To All HTF Members: The "HD-DVD ONE FORMAT ONLY!" campaign begins...with YOUR help! (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

1.
Backwards compatibility will happen regardless of what format is chosen. Any player that accepts a 5" disc of any kind will still play your CDs and current DVDs...just wait and see. No current DVD player manufacturers are *required* to provide CD playback compatibility but they ALL do...it's good marketing. You can bet the HD-DVD player manufacturers will be as smart...it's a way of selling their players--the actual HD-DVD standard has no bearing here.
2.

Quote:

If you re-read the proposal on the petition link you'll see it's quite clear that all filtering to minimize aliasing would be performed by the playback hardware. No one is suggesting that 1080 interlaced-viewers should suffer with any undue aliasing! In other words, give the software full resolution: 1080P. Then let the playback hardware "downconvert" to 1080I, 720P, 480P/I whatever. Any appropriate filtering for downscaling or interlacing would be a sinch. Right now HD-set-top-boxes seem to have no problem downconverting to 480 resolution and keeping aliasing to a minimum from 1080I signals (and this requires a bit of vertical filtering to accomplish).
It's not expensive math or processing so it's not adding cost to the players...just a matter of getting all the guys in charge of making our DVDs on the same page so our discs are encoded the the maximum fidelity possible with all the necessary degradation only applied during playback for those individuals who require it.
-dave

 

[RichardMA]

So if the pits on the blue ray disk are very small,
what is the effect of damage or dirt on the disk
itself in terms of "read problems?" These have been
a noticeable issue, especially with places like Blockbuster
not cleaning rental discs covered with figerprints and
God knows what else. Obviously, since the pits are much
smaller, contamination or damage to the discs could pose
an even worse problem than now.

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

I agree that backward compatibility is going to happen. The difference between Toshiba/NEC and Blu-Ray is that Toshiba/NEC makes it very easy to build a player that is backward compatible, indeed that seems to have been half of their motivation (the other half was to use as much existing technology and machinery as possible at DVD pressing plants), hence the design based on DVD's substrate thickness and numeric aperture. With Blu-Ray everything is different except the size of the disc. It will cost more to make a Blu-Ray player which can play DVDs, and it could take longer to get it to market.
About using MLP as the audio standard... There is still no digital interconnect for MLP, and I don't want to have to connect six more wires to my A/V receiver. And has Hollywood gone audiophile, making soundtracks using 24/96? They might be using 24 bits for the wide dynamic range but I don't think they're sampling at 96K. I'm not keen on asking Hollywood to change the way they make theatrical soundtracks for the benefit of HD-DVD, and I like to focus on what is practical based on what Hollywood is doing right now and in the near (not distant) future. I would be satisfied with mandatory Dolby Digital up to the maximum 640 Kbps and anything else can be an optional supplement. This would already be better than the theaters, with only the handful of digital screens having better quality. The adoption of digital screens is going to be very slow and in any case I don't feel the need to have a level of quality that goes beyond what they have.
I feel similarly about the video. I'm not keen on the idea of asking all the HD post-production houses to make up-front changes to the way they currently make HD content just for the benefit of HD-DVD. I don't want to say that absolutely none of the 1080 HD material created in the past five years is acceptable because it has been filtered for interlaced display. I'd suggest that we allow ourselves to have our cake and eat it too: the HD-DVD standard should be able to play both 1080/60i, with 3:2 pulldown generated by field repeat flags, already filtered for interlaced display and 1080/24p, with no filtering but can be added by the player if needed.
I'm leaning toward thinking the same way about putting the anamorphic squeeze on 2.35:1 to use all the vertical resolution of 16:9. Let's allow it, but at the same time let's not disallow letterboxed 2.35:1.
Let's have a standard which requires measures of future-proof-ness but uses the present as a minimal starting base. And let's try not to get upset when some of the early HD-DVD releases are firmly rooted in the present: 1080/60i with 3:2 pulldown and vertical filtering, 2.35:1 letterboxed, and 448Kbps Dolby Digital. Let's be satisfied with that at the start, and save our anger for the inevitable lazy upconversion releases.

 

[Bill Hunt]

"Bill,

can you please post a link to the HD-DVD petition on your site and urge other sites to do the same? Just as important as getting ONE HD-DVD format is getting the RIGHT HD-DVD format."

