Who WOULDN'T pick Blu-Ray??? (1 Viewer)

[Jesse Skeen]

They already split lots of DVD sets onto separate discs just to make it look like "more" and split some things onto volumes that have to be purchased separately that could have fit on one disc; bet they'll do the same thing with the new formats too no matter how much they can hold.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Just like "they" often spread things out over more discs, "they" often fill each disc up to capacity.

My season 1 set of LOST fills almost each dual-layer disc up to the brim.

Just as one studio can ignore the great new advantages that a format offers, another studio (or production title in the same studios) can take advantage of it.

I'm all for the FORMAT that has the advantage.

Then its up to us to put pressure on the studios to do it right and reward them with your purchase-dollars when they do.

 

[Ken_F]

I think it's generally accepted that transparency to the D5 master can be achieved with 15-16Mbs VBR using advanced codecs like VC-1 and AVC. Beyond that, there would be no benefit to additional bandwidth, at least for picture quality. A lossless multichannel DTS-HD soundtrack at 20/48 requires ~3Mbps VBR. Added together, near lossless video and lossless DTS-HD surround audio falls well under the 36.55Mbps transfer rate of HD-DVD, and leaves a lot of room for bandwidth spikes on complex scenes.

I don't see anywhere near the full 36.55Mbps ever being needed for movies with VC-1 or AVC encoded video and DTS-HD or TruHD encoded lossless audio. I think the primary difference between the HD-DVD and Blu-ray specs, in terms of bandwidth, is that HD-DVD was designed with modern codecs in mind, while Blu-ray was designed with MPEG-2 and uncompressed audio in mind. The only situations I can see where Blu-ray's 54Mbps would be needed are those that involve MPEG-2 video and uncompressed (LPCM) multichannel audio.

As far as capacity, consider the theoretical 3.0 hour movie with video transparency and lossless DTS-HD surround sound. That's a maximum of ~27.7 gigabytes with lossless 24/48 surround sound, or ~25.0 gigabytes with lossless 20/48 surround sound. The former would not fit on a single-layer BD-ROM disk, but it would fit with room to spare on a dual-layer HD-DVD ROM. The 30 gigabytes of DL HD-DVD ROM still leaves room for extras, which wouldn't need video transparency or lossless audio. The remaining five gigabytes would provide almost one-hour of high-quality 1080p extras with lossy Dolby Digital Plus surround audio, on top of the three hours of transparent 1080p video with lossless surround sound.

There's no question the capacity of BD makes it advantageous for episodic releases, and for films with hours of high-definition extras. However, I personally don't have a big problem with studios spreading a high-definition television series across three disks instead of two, or a studio spreading its high-definition extras for a three-hour film across a second single-layer HD-DVD disk, much like they do now with DVD.

Given the extra bandwidth is unnecessary with modern codecs, the only clear and obvious consumer benefit of DL-BD that I see is for home recording and computer storage. OTA broadcast and cable television channels are likely to remain MPEG-2 for the forseeable future, and BD recorders would provide at least 5.8 hours of recording time on a DL-BD disk, compared to just over 3.5 hours for DL HD-DVD disk. That's pretty significant, as is the extra 20 gigabytes of PC storage.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Can we think outside the box for a moment (I'm hoping not to have to rehash the hours of discussion from AVS).

I'm certainly not advocating for MPEG2 use...but in my mind the added space/bandwidth of Blu-ray coupled with the advanced codecs of HD DVD is the best of both worlds...and it's all part of the Blu-ray spec.

Ok. So 15-16 give you transparency with VC1. GREAT. As you say, let's assume we've got a few lossless audio soundtracks. Still everything is ok.

Now, let's say a studio decides it would like to offer an optional video channel for a running-time storyboard concept so while you watch the feature film you can seamlessly alternate between the finished film and the storyboard...or watch both at the same time in PIP form.

To do this you need to encode both video streams into the same bandwidth space...so now you're already up to 32 mbps without audio.

