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

[Mike Capulli]

Its a good idea to have choices when it comes to audio formats. Lets not let it get redundant. There should be a standard 2.0 stereo surround track, a DD 5.1 track and then a high end DTS or DD-EX track. Pretty much like good DVD discs today. Any more choices and people will get too confused.

I firmly believe that the transition should be a smooth one. If the transition is too big of a deal, the public simply wont go for it. DVD is a relatively new format, I dont think they want to see HD-DVD in cartridges and new recievers and equipment to accomodate it. Its just too soon for any large changes. I think the TOSHIBA idea is best for now. Im against the cartridges.

 

[Sean Laughter]

I'm kind of leaning more toward the Blu-Ray myself. You know, it just seems like something that isn't being hindered by trying to make itself compatible with older technology. Plus, the enclosed cases would be a godsend IMO.

Anyway, given that Blu-Ray is Sony and some other people. Would you think Sony may try and force a hand by putting Blu-Ray into Playstation 3? I mean, get about 70 million of those in people's hands and boom, userbase for the format. Or would that be too late a product to really make a difference in this format war (looking at 2005 for the Playstation 3 I guess)? I'm not sure what the timetable on these new formats is supposed to be.

 

[David Coleman]

How about these as audio options: full bit rate DTS, DD (and possible SDDS)for multi-channel and 24/96 PCM or MLP for 2.0 or less?

 

[Eric Bass]

I'll cast a vote for backwards compatibility as well. Maybe it'll be a limiting factor, but are people really going to want to need 3 players in their set up? I've already got a mix of VHS/DVD's in my HT room, so another format is going to yet another movie player. I just have real reservations about the movie industry going the way of computers as well, where everything you buy is obsolete by the time you get it home. DVD has only been mainstream for a few years, that is way too early for it to be replaced.

 

[Mike Capulli]

I think the audio options should depend on which format was used for audio mixing. If the film wasn't mixed in DTS when it was mastered, why should it be on DVD? Unless of course there is a new transfer and new audio mix for a special edition, i don't see the reason for mandatory DTS.

As for SDDS, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for the future. However if SDDS were to come out, that would mean new receivers/decoders, more speakers, and I don't believe 8.1channels is in real big demand at the time. Lets not forget again if the film is not mixed in SDDS, why release it in SDDS on DVD?

Also I don't know what kind of equipment is needed for MLP audio but if its all RAW audio, what is wrong with PCM? At least then it would be more compatible with existing decoders, and it would probably sound just as good.

Again with all the new formats and such, we have to remember that people are still making the jump to DVD. The consumers are constantly building up their dvd library and if too many formats are thrown at them, they won't want to upgrade equipment for it.

Are cartridges really necessary? It has been said that a fingerprint on a HD-DVD disc is much more damaging to performance than a fingerprint on a standard DVD. However how come this hasn't been a problem for the jump from CD to DVD? It seems with the high-resolution a good player will read right though the fingerprints and [minor] scratches.. Both on CD and DVD.

How about if an HD-DVD is released, (the early releases mind you) is it possible to have standard DVD and HD-DVD on the same disc? This would ease the jump to HD and would contain increased compatibility. Lets face it. It would be a treat for upcoming double disc DVDs to have DISC/SIDE A: HD DVD and DISC/SIDE B: STANDARD DVD .. both with the same extra features and such .. instead of seeing widescreen vs. pan&scan. Or if possible .. incorporate this idea into a dual layered HD-DVD disc. I mean what is an extra 4 gigs when we have 30 right?

I also think it would be a great idea to incorporate Pan&Scan into widescreen discs. Using timecode-based commands to tell the DVD player when to move the frame and such. I know this type of technology is available on standard DVD but im guessing it just never got off the ground. Im not saying im a fan of pan&scan. I have a widescreen RPTV. However incorporating this technology can end the possibility of Pan&Scan ever taking over all DVDs just because more people buy it. (And screwing us enthusiasts.) Dunno if anybody read the article about his in DVD Etc.

