HD-DVD to use WMV Codec (1 Viewer)

[KylePete]

It's "VC-9", not "WC9". I believe WM9 refers to the whole Windows Media 9 platform.

I believe the original MPEG-4 codec was inferior to VC-9. However, now they have tweaked it and formed a new version called MPEG-4 High Profile (FRExt). And this new version did beat out VC-9 in picture quality (I believe it was the Blu-Ray group's own testing that confirmed this).

Also, from what I've heard, MPEG-4 (FRExt) is more programmable than the current iteration of VC-9. In other words, it can be tweaked even more in the future.

But, I could be wrong.

 

[Scott L]

It seems a cartridge would be overkill with TDK's hard coat layer. Not a big fan of bulky cartridges so if they can avoid them then sobeit.

As for the VC-9 vs mpeg-4 debate.. As far as it goes on the computer it's nice that I can look forward to new, better quality release of mpeg4-based XviD. Though WM9 is nice it's been stuck in the same build forever. Not sure how MS is gonna handle updates (if any at all) to their codec but if it's anything like the PC realm, H.264 will just keep getting better and better like it has been for a while now.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

ScottL:

listen to what Kyle said, WM9 is different from VC9. WM9 refers to the suite of software and codecs. VC9 is a codec specifically designed for 2k (1920x1080) content delivery on a large screen.

 

[Richard Paul]

VC-9 is the video codec used in WM9 and besides being more limited in what resolutions it can do is the exact same codec. Also the codec the Blu-ray Association is going to us is MPEG-4 FRExt HP, which was literally finished last month and can be read about in this press release. The codec uses 90% of the same structure as MPEG-4 AVC, but uses a more advanced encoding method. I have read much on the codec and if true it will be superior to VC-9. Part of the reason is that the FRExt encoder uses several methods used in VC-9, while also having several that are more advanced. In fact one of Microsofts biggest rationales for VC-9 was that it was easier to encode than MPEG-4 AVC. What Microsoft fails to mention is that its encoding efficiency is literally maxed out. VC-9 encoding will never get much better than what can be done today while MPEG-4 FRExt HP will improve over the years.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Seriously???
Would 'we' even want too buy software based on MPEG-2, for HiRez playback?

 

[Richard Paul]

This depends on the studios and not on the format so if you don't no one buys the content done in MPEG-2 then they will quickly change to MPEG-4 FRExt. I worry more about the studios releasing movies in 1080i since they want it to be "compatible" with most HD displays. Considering that both Blu-ray and HD-DVD will both be able to convert 1080p to 1080i it would be idiotic if the studios do it. At the same time how many studios care about releasing their movies right the first time when they can release them badly now and resale an improved edition 5 years later. This far more than anything else worries me about the first Blu-ray/HD-DVD movies.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

I have somewhat the same concern. However, more so is my concern that the first discs will be stunning, then production gets revved up and quality increasingly goes down.

 

[MarcusUdeh]

Why did the Forum originally choose MPEG-2 as the video codec for standard DVD instead of MPEG-4 that DiVX used during its short life?

 

[Aaron_Brez]

You're mixing up the two Divxes.

Divx, the idiotic Circuit City scheme to water down the concept of DVD "ownership", was actually an MPEG-2 scheme, it was just encrypted with triple-DES.

Divx the pretty decent codec, was based on MPEG-4, and is still around and thriving today.

As for why the Forum adopted MPEG-2 instead of MPEG-4-- um... because MPEG-2 was in existence when the DVD spec was created, and MPEG-4 was still in development?

Heh. People forget these specs were written in the mid-90s...

 

[Tony_Ramos]

I disagree, the opposite will likely occur. Releases have gotten much better overall with DVD, why do you believe they won't get better with next gen?

And in reality, Digital Bits and a few other sites reported that the early BluRay content was in 1080i. Here's hoping that they switch to progressive. I hope they don't start bad habits now, and then all the compressionists will probably stick with those habits, like with EE now.

 

[Paul.S]

Emiel Petrone has died.

The time of his sad passing is ironic.

From today's The Hollywood Reporter:

"During the launch of DVD, Petrone worked alongside top movie industry executives to establish the Digital Entertainment Group, a consortium of nearly 50 content providers, technology companies and retailers to support DVD and other new digital formats.

Until his death, Petrone served as chairman of the DEG and as executive [vice president] of the Philips Corporate Alliance Group. His focus on cooperation between the hardware and software industries became a model for successful format introductions."

-p

 

[Paul.S]

TW has dropped its MGM bid

-p

 

[Tony_Ramos]

Well, I think we can safely say that BluRay will be in use with Dell, Sony, HP, and Microsoft supporting it and two major studios now supporting it.

I know it's premature, but if I was a betting man that's where I'd put my money.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

It's official...

heard on NPR this morning that Sony has made the deal to buy the MGM library...

Looks like BluRay may have a fighting chance. I'm so bummed though bcs we all know what crap Sony has put out lately in terms of software...and how stellar WB has been...would loved to have had WB get their hands on all those titles. Bummer...

 

[Tony_Ramos]

Sony stinks, I don't like any of their products in general. They are generally over-priced and overly proprietary, although feature-packed. but the lack of interoperability with other manufacturers products is really annoying, kidn of rendering those features moot.


I also think their product designs have ugly styling and not very utilitarian, but that is probably moot when it comes to the quality of a Bluray player.


If past Sony DVD releases are of any significance, we'd better start worrying. The fact that the Bluray demos were 1080i is also troubling: we don't need anymore interlacing and vertical filtering. Progressive video takes less bandwidth anyway, b/c you only have to render one frame per second, not two.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

An article up here on how Blu-Ray is going to be used in the Playstation 3 [via Evil Avatar: That 2nd paragraph seemed to have more relevance here than over in the Gaming Software section, so here it is for your enjoyment.

 

[David Forbes]

Guess you haven't seen their Qualia SXRD front projector.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

Mr. Forbes: the Qualia is pretty and compact and that is largely due to using a brand new technology like S-XRD (LCoS). I may add, however, that Widescreen Review found the JVC D-ILA player to be a better product for film viewing even with its 720p max res.

There is no way I'm rescinding my sentiment: Sony products are overall too proprietary: interface, formats, and gimmicky styling.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

LCoS has actually been around for many years and has been available in consumer projectors as early as 1997. And if you saw the Qualia 004 in person you would know that it most certainly is not compact.

At 6" short of a yard in length, 2' wide, 8" thick, and weighing in at nearly 100 lbs - it is one of the larger consumer projectors on the market.

As for performance, I did not read the WS review (personally I have found them to be less than helpful), but JVC has about twenty D-ILA (LCoS) models and it would be very foolish to think that any one of them could match the Qualia's performance given the same external components. Too often results can be influenced by external components like video processors, players, and even cables. I have seen the Qualia in action on three separate occasions and have probably spent hundreds of hours with various D-ILA models and I can VERY safely say that the Qualia outperforms them all.

I still don't think it comes close to being worth $25,000 and can think of plenty of projectors that offer a massively better "bang-for-the-buck", and in fact can list many digital & CRT projectors that sell for a fraction of the cost of the Qualia that even outperform it in many important ways.

Frankly at that cost range I'd