It's Official: HD DVD and Blu-ray Can Limit High Resolution To HDMI Only (1 Viewer)

[Ken_F]

It 'depends.'

Early Blu-ray titles will be using MPEG-2, as Sony's current tools evidently lack support for H.264 and VC1; in contrast, early HD-DVD titles will use H.264 and VC1, as per studio announcements. It's well-known that dual-layer BD production is not yet mature, and that ~90% of Blu-ray titles announced for 2006 will be on single-layer 25Gb disks (Sony has announced a few limited quantity DL titles for release toward year's end as a technology demo).

At this point, three unknowns will determine the relative PQ we see from both formats in the near term:

1. How soon will Sony's authoring tools provide support for H.264 and VC1? Or how soon before alternative solutions be available (like Sonic) that offer this support?
2. Will most HD-DVD titles use single or dual-layer?
3. When will dual-layer Blu-ray become cost effective for studios to mass produce? Will it be late 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009?

Until we have these answers, it is impossible to predict who will have the 'better' or 'higher' quality transfers.

Early Blu-ray titles will use MPEG-2, given the limited encoding and authoring tools available for that platform. Quality on SL HD-DVD titles in VC1/H.264 should be comparable to SL Blu-ray titles in MPEG-2. Quality on DL HD-DVD titles with VC1/H.264 should be higher than early Blu-ray disks with MPEG-2. However, it's not clear what percentage of the early HD-DVD titles will be dual-layer, and even if a high percentage are (which I doubt), the PQ advantage will be temporary.

Once studios are able to use VC1/H.264 with Blu-ray, that will negate most of the PQ advantage held by DL HD-DVD. And once DL BD becomes commercially viable, be it in 2007, 2008, or 2009, the advantage moves back to Blu-ray, particularly for full-season episodic releases (Sopranos, 24, etc).

Getting back to your question -- will you perceive these differences on your display? I would be surprised if you perceive any differences in detail or resolution for a given title in both formats. If you see any differences at all, it will be with artifacting, because a studio 1) tried to fit a longer film on a single-layer HD-DVD when they should have used a dual-layer disk, or 2) tried to fit a longer film or episodic programming on a Blu-ray disk with MPEG-2, rather than waiting until Sony's (or Sonic's) tools supported H.264/VC9.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Thank you Ken for the explanation!

 

[Vader]

Me thinks you are making too many assumptions, without any hard data to back them up... You are claiming that those of us who do not intend to upgrade within the next several years do not care about video quality. That is an elitist statement if I have ever heard one. My display is a 2003 Mitsu (component only), and I fully expect to have it in 2010. Now, if your statement were directed at J6P, who typically runs their displays into the ground (ie. torch mode from day 1), your statement may have merit. But don't assume that those of us who are unwilling (or financially unable) to upgrade for this fiasco do not care about PQ... The fact is that most existing HD sets out there were manufactured before DVI became standard. And, just like DVD, the longevity of the equipment is largely proportional to the care it receives. I realize that equipment will expire in time, but your statement that "a 5-year-old TV is elderly" is little more than more elitist nonsense, and is only representative of the introduction of new technology, not of it's operational state. I'm happy that you are ready and waiting for HD, but don't assume that just because you are, you care about PQ any more than the rest of us "old-timers" (without whom, I might add, there would be no DVD, or LD, or...)

 

[AaronMK]

I have a hard time believing that it is that it is an issue of Sony to supporting those codecs in their authoring tools. Maybe the encoding capabilities of Sony's own package are not production ready. The players must be able to recognize and decode the streams. If HD-DVD is coming out of the gate with H.264 and VC1 titles, production ready encoders must exist. It seems pretty arrogant of Sony to not support the inclusion of these codecs when all they would really have to do is put the file on the disc per specification. Or maybe there is a hurdle I am missing.

 

[PeterTHX]

What are you talking about? HD (digital) sales have doubled year after year. DVI has been there since 2001, back when HD sets were still around $5000. Jeez, even EDTVs for the past couple years have had DVI and HDMI inputs (talk about lack of quality!).

When you bought your set in 2003, the standards for both Blu-ray and HD-DVD were being drawn up. Both specs mentioned the need for HDMI. I'm sorry, but if you bought a set that didn't support it means you weren't planning for the future very well.

 

[Edwin-S]

May I ask what you are talking about? I bought my set (Toshiba 57hx81) in Oct of 2001. Toshibas in that model year did not have DVI connectors and neither did the Pioneer Elite sets that I looked at. Mitsubishi had some sort of promised "upgrade" for owners of those sets; however, I do not know if that "promise" ever resulted in anything. I also do not remember any of the Panasonics having DVI connectors in 2001. Toshiba did not come out with a DVI connector until the next model year and that connector appears to be no better thant component-only, because the version doesn't appear to be supported by these new HD standards. It seems DVI equipped sets are going to have to use an adapter cable and DVI ver. 1.0 may not be supported.....at least not fully. You, or someone else, can correct me if I am wrong.