Ok that's my rant for the day...
please correct me if im mistaken and comment as well.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Mike,
regardless of what compression a film used for audio in the theater, the master-tapes are either analog or PCM. Therefore, whatever compression scheme sounds the *most* like the original is what we want on our HD-DVD.
The first option is MLP. MLP is a lossless "packing" compression scheme. Why use it? Cuz it cuts the space you need to store the linear PCM in half (or more). That matters when you're tyring to fit high-quality video etc. on a disc. In any case, since it's lossless and already part of the DVD-audio spec, why *wouldn't* you want it??? It's like a zip-file for PCM...and should be considered a way of delivering PCM in 1/2 the space. There is utterly no reason to bother with linear PCM that doesn't use MLP compression...it offers no advantage and cuts bit-rate for video and other datastreams.
Next up in terms of fidelity (to the master) seems to be DTS. My ears can hear it NO PROBLEM in my system. Dolby Digital at the higher datarates seems to do a decent job too...but if we have room on DVD for a better sounding audio format, why not use it? And almost ALL deocders out there already to DTS so it's a perfect choice for the space-savy audio track.
The only reason Dolby digital was chosen for SD-DVD was because DVD needed an audio compression scheme that used very little room...and Dolby's 10:1 data-reduction fit the bill. DTS used more space so it wasn't considered.
Since space won't be as much of a problem with HD-DVD, it makes sense to use a better sounding "default" audio track than Dolby...unless test can show that Dolby at the higher 6xx kbps level sounds as good as DTS does. Who knows...we have yet to compare (the new D-VHS HD titles have dolby digital soundtracks encoded at these higher rates. I'd love for someone to compare the DD soundtrack on the HD-T2 tape with the DTS mix on DVD).
not quite sure how one would implement P/S of an HD image. Do you mean for viewers who are downconverting for their 4x3 NTSC set? In that case...sure...I've always said that we should use the P/S-on-the-fly feature for DVD...why not HD-DVD? Also, if one DID use 20x9 encoding for 2.35:1 films, you could employ this dynamic P/S feature for 2.35:1 films viewed on 4x3 sets with good results (very minor letterboxing if still visible).
Nobody flame me. I'm an OAR nut. I also think that electronic P/S is the answer to our problems...the masses get their button to fill their screen and the videophile/moviephile gets their pristing 16x9 (or 20x9???) OAR transfer.
Muppet Treasure Island would have been a perfect candidate for this feature on SD-DVD.
-dave

 

[Brenton]

9) An adherence to the material's Original Aspect Ratio (OAR) will be maintained at all times. No ifs, ands, or buts.

I completely share your sentiments, but realistically, if studios can market this to ONE major group (OAR-buffs, that's us), or to TWO major groups (us and THEM), they will always go with TWO. The alternative would be to educate the masses about the benefits of widescreen. While that would certainly be best, the studios do not seem willing to do this, and so dual releases will always exist. (with HD, I realize that 1.85:1 films will most likely not get Panned-&-Scanned, but we can probably expect 2.35:1 films to get cut down to 1.66:1 as soon as HD-DVD starts to creep into the mass-market.

 

[Mike Capulli]

DaVid,

In order to prepare a film's audio mix for theaters, they must first choose how many channels they want to use. Then they must choose a format to support it. If it is DD or DTS.. they are both 5.1 so the mixing is the same. The same also goes for DD-EX/DTS-ES (6.1 mixing). But when it comes to SDDS, that is an 8.1channel format. Therefore that requires a different mixing studio equipped for 8.1 channel surround sound mixing. These formats do more than use different compression techniques.

Multichannel MLP audio for every HD-DVD would be nice, however what are the steps needed for this format to work? Do the studios need to reprocess and re-downmix to format the audio into MLP? If so, do you think this will fly for all future HD-DVD releases?

I firmly agree with electronic Pan&scan (if thats the term). Its just sad to see that it was never implemented into the majority of DVD releases. Wouldn't it save money for authoring and production costs?

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Mike,

I don't think you quite understand the sound chain. Just because a movie had DTS, Dolby Digital, or SDDS doesn't mean the master soundtrack started out that way. What we need is a format that will be the most accurate representation of that master.

The master tapes can be analog or digital (some are going to hard disc storage instead of tape). Now, usually today the studio post facilities are mastering in digital. Then you have the uncompressed digital recording format to record the microphone feeds, etc.: that's currently either high resolution/high sampling PCM or 8 bit Direct Stream Digital (DSD) (consumer DSD is 1 bit). Both PCM and DSD have strengths and weaknesses to them. Depending on the size of the storage medium and the mixing/mastering boards used, you can have any number of channels to work with.