Hi David. We've talked about this very issue among the major webmasters supporting the campaign. The feeling right now is that the campaign should wait at this time before endorsing a particular HD-DVD spec. We're trying to send an important message right now to the industry at large - that ONE united spec is an absolute must. But if we were to back a particular proposal by particular entities within the industry, our credibility could be called into question by the rest of the industry. Make no mistake, we do generally agree on certain basic issues, like the fact that HD-DVD must be backwards compatible with existing DVDs. But we want to wait and see how the industry responds in the coming months first.

 

[Brian-W]

Unfortunately I just don't believe that more than 1 HD-DVD spec would actually come to fruition. While there are currently 3 proposals on the table, I doubt that we'll see more than 1 actually come to market.

There is too much at stake both financially and reputation wise to risk it. The first DVD spec was a couple, yet we ended up with one joint format. Same is going to happen here. I think that the history of the first format, plus the current DVD-A and SACD example (SACD was the underdog, and is now garnering more support), no company in their right minds is going to choose between formats.

In the end, the HD-DVD platform will be a culmination of all three current specs.

I'd be willing to bet money on it too

-brian

 

[Brenton]

This is like at the bottom of the list of important subjects, but what about the name? I've seen people call it "BLUE RAY", "BLU RAY", "BLURAY" and a million other things. Where did this come from? (I know about blue lasers, I am talking about the actual name). Who would decide what it's actually called. And why does everyone seem to think it will be a variation of "BLU-RAY"??
(For the record, I think the official name should be DVD-Blue, assuming that Toshiba's blue laser format will be chosen. "HD-DVD" is a mouthful to say.)

 

[Dan Hitchman]

In my book, true 1080p video of quality and at least 6 channel PCM with 24 bit/96 kHz resolution is vital to get this format out of the shadow of "just good enough" formats of the past.

And yes, many high quality audio post production houses use at least 24 bit/96 kHz uncompressed PCM for their master recordings. At Sony's personal facilities, obviously, they seem to be moving to uncompressed, 8 bit DSD at 6 or 8 channel discrete for mixing and mastering.

And pretty much anyone who's heard an uncompressed 2 channel PCM laserdisc track on a reasonably good sound system will tell you that Dolby Digital doesn't hold a candle to it.

We need to move away from highly compressed audio (and the comparison wars they create) when even the Toshiba/NEC proposal has enough bitrate leeway to move to at least multichannel PCM.

Dan

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Hey Bill,

Hi David. We've talked about this very issue among the major webmasters supporting the campaign. The feeling right now is that the campaign should wait at this time before endorsing a particular HD-DVD spec. We're trying to send an important message right now to the industry at large - that ONE united spec is an absolute must. But if we were to back a particular proposal by particular entities within the industry, our credibility could be called into question by the rest of the industry.

Makes sense...but please also be aware that the petition isn't trying to push a particular version (though it does disuade *against* Warner's MPEG4 approach)...it's pushing mastering, image, and sound quality that would be applicable to any format once chosen.
Anyway, once you think things have settled down to where no one would bat an eye at someone pushing a high-density version (and forgoing on the red-laser/mpeg4 approach) feel free to post the link.
Naturally you guys have a good sense of the atmosphere about when timing would be good for something like this. But please do be mindful of just how important it is that the industry understand exactly what the videophile/audiophile/HT enthusiasts want to have...we do *NOT* want an "HD" version of the compromise we already have on SD-DVD...one where we live with too much vertical filtering, electronic edge enhancement, and compressed audio that's plainly inferior to what we enjoyed on the laserdisc format. We want the holy grail...virtually transparent video (to the master elements) at a 30 degree viewing angle and transparent audio. And we COULD have it with HD-DVD if the industry "gets it" and makes an effort.
Thanks and we'll be waiting
-dave

 

[Todd Hochard]

when even the Toshiba/NEC proposal has enough bitrate leeway to move to at least multichannel PCM.

How do you figure that? Show me numbers. I showed you mine. Counter, please.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Todd,

The Toshiba/NEC proposal has a bitrate of 38 Megabits/sec. With a 6 channel PCM track at 24 bit/96 kHz resolution or 2 channel PCM at 24 bit/192 kHz resolution (with MLP encoding or uncompressed PCM) that would take ~10 Megabits/sec and leave 28 Megabits/sec for the video.

D-VHS, on the other hand, has 28 Megabits/sec for both video and one audio stream simultaneously.

However, I do agree that Blue-Ray, with at least a 38 Megabits/sec bitrate and over 10 Gigabytes more storage than the Toshiba/NEC design, would be better as you have pointed out.