Also, I have a question about ICT. Is ICT only applicable to component outputs? What happens if someone does break the HDCP encryption scheme? Do the studios suddenly declare that the connectors supported by the compromised HDCP are now going to be forced to downrez the signal via ICT? I'm pretty sure that ICT isn't just going to be applicable to components....it could be used to control display resolution on any output.

Either way it is too early to tell how, or if, ICT is going to be used. There has been an enormous lack of information from the studios. As a result, a huge vacuum has been created,and that vacuum is being filled with worst case scenarios. So far, the rollout of these new HD formats has been abominably handled by the studios and the hardware manufacturers. Their incompetent information handling has resulted in a lot of people deciding to sit and wait, because nobody can really figure out the ramifications of a large number of issues affecting the HD-DVD and Blu-ray formats.

 

[Ken_F]

Yes. It applies to analog connections only.

 

[Thomas Newton]

All it takes is one trip to a repair place to turn it back from a "paperweight" into a useful TV again. You see, when a manufacturer goes to discontinue a model, it's pretty normal for them to stockpile several years' worth of repair parts.

Especially if they want any repeat business from those who put down good money on flagship models.

 

[Edwin-S]

I see. Thanks.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

It isn't an oxymoron in the least. What came out after I bought my tv is irrelevent. Of course tech is going to get better year after year. But at the time, my component only Samsung was the best that I could afford and supported the top resolution available, 1080i.

Fact, my tv can do 1080i.
Fact, some Studios want to limit my tv to 540p.
Fact, 540p is a lower quality image than 1080i, thus not the best my tv can do.
Fact, They are screwing me over.
Fact, I'll hold onto my money a lot tighter from now on.

I stand by my statement, the Home Theater Forum is where we strive to get the best picture and audio possible for our films. 540p would be considered neutering our 1080i tv's for the sake of someone elses problem. But if that isn't true, perhaps I've been hanging out in the wrong place for the past 5 years.

 

[Ricardo C]

Sony titles will use MPEG-2. Other studios (Fox and Disney, if I remember correctly) intend to use the next-gen codecs.

 

[PeterTHX]

Supporting a scan rate and actually having that kind of resolution are 2 different things. EDTVs accept 1080i signals as well. Do they display them? No.

Your Samsung's 1080i is going to look vastly different than a Panasonic or Sony set's 1080i. Because those sets actually have better resolution. I dare say 540P is about what a lot of so called HDTVs can actually can display.
540p is not a resolution standard either. The TVs will still recieve a 1080i or 720p signal thru component, it's just the actual resolution is limited to 960x540.


Fact is the majority of TVs that can properly display the full potential of what BRD or HD DVD have to offer have been made in the last few years and have DVI/HDMI with HDCP.

 

[PeterTHX]

Not anymore. Hence the TV has to be replaced sooner and sooner these days. It's all Best Buy and Circuit City and Walmart. Mom & Pop TV stores are becoming an extinct breed.

 

[Vader]

oooookaaaayyyyy (bull shannon-esque)

:rolleyes

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Yeah, but not with HDCP, which means squat. I used to own a Samsung HDTV, at the time was around $3,000 with DVI input but NO HDCP. What will I get when I watch HD DVD or BD? 540p. Sony only have DVI with HDCP starting 2003 on their (then) $3,000 CRT RPTV.

Check your facts. I actually OWN(ed) these TVs and still have the manuals for them.

 

[RobertR]

That's highly questionable. A good Japanese car can be expected to last 250,000 miles. I very much doubt that the same could be said about "cars of old".

 

[Ken_F]

I'm sure some people will see a difference, but the difference will be a lot less than the resolution difference (960x540 vs 1920x1080) suggests, seeing that the vast majority of CRT and CRT projection displays of 1996-2003 can't resolve more than 1200-1400 lines of horizontal resolution.

I really wouldn't get too worked up over this until we see how many titles use the flag. It's entirely possible that only a very small minority of HD-DVD and Blu-ray titles will use the flag this year. In that case, you can simply vote with your wallet and not purchase those titles.

 

[RobertR]

Saying the difference won't be as great as the numbers suggest is not the same as saying the difference won't be significant. 960x540 is, in fact, less than the sets are capable of.

 

[Aaron_Brez]

If the DVI port has HDCP it will be supported; HDCP 1.1 (which is used on HDMI cables) is fully backward compatible with HDCP 1.0 (which is used on DVI cables).

There is nothing about the DVI version which is relevant, only the presence or absence of HDCP. The only confusion arises with TVs such as the ones Kelly has mentioned: they had DVI, but the manufacturers cheaped out and didn't use an HDCP-compliant chipset.

And, as Ken has mentioned, ICT is indeed over component only. The AACS spec would have to be seriously altered in order for ICT to apply to anything else, and since the hardware in the wild already does not support downconversion over HDMI, older equipment would not recognize such a command anyway.

 

[Dave H]

I could see something like this happening one day...all in attempt to make the consumer buy the latest and greatest new HDTV. However, of course it would done in the name of "protection" or preventing privacy.