Disney did this very thing with Beauty and the Beast and it was a GREAT idea *except* that the compromised-bit-rate cuased compression artifacting in the feature film..compression artifacts that would not have been there had the bandwidth limits been broader.

Disney *would* have done this if it were technically possible on the Bambi DVD to give a PIP mode...but instead they encoded an entirely separate version of the film on the second layer of the DVD so bandwidth wouldn't have been compromised (this worked because the movie could be fit onto a single layer...but would not have been an option for a film that required 2-layers to properly compress).

Another great use for "multi angles" like this is to make an internationally-friendly version of a movie...where perhaps a scene that is language-specific can present a different version on-the-fly depending on preference. Toy Story changed a scene or two in the film so that the U.S. version was different than what was released world-wide. It would have been nice to have had the option to have watched that film with either scene seamlessly played via a multi-angle feature. If the opening scene of a film has credits overlayed over the film this is also another great opportunity for multi-angle to make language-friendly playback without unsightly subtitles.

Just like many collectors enjoy music-only audio options, imagine watching Lord of the RINGS with a "no effects" video channel seamlessly nested along side the feature film. At any moment the film buff could toggle to or watch in PIP form the raw on-stage footage prior to all effects work...or whatever "video commentary" information the director wanted to provide.

I think that when the HD medium is established "video commentary" will become as interesting and desired a feature as audio-commentary has become on SD DVD.

In any case, bandwidth DOES matter.

It's not just about "good enough for a movie".

HD media can offer much MUCH more. Let's be forward-thinking.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Don't forget that Blu-Ray has been built with the computer and gaming industry in mind (a huge benefit rarely talked about around here), It's not just about the movies. That bandwidth IS important.

 

[Paul_Scott]

and i hear with these new upcoming digital versitile discs, that they will be so cheap and easy to manufacture that every disc will have a widescreen version on one side and a full screen version on another!

DaViD, i enjoy your enthusiasm and your optimisim, but honestly how often do studios go the extra mile for these kinds of presentations, and how often do they just throw the stuff out in a perfunctory manner with just a trailer (if you're lucky)?
sure, some cases like LOTR or the Alien Quad set or something along that line will show up in a package that exploits the mediums fullest potential, but they are clearly the exception to the rule.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

That exception to the rule is a good enough reason to have a format that can deliver.

Since when have we decided that because not all studos or titles will take proper advantage of something...that it shouldn't even be an *option* for those disc producers who *do*???

I'm sure that lossless 24/48 audio won't be offered on every HD title. That doesn't mean that I don't want it to be part of the spec so that the content providers who DO want to use it don't even have the option. Many HD titles may come out barely better looking than their 480 SD counterparts. Does that mean that 1080P resolution shouldn't be part of the HD spec?

Of course there will be thousands of HD titles that fall well below the bar of what is technically possible...just like today with DVD.

And there will also be titles that really push the very limits of the format. I'd like to have my Wizard of Oz, Ben-Hur, LOTR trilogy, Star Wars trilogy, Toy Story SE set, and Lion King HD discs to have all the tools that they can to deliver the best possible image, sound, and bonus material.

I honestly don't understand how any HTF member would NOT want the studios to have those options as well.

 

[Paul_Scott]

speaking for no one but myself- its about priorities.
my #1, 2, and 3 priorites are for the best, most transparent a/v presentation of the movie (or show or whatever).

that's it.

the extra bells and whistle are amusing, but they are not my primary consideration for buying and owning a title. nor would their absence be a big deal if i really love the movie.

and i should add that #4 is cost.
if my eyes are dazzled by the HD DVD demo, it will be very hard to resist plunking down $500 for a player to enjoy content in the time that Bd is still getting its act together. Because $500 is like the $15 price point for a movie...its the magic number for me. it takes it out of the realm of "that would be nice to have someday" to "hey...that's doable!"

it looks like it will be a while before Bd is in that vicinity.

 

[Andrew Beckmen]

The things that do it for me are:

A: The price...is it ture that BD players will be 1,000 bucks?

