Why I think BluRay may be the future for CD-based music and HD video content... (1 Viewer)

[Chris_Eff]

The codec talk in this thread is very impressive. But why does everyone keep asking for 1080p for a display format. Does anyone know of a current display device that can actually display this resolution?. I am bummed my early HD monitor can't do 720p let alone even seeing a 1080p compatible monitor available for purchase. I don't feel any format would survive if people had to buy a new TV set again when they just bought one for current HDTV and 480p DVD. Just a fairly educated Joe sixpack observation.

 

[John Kotches]

Chris:

• RPTVs with LCoS chips from Toshiba were available @ 1080p.
• Sony Qualia 004 SXRD Front Projector is 1080p.
• JVCs HD-2K projector (release imminent) is 1080p
• The best 9" CRT projectors can handle 1080p.
• TIs upcoming xHD3 chip is 1080p.
• Philips has demonstrated 1080p LCoS based RPTVs (I think, not 100% on this one)

Further, it is much less error prone to interlace a progressive image than it is to deinterlace an interlaced image.

Cheers,

 

[James Morrow]

1080p is essentially what was defined as high definition in the late 1960s when Sony measured what resolution was required to produce cinema quality in the home (around 2k by 1k pixels) - currently approximated by 16:9 1920 by 1080 pixels.

Until high definition discs arrive there has been little need for true high definition displays, as in the pursuit of quantity over quality the broadcasters generally opt for 720p. However, Blu-ray can easily support true high definition (perhaps we should call 720p intermediate definition to avoid confusion) and now that the launch is approaching many manufacturers are developing full 1920 by 1080 pixel progressive capable displays. Current examples include 54" and 57" TFT panels from Samsung with 8ms response and Sony and Apple both make 23" TFT panels at 1920 by 1200 pixel resolution.

Remember that whilst 720p may seem impressive compared to 480i, it's not such as step up from PAL (576i) or Secam (800i).

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Actually, 720p, when shot 60fps, is a huge step up from any standard def video from anywhere in the world. It has enormous temporal resolution and gives a 'you are there' effect that even beats 1080i when shown on the right display device.

I've seen some demo material shot 1280x720 60fps on a native 720p device and it was STUNNING.

If you see a movie in 720p it is always from 24fps and doesn't come that close to showing the potential of the format.

 

[James Morrow]

Note that Samsung's 57" TFT panel supports 1920 by 1080 up to p60. ...but then it does cost around $25k at the moment. :rolleyes

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Mike makes a good point here. 702P can be stunning. I saw several demos at HE2004 of 720P and it was highly impressive. I would be happy to have that in my home.

I also saw the Qualia at 1080P (I think from a 1080i source if I'm not mistaken) in the Sony demo and it was probably the sharpest, clearest viedo or film presentation I have ever seen.

John's answer is righ though. You want to have room to grow into more technology over time.

Let's set the bar as high as possible or people may get complacent like they have with Red Book (or is MP3?) in audio....

 

[James Morrow]

... of course, don't forget that virtually all 35mm film is shot at 24 frames per second - although if using MPeg4/WMV or similar, motion vector information might be used to generate a couple of additional frames between real frames to get up to 72Hz (which I believe is the rate that IMAX works at) - although I don't know how well this would work at scene transitions, etc..

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Wall Street Journal reported this week that Time Warner is putting together an offer for MGM so things are heating up in terms of title domination.

Kerkorian is a shrewd negotiator and TW is just starting here but it could be interesting and have an effect on BluRay versus HD-DVD.

 

[Marc Colella]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Time Warner ends up purchasing MGM.

 

[John Kotches]

The lucky winner gets to assume US$2 billion in debt.... Hmmm, I'm glad it's not me opening up my checkbook.



Cheers,

 

[John Milton]

Go Sony! If they want Blu-ray to be a winner then acquiring MGM is an important step.