Next, you have to decide how best to cram this massive amount of uncompressed audio data into a smaller space (although, sometimes compression is not even needed if space is not an issue). For PCM, you can use Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) because it cuts the file size to about half the original. When de-compressed, all the original data has been restored (like a Zip file for a computer). DSD is lossless packed using a proprietary system created by Sony & Philips (the co-creators of DSD).

You also have DTS, Dolby Digital, and SDDS to choose from for data compression needs. These are formats chosen for most 35mm commercial theaters because they stuff the audio into much smaller packets. However, because they create such small files, much of the original audio data has to be thrown away. That's why these formats are called lossy compression algorithms. Many people in the industry do not consider them to be audiophile grade formats because they tinker with the sound of the original master too much since so much data during compression is lost, never to be recovered.

That's why there should be a minimal quality standard for the audio tracks on HD-DVD. If they can finesse high resolution MLP compressed PCM (6-8 channels at 24 bit/96 kHz resolution at the minimum; provisions for higher resolutions when fewer channels are needed should be on the table too) along with the movie, then that should be used (that's why they shouldn't be afraid to use two discs for ultimate quality and for double the storage capacity). If the parties absolutely are not willing to deal on this issue, then the next best thing at the moment is full bitrate DTS 24/96 for tracks up to 5.1 and full bitrate DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 (for 6.1 discrete master tracks). Either of those should be the formats of choice for the primary language track on the disc.

As for OAR only. I strongly feel that if this is the only choice available, consumers will come around and accept it. They may gritch a little at the beginning, but soon will pipe down. Just look at the highest selling DVDs and all are OAR-only releases.

Just like using true 1080p at 24 fps or 30 fps as the video standard. These high capacity discs can allow it, so there should be no quality wiggle room for studios. HD-DVD players should be the device where you can choose to downrez to any other resolution and refresh rate setting your TV can handle. But, they can all output full 1920 x 1080p signals.

If HD-DVD is to be the next format for quality conscious consumers, then it needs to take the next step. This can't be a baby step, it needs to be able to really wow people who want the best it can be (at the technologies' capacity).

Dan

 

[David Coleman]

Does anyone know what the bitrate would be for DTS for a true 24/96 5.1 or 6.1 channel mix?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Just like using true 1080p at 24 fps or 30 fps as the video standard. These high capacity discs can allow it, so there should be no quality wiggle room for studios. HD-DVD players should be the device where you can choose to downrez to any other resolution and refresh rate setting your TV can handle. But, they can all output full 1920 x 1080p signals.

Dan,
we are *so* on the same page
-dave

 

[Glenn Overholt]

A few days back it suddenly occured to me that even if we did get 'one' format set up, what would become of it?

We'd be the first to buy these 'super' machines, and hopefully when we did there would be at least one DVD out.
Oh, wait though. The studios new releases are all P&S only?
Yes, I'm totally pissed. No one is going to bother to come out with anything, at least as far as the major studios are concerned.

Our plea to the studios . . See, now you can fit both versions on one disk! I can understand that the authoring dept. had no idea that the current DVD players could do P&S on the fly, but now you can just put both of them on the one disk.

They all shake their heads. No, we'll issue the OAR version after the TV sets are all 16 x 9. We have no reason to change anything.

Sorry, guys. I am all for disks that will fit just about everything on them, but they are going to have to get the support of the studios or no one is going to buy their machines.

Glenn

 

[Mike Capulli]

If HD-DVD is to be the next format for quality conscious consumers, then it needs to take the next step. This can't be a baby step, it needs to be able to really wow people who want the best it can be (at the technologies' capacity).

Im sorry but I just don't believe that the consumer market will go for it if it is too much of a change. I mean they are talking about HD-DVD coming out next year? I still know people who don't have DVD players and I feel that if the DVD market is growing so fast, throwing HD-DVD in there with cartridges and new equipment will simply not sell. I mean how many people do you think have 1080 hiscan displays that will take advantage of this technology? Compared to the number of people who watch DVD on standard TVs.. Not a big number. People simply won't buy it unless it is a subtle change. Compatibility is the leading concern here. Otherwise I dont think it will survive.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Mike,

In what way does a player that can output *any* resolution, such as 480I, 480P, 720P, 1080I, and 1080P make a native 1080P HD-format not compatible?