B: I have read that BD discs are thinner and have smallers divots, plus the laser must be bent into a 'cone' shape...all three making for MUCH more delicate discs, MUCH more subsceptiable to scratches and stuff. What do you have to say to this?

I might actually decide to simply NOT buy either player at launch. I don't have 1,500 bucks to through away in buying both players...(infact, I don't HAVE 1,500 bucks period)

 

[Ryan-G]

Can't remember the companies name right now, but a company developed a coating for BR Discs that make it more impervious to scratching than even current gen DVD's.

 

[Ken_F]

It's true that BD disks would not last without extra protection. Thankfully, they don't have to -- an extra hard coating is now part of the BD specification. In fact, on current SL BD disks, the cost of the hard coating is greater than the cost to manufacture the disk.

Depending on the particular hard coating applied by the disk manufacturer, Blu-ray disks have the potential to be more durable than DVD (and HD-DVD) disks.

 

[Andrew Beckmen]

Spring 2007 is a LOOONG time to wait, IMO. I am sure the tech will advance and the prices will dive eventually, it's just a pity that I (probably) won't be watching any DVDs in HD in 2006...

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Sony first introduced the Sony 7000 DVD player at $1K.

It wasn't long before they had another high-quality DVD player for sale for only $400.

Blu-ray will be affordable soon enough. Those of you worried that you'll have to choose between HD DVD or Blu-ray because of price can relax...as long as you have the patience to wait a few months, Blu-ray will find its way into your price range.

Keep in mind that it's the *manufacturers* who are pricing their players. Pioneer decided to go "high end only" with their first offering. Samsung also decided to release a high-end model. Just as soon as a manufacturers decides to release a mid-tier player all will be well.

 

[Craig W]

And it wasn't long before they had subpar players like the DVPS360 that lasted about a year before the laser failed.

Sorry I am still upset about that POS sony model.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Keep in mind too that the $1800. Pioneer model is part of their 'Elite' line, not their regular models.

Glenn

 

[Brent M]

I'm with Craig on this one. An "affordable" Sony player isn't exactly the perfect solution IMHO.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

But by the time that happened Toshiba and other companies had introduced "affordable" $400 and $500 models and the industry was well off and running. (My first player was a Toshiba - model 2006, I think. It was almost immediately traded in when the $500 3006 arrived about two weeks later in the autumn of 1997.)

Regards,

Joe

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Guys...get a grip!

Manufacturers OTHER THAN SONY will be making affordable Blu-ray players.

If a mid-fi/low-budget Sony BD player isn't your cup of tea then you'll be able to get a Samsung, Pioneer, Panasonic, Denon...I'm sure the list will be much more developed in a year's time.

 

[Paul_Scott]

the brands that i have liked in DVD players have been Panasonic, JVC and Toshiba...in that order.
when i got my first pj back in 2001, i auditioned a few progressive scan players to mate with it and i liked the JVC quite a bit...it was just that the Panny did a better job with deinterlacing- all other factors and ergonomic considerations- I would have rather gone with the JVC.

never had a Denon, but wouldn't be adverse to trying one if the price were right or the reviews were stellar.

It looks like the Warner titles that i most want immediately, are going to be filtering out from June to Oct, with the biggie (Superman) coming in Nov or Dec, so i'll give Bd a chance to come up with a solution by then, and if there is a very good Bd player on the market in Oct under $1K, than thats what i'll likely get -assuming that Warner holds to its word of releasing the same content on Bd.

if thats not the case, come end of Oct, i'll be getting a sub $500 HD DVD player and just ignore Bd until it reaches the same price point.

i should mention, that when i was auditioning players years ago, the only one that realy didn't impress me was the Sony(!?). i generally like Sony products and own several, but the player was weak im my eyes and that poor impression has lingered. i would have to hear ecstatic praise form a wide variety of sources before i would even take the time to audition one again.

 

[JediFonger]

do we know for sure HD-DVD will be encoded using 1080p?