 

[PeterTHX]

Wayyy back in the thread Michael St. Clair offered this analogy:


Not quite. The engine is extremely powerful, but it's a GAS GUZZLER. There's another, more efficient engine available...but it's used by a competitor.

I may be in the minority when I say I prefer hi-rate MPEG2 HiDef to MPEG4. MPEG4...too "digital" looking. VC9 on the other hand, is awesome. BR and VC9 would be a killer combo.

 

[Marc Colella]

Funny thing is my wanting Warner to purchase MGM has nothing to do with HiDef formats.

I much prefer Warner's treatment of DVD titles than I do Sony's/CTS. Warner has been the best DVD studio the last couple years. Great transfers and price with an abundant of extras. Sony/CTS double and triple dips have been very frustrating.

 

[James Morrow]

Peter, apparently lots of people prefer hi-rate HD MPeg2 to hi-rate HD MPeg4 - and that's one of the reasons why the Blu-ray group chose MPeg2 over MPeg4 for HD, as MPeg4 didn't look as "convincing". There are also many reports of HD VC9 being much better than MPeg4, but I haven't seen high rate HD VC9. I have seen HD VC9 at 8Mbps, and with natural objects such as trees and scrubland it looks very artificial - and during smooth pans trees etc. appear to shuffle along in a bizarre manner whilst desert landscapes, for example, appear to go out of focus in pans - and not just in the direction of motion like an exaggerated motion blur, but also at ninety degrees to this! I've seen many reports about how well VC9 does with test data, but if the test data consists of manmade calibration charts etc. it's probably not going to do a good job of picking up how VC9 handles natural textures and panning/rotating, etc.. Test data for codecs has to include a lot more material related to real world performance than for a traditional camera or recorder, where bandwidth, frequency response, noise performance and distortion figures can say a lot about a device's performance in practice.

On the MGM issue, with the whole Blu-ray consortium to benefit, maybe there would be some way that they could buy it - and all its debts - as a group? Or Time Warner could always decide to back Blu-ray with MPeg2 and VC9? Another option which seems sensible to me would be for Panasonic to release its new 50GB hi-end DVD recorder (featuring dual-layer Blu-ray technology) in the US, perhaps modified so that WMV or similar encoding/decoding modules can be added by dealers at a later stage, and at around its Japanese price of $2,770 (with 50GB discs at $75). Sony's 50GB recorder is also due this Summer, so they could make a similar upgradable product and sell it on the US market too.

 

[John Kotches]

James,

Out of curiosity why do you continue to discuss VC9 @ 8Mbps and not mention MPEG-2s performance at the same rate and resolution?

What I'd like to see is head to head comparisons...

15Mbits
20Mbits
25Mbits
30Mbits


Cheers,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

You may be right Peter, but we have don't seem to have a good set of objective evidence here in terms of video clips, screen shots, etc. That's why I think we are presuming things that might change were we to see real video clips displayed.

I just want the best technology for my future displays that will have some durability as well.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I hear ya on the double dips, but CTS does some fine transfers...I just got Zorro in Superbit and it is awesome.

 

[Brian-W]

Why? No matter what tests are done, a lot of people already have their mind made up that WM9 is better simply because it's newer and there is some software available that looks good. T2 is a good example. Never mind that the Extreme edition is a new transfer, people were glad to exclaim it was leaps and bounds better than the D-VHS version.

WM9 loses efficiency and gains nothing above about 13Mbits. MPEG-2 is the same at about 20MBits, hence why I think the ATSC standard settled on 19.7MBits.

In "real world" (i.e. actually watching a movie), in an blind A-B comparison with the same footage, I'd be willing to bet that even YOU wouldn't tell the difference between 12MBit WM9 and 19.7MBit MPEG-2.

 

[John Kotches]

Brian-W says:


So then why waste about 33% of the storage space available?

In that 33% you could add on lossless audio @ 24/96K and still have plenty of capacity for 3-4 hours of content.

Cheers,

 

[Marc Colella]

Oh, don't get me started on SuperBit... the biggest marketing scam in DVD.