It's scary how sometimes it doesn't seem that people bother to read some very well thought-out posts in these threads before posting their 2 cents.

The beauty of an top-notch HD format is that the disc contains all the fidelity (both picture and sound) one could hope for, and the HD-DVD player can deliver that to the guru with the $$$ system, but can just as easily downconvert the whole deal to 480 interlaced with analog stereo outputs for his TV.

I fail to see how this approach in any way causes a disadvantage to a consumer who doesn't have a 1080-res digital projector. If grandma could hook it up to her B&W TV and get picture and sound then where's the problem?

I also fail to see how the promise of a mere "subtle" improvement should inspire millions of consumers (most of whom don't even have HD displays) to buy a new player to play new HD discs. The driving force for the HD-DVD format will be the early adoptors of HD displays, and this market is generally constituted of individuals who are conscious of picture quality and desiring to achieve the "holy grail" of video reproduction in their homes. Don't think that "subtle" is the way to win their hearts either.

-dave

p.s. it's also worth mentioning that regardless of the number of channels (5.1, 7, 8 etc.), that the audio stems/master in the studio are uncompressed, and are either analog, PCM digital (probably 20 or 24 bit 96 kHz), or DSD.

It's only for space restrictions that these masters are compressed for theatrical release. The lossy schemes like DD, DTS, and SDDS are chosen for the theater because their compression ratios are friendly for projection. DTS uses the most bits (and so sounds the best) but won't fit on the film-print as a result...DTS theatrical presentations have a CD-ROM with the DTS audio that is synched to the film!

For HD-DVD, where there's a bit more space than on a film-print for sound, MLP can handle up to 8 channels and is the perfect choice for preserving full fidelity of anything that starts out life as a PCM signal. Naturally, analog signals must be "digitized" for DVD so MLP is a good choice for them too.

If data-reduction must be applied to save space on the disc, then DTS is the next-best sounding choice, then Dolby digital at higher rates than 384 kbps.

DSD hasn't been proposed by any of us as a carrier on DVD because in direct-strem-digital form the audio data cannot be "processed" with any conventional consumer gear. This means that for the HT environment you couldn't perform any bass management or eq in the digital domain...which is a limiting factor IMO.

Also, we already have too many compression schemes in use...it's confusing enough for consumers. No need to add another "lossy" format like SDDS to the mix when the whole goal should be to have LOSSLESS compression on HD-DVD.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

David,
You da man!
Dan

 

[Mike Capulli]

I fail to see how this approach in any way causes a disadvantage to a consumer who doesn't have a 1080-res digital projector. If grandma could hook it up to her B&W TV and get picture and sound then where's the problem?

The problem is.. why should grandma buy a HD-DVD player for her B&W TV? These are the types of people, along with any other people with standard TV that will not buy it. And sadly, these types of people make up most of the consumer market. Unless ofcourse studios will stop production on standard dvds...

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Yes Mike,

But by this same arguement she wouldn't want to by the "subtle" HD-DVD player either. Dumbing-down HD-DVD isn't going to make her more likely to buy--but it WILL make HT enthusiasts less likely to buy.

As I said...it will be HT enthusiasts who drive the HD-DVD adoption initially...and they don't want a subtle imprvement over what they have now with SD-DVD.

Additionally, since such HD-DVD players can downconvert to all resolutions...there's no incompatibility issues for those non-HD equipped individuals who want to start collecting the new format while they save for their HD display.

-dave

 

[Mike Capulli]

what if HD-DVD discs were to be compatible with older DVD players. This way the HD-DVD change-over won't be rejected.
what's an extra 2 gigs of video on a 30gig disc?

 

[Dan Hitchman]

"what's an extra 2 gigs of video on a 30gig disc?"

Better picture and sound quality.

Besides, the disc won't be able to be read by today's players. However, there is nothing stopping them from making the HD-DVD players able to accept today's DVD's.

However, I'm not so sure I'd want this to be a mass market item. Let J6P have DVD, and leave HD-DVD for the audio/video aficionados. That means stellar 1080p video and audio above and beyond what we get now on DVD.

Dan

 

[Mike Capulli]

If you dont want HD-DVD to take off as well as ST-DVD did, shouldn't this affect the studios decisions of which formats to release films on? If there is no big demand for HD-DVD, how could they make much of a profit?