Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
One can argue anything, but that doesn't mean the argument is valid.
|
True that, but I think you misread what I was trying to say.

Quote:
| The use of DNR has nothing to do with limitations of space or bandwidth. It has to do with achieving a certain "look" that is perceived by some members of the audience to be more desirable (i.e., zero grain). The fact that this look is inaccurate to the source and leads to other undesirable artifacts (smearing, loss of high frequency information) is well known but ignored in favor of pleasing those that downgrade a disc the minute they notice any grain. |
That may be so in most (or maybe even all) actual cases so far, but that is untrue in theory at least -- and I did specifically mention that I was only talking about some possible cases, not the majority.
If a film transfer yields enough noise/grain to push the limits of video compression, then DNR may indeed become necessary, particularly if the format has less headroom to handle it. Whether this has actually been true for any signficant number of cases, I do not know. But there's nothing invalid about what I said unless you can show me that the lower limits of HD-DVD or the use of MPEG2 on Blu-ray would *never* be an issue no matter how noisy and/or grainy a film transfer is -- and I really doubt you can show me that.
The fact is the video needs to be
heavily compressed to fit w/in the limits afforded by *both* format, but more so for HD-DVD than for Blu-ray. And excess noise/grain can make compression inefficient, which can in turn lead to certain bad effects one way or another.
And really, this applies to all sorts of data compression, not just video. Basically, there's no free lunch.
Also, what you think is DNR might not be the only kind of DNR going on that might actually be needed. Depending on how one looks at it, stuff like aliasing artifacts can also be considered "noise" that needs filtering afterall.
Quote:
So while one might like to imagine that we wouldn't have this problem if everyone had gone Blu from the get-go (and isn't that what you're really saying behind all that space and bandwidth language?), I'm reminded of a famous line from Hemingway: "Isn't it pretty to think so?"
M. |
No. That's not what I said. I said the industry should've given us one "ideal" format from the get-go. I didn't say it needed to be branded "HD-DVD" or "Blu-ray" or whatever else. Yes, they should've just given us a format w/ the highest bandwidth and space feasible. They should also have *not* resorted to MPEG2 either, which was a Blu-ray thing. Also, that format should've gotten all the features ironed out too, eg. none of this Profile fiasco w/ Blu-ray, and the hardware (and/or software) should not be as buggy as they've been. And if bandwidth/space is not an issue (regardless of how you take that), they should've just standardized on providing lossless audio in whichever flavor on top of whatever lossy audio needed for backward compatibility w/ existing hardware. And I'm sure you can probably think of other things to add to that laundry list -- and as it were, I did provide some sort of "list" in my previous post, but you just chose to respond to my quib about DNR, which you basically took out of context as a result.
In any case, the thrust of my previous couple posts was to speak against the format war, not to speak in favor of one format over the other. My primary point was that they should've settled everything and given us one "ideal" format from the get-go instead of the format war. They were closer to that w/ the DVD launch though even then we briefly had DiVX to cause a little trouble. That the DNR issue came up at all was just one particular issue that someone else brought up -- and I just decided to factor into my previous post.
_Man_