Dan

 

[Todd Hochard]

FWIW, as others have stated, I would be SHOCKED if Blu-Ray players were not able to play Red Laser DVDs. Several current/past DVD players have two optical pickups- red for DVD, IR for CD. This would be simple. As far as the tooling for replication, I couldn't care less. That's for them to figure out.
10mbps for one soundtrack would be acceptable, particularly if it's paired with MPEG4 or wavelet compression for video @ 28mbps. BUT, remember that ALL soundtracks, subtitles, etc. are streamed at once. If you have two of those, there went the budget.
Regarding audio, my point is this- it seems that if "they" (DD, dts, whoever) could give us 6.1 or 7.1 surround, with audio equivalent to 320kbps Lame-encoded MP3, it would be more-than acceptable. Current DVD doesn't come close to that level, IMO. Let's call it dts-es-X, and give it a max rate of 4096kbps. I don't think the audio masters the studio uses are even good enough for that, frankly. Do we really need an extra 6mbps devoted to tape hiss, and mike squeal?
And, if they stick with MPEG-2, I'm not sure a peak of 28mbps will be enough for unfiltered video at 1080p. Sure, DVHS looks good, but that's half the info (and apparently overly filtered).
Todd

 

[David Coleman]

What do you think about if there was a home theater version of SDDS on these discs? Seems like it could be possible.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Is MPEG4 a "wavelet" compression scheme? My buddy Matt was explaining to me how though MPEG2 and JPEG scehemes use a macro-blocking approach to subdivide the frame for compression, that there are new approaches that are much more efficient...or at least result in much less perceptable degradation...by compression visual information through the use of "wavelets" and fractal/mathmatical schemes that "describe" the image.
I have nothing against MPEG4 if, bit-rate-for-bit-rate, it looks better than MPEG2. I hope that a compression sceheme is chosen for HD-DVD that will assist with bit-rate so that the bits can be shared for high-quality audio (I just love the thought of 24/192 7-channel MLP ), commentary, and a better approach to subtitles (a true text and not a hard-coded graphical image).
Who knows what about new compression schemes???
-dave

 

[ChrisA]

I find it interesting that ONE format is essential. I think it is rather absurd to think that two HD-DVD formats would be released. However, If Warner Brother's plan was the format chosen over Blue Ray or Toshiba NEC plan, then DAMN RIGHT I WANT A SECOND FORMAT. WARNER BROTHER's PLAN IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

 

[ChrisA]

Dan, I agree with everything, however, it is difficult to justify 24 bit/96 kHz MLP for HD-DVD because what you are asking for requires 10mbps audio. I totally concur with you in general, but your expectations on audio come at the expense of video quality.

Remember, that VIDEO does take significantly more bandwidth then Audio in the sense of diminishing returns. I started out as an audiophile and I have spent much more money on audio than video by a HUGE degree. I could not be more enthusiatic about improvements in audio, however, it is absolutely impossible for me to overlook the fact that anything over 20/48 MLP would be at the expense of taking away bandwidth from the video which would benefit more than the audio.

For instance, assuming we have a format such as NEC which provides 36 MBPS bandwidth. how can you give 10 mbps to a primary audio track for a 5.1 track? That leaves around 23 mbps for video, however, 1080p video would benfefit more from the additional 5mbps yielding around 28mbps for the video. Remember that 1-2 mbps of any format goes to other tracks and headroom....

It is hard to imagine anyone being displeased with lossless compressed into 20/48 using a wonderful 5 mbps bandwidth.... compare that to DD and DTS that we have now. I hope everyone knows that 24/96 DTS is NOT a true 24/96 format.... FAR FROM IT!! DTS marketing gimmicks! Dan I agree with you, however, 10 mbps is too much to utilize for audio with any proposed HD-DVD format. I think an increase in bandwidth alotment from 700 kbps DTS to 5mbps MLP is HUGE performance increase. Asking for 10 mbps would only serve not to have us taken seriously. Sure I want 24/96 MLP for movies, but it would only come at the expense of video quality. That being said I don't think anyone could hear the difference... So what I am saying is that I do NOT want 24/96 MLP since it would take 10 mbps... Now imagine we want to add discrete side channels, or height channel someday... That is why 20/48 MLP is such a reasonable and solid plan.

8 channels of 24/96 MLP would require around 16-17 mbps.... that just aint gonna fly, nor does it make sense for HD-DVD with 36 mbps total bandwidth (which means around 34-35 in actuality).

