more efficient codec that would allow for great audio as well.

You probably won't see WM9 audio because Dolby controls the licensing for MLP (at the behest of Meridian UK) as well as the lossy Dolby Digital AC-3 codec and is a heavy hitter in the industry who probably doesn't want to see their revenue dry up.

Again, some rumors are flying that DTS, DD, and MLP will probably be the sound formats on HD-DVD just like DVD-Audio.

Dan

 

[Scott L]

As long as the samp rate increases from 48kHz to 96 or more I can live with compression. My main concern is great 1080p video.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

You still would have compression in order to fit in longer run times, just the lossless variety instead of lossy (like DTS and DD), which does affect audio fidelity.

Lossless audio is the only way to go (until such time as no compression is needed due to huge capacity, small scale permanent storage devices that are reliable)! You still will have a backwards compatible track included as you do with DVD-Audio.

Dan

 

[Todd Hochard]

I simply don't understand your primary focus on audio, for a video format. The difference between lossless and lossy audio is no less significant on the video side. In fact, I think it's more so.

 

[Scott L]

I think we're wondering at this point in time is it possible to have a format that can do the best our technology has to offer in both video and audio? If it can, then great, bring it on. However I think most of the world won't know or care of the difference between MLP vs. DD+ or DTS+.

As long as Dolby or DTS labs offer something new in the way of fidelity and immersiveness I would prefer them over less extras or a sacrifice in video quality due to MLP.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against lossless audio, I'm against losing more of the movie in the way of extras (which is subjective).

 

[Pete Lee]

There's a story on EE Times that reiterates that nothing has been finalized and raises the possibility that the tentative inclusion of WM9 may just be a bargaining chip designed get the H.264/MPEG-4 people to lower their royalty rates. Personally, I don't believe that the DVD Forum will mandate more than one next-gen codec for HD-DVD, if only to keep the royalty costs down. Supporting MPEG-2 is of course mandatory since HD-DVD players have to be able play back regular DVDs but at the end of the day, the DVD Forum will pick either WM9 or MPEG-4, but not both. Just my two cents. Here's the link to the EE Time story:

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20040302S0013

 

[DaViD Boulet]

With MPEG2 and the bit-rates we're used to on DVD, a compromise is clearly taking place. However, MPEG2...even when given a limitless bit-rate (equal to the uncompressed master) still suffers from detail softening and other artifacts due to the inherent design of the algorithm.

However,

WM9 is basically "transparent" (or extremely close to it) at the bit-rates it will be afforded on HD-DVD. There is no need for "lossless" video compression in that sense. Sadly, no one has come up with a lossy audio compression that can claim the same results.

 

[Paul_Stachniak]

Why is it that recorded sized discs, always sound better then CD sized discs?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Well...I meant compared to the sound of DVD (not necessarily CD).

But you know...my experience is that the PCM on LD actually *does* sound better than CD. I've compared quite a few LD-videos that were "DDD" and should have theoretically sounded just like the "DDD" 16/44.1 CD versions. Nope. In almost every case, the LD sounds more lush, smoother-mids and more airy highs.

My suspician is that (flame suit on) that with most consumer-audio playback gear, that the LD medium is lower in jitter which may account for the occasional "sounds better than the CD version" sound.

Heck, for that matter the AC-3 on LD often sounds better than the AC-3 on DVD

???

go figure. But I'll bet that has much more to do with the "mastering" of the AC-3 on LD which took a much more "leave it alone" approach in general vs the "let's be sure this is 2.0 downmix-friendly and apply lots of dialog normalization" that mucks up so many 5.1 DD DVD soundtracks...

-dave

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Dave, I had to do a double-take when I read this. It sounded like so many wine reviews I have read over the years.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Personally I never saw it as being a technical issue. PCM, Dolby and DTS all run at higher bitrates on DVD then they ever did on LaserDisc or CD. I think DVD is just a different market and therefore the product is not prepared in the same way. LD - especially DTS LDs - were a niche, speciality product - analogous to Mobile Fidelity CDs or heavyweight vinyl reissues. DVD on the other hand is just a mass-market consumer product the same as regular CDs.

Whatever the reasons, LDs on my system always tended to have a bit more wallop in the lower registers and a more open sound (I hate that term but I can't think of a better way of describing it). I did level-matched listening tests of my own (not double-blind, but whatever) and in most cases the LD always came out the winner. There was no placebo effect and no "did I hear that?" stuff - the difference was there and very audible.

I just think DVD sounds (literally) like it's aimed more a Joe Public with his Sony or Bose than Joe Audiophile with his Meridian. I have no proof or technological evidence to support that, just what I heard with my own ears. That said, my gear at the time was Denon and Pioneer - good, but not exaxtly high-end, and I still heard it plain as day.

 

[Chris PC]

Why is there 1080i - 1080p and 960p.? I thought 960p was good because it was EXACTLY double the 480p of todays DVD's.

 

[Michael Osadciw]

While this statement will be true with display devices capable of of delivering the full 1920x1080 resolution, the big thing to remember is that most of the HDTV sets out there right now are consumer grade CRTs which are limited in resolution. Many of them cannot play much beyond 800x600 and a few will do up to 1000x800, so the 1080p video format (converted to 1080i) will not always look dramatically better than current 480p DVD.

Given the push to higher resolution Fixed Pixel Displays, consumers should noticable see a difference between DVD and an HD Video format. The timing of an HD optical disc format will be just right for full 1080 fixed pixel devices. While 1280x720 projectors look great, they are still under a million pixels and not even at the half-way mark of the resolution capability of 1080p...that's also providing the rest of the system has the appropriate bandwidth to not clip the highest frequencies of the signal (equating to the highest amount of resolution) from the DVD player's output, the cabling, the display's video amplifier to the panel...and that's also providing that it's flat and not -6, -9, -12, -18, -25dB...

...and we also have to be aware that whatever equipment the studios are using for transferring films to 1080p is also without these defects...

...remember...the final image on your display always starts somewhere and the highest resolution has to be maintained throughout the whole chain.

I support an HD optical disc...I just want it done properly from the source to my display. That is seeing the real big picture in this battle.

Regards,
Michael

 

[Todd Hochard]

Well, we've been down this road 1000 times over the years here at HTF, but suffice to say, I think it has less to do with the media/codec, than it does the mix. If the attention to detail (or more correctly, the attention to a particular sonic signature that pleases the discerning end user) that was placed on LD was placed on DVD, it wouldn't be nearly the issue. It's not the bits thrown at the audio that counts, it's the talent. Of course, this has low-bit limitations, but at full-rate dts levels, I suspect it's a non-issue. dts-LD supports that assertion, does it not?

As I said prior, I have little issue with it as an option, but if I find marginalized video, due to 30%+ of the bitrate budget being thrown to audio, I'm going to be pissed.

Michael- I think that, in the analog realm, 1080i/p will always be compromised slightly, simply due to the high frequency circuitry associated with it. I suspect that only a direct digital path will provide the Full Monty, as it were.

Todd

P.S. Yes, I have some LDs. I got in late in the game, though.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Todd,

I doubt you'll be pissed. Again, there is enough room for around 15-20 Megabits/sec video (that's about VC-9's quality cap... it doesn't get visibly better after that according to some encoders) and enough for high rez. audio too.

Dan