In any case, I hope people DO UNDERSTAND that a single PRIMARY AUDIO TRACK with 20/48 MLP is something we should all agree is not only very reasonable, it would be an outstanding improvement. Please do not RUIN the chance of lossless compression by asking for ungodly amounts of bandwidth. 20/48 multichannel MLP is IDEAL, and uses around 5mbps...

 

[ChrisA]

P.S. What is the BLUE RAY SPEC VS THE TOSHIBA/NEC SPEC?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

So what I am saying is that I do NOT want 24/96 MLP since it would take 10 mbps... Now imagine we want to add discrete side channels, or height channel someday... That is why 20/48 MLP is such a reasonable and solid plan.

Chris,

there's no reason why 24/96 mlp can't be allowed on HD DVD. Not *all* video content will need higher bandwidth. If I'm listening to a music-video On HD-DVD that just might be a perfect time for 24/96 7-channel MLP...I'll gladly not worry about multiple language mixes or "perfect" video quality in a case like this.

Also, the fear of how audio and video will compete is based on current MPEG2 theory. Who says that HD-DVD needs to use MPEG2? If a more efficient (or less artifact-producing) codec is devised (MPEG4???) then this could be used effectively and perhaps make the 10 mbps audio more comfortable...without any visible compromise in the image.

Remember, just because Warner wanted to use MPEG4 with red-laser for HD doesn't mean that, bitrate-for-bitrate, MPEG4 (or other codecs) might be superior to MPEG2.

In any case, just as full-bit-rate DTS is an *option* that can be enjoyed on DVD if a disc producer feels it's the right way to go, there's no reason that we shouldn't have a provision for 24/96 (or 24/192) multi-channel. I'm sure there will be a time and place where it would be worthwhile. For most films, 20/48 MLP would make a good compromise and still out-shine traditional laserdisc 16/44.1 PCM/DD/DTS on DVD at the same time.

-dave

 

[ChrisA]

Dave,
Yes, that is the great reason that MLP should be utilised for HD-DVD movies as well... you can select 20/48 for movies, 20/96 for Concert Videos/Music videos, and 24/192 for HD-DVD-Audio.
My point remains that for *movies*, I would not want 24/96 audio because the reasons I have stated above are crystal clear. The video, regardless of what video compression algorithm is utilized, will STILL BENEFIT much greater than an audio audio jump from 20/48 to 24/96.
If you are talking about Concerts and music videos, I would tend to agree. Although I can't see anyone complaining about a 5 mbps 20/48 MLP track
I think I made all these points above.
P.S.
Warner Brothers? My godnesss GET REAL! NO WAY FOR HD-DVD. Consumers have HAD ENOUGH B.S! HD-DVD MEANS QUALITY, NOT GIMMICKS.

 

[ChrisA]

David,
I agree that we need the HTF Forum, The Digital Bits, and other Forums to unite for the CONSUMER EXPECTATIONS of HD-DVD PETITION. Where is the UNITY to demand QUALITY? When Can we EXPECT the FORUMS and The Digital BITS to BACK OUR PETITION?
So what is the reason?
We do have a slightly more refined version of the petition that we could submit again, if the editors of the Digital Bits would care to participate confidentially in the drafting process, so that the wording is more precise or possibly to your liking, we could work on such a draft. We need support for the current petition or support for a similar petition. Please contact me at [email protected] for participation and uniting the consumers in a stand for quality.
I would hope that the studios do not have too much influence over the HTF Forum or The Digital Bits, etc..

 

[Todd Hochard]

Asking for 10 mbps would only serve not to have us taken seriously.

Ahhh. NOW we are getting somewhere. This has been my point all along.
BTW, the differences between the "two blues"
1. Toshiba uses lower pit density than Blu-Ray, thus giving the 30GB max, vs. 50GB max. This is done to facilitate using the same replication plants/equipments that red laser currently uses (i.e. it is within the limits of existing equipment to shrink to Toshiba's pit size, but not further to Blu-Ray's).
2. Blu-Ray will be in a (DVD-RAM looking??) cartridge. Toshiba will look just like current DVD.
3. Toshiba will be backward compatible with DVD, while (at least, as currently written) Blu-Ray will not. I assume this means the players, not that a Toshiba disc will drop in and play in a regular DVD player (a la dual SACD, for instance).
That's what I picked up on. The 30GB limit on the Tosh discs really makes me balk.
Am I wrong on any points? Anyone else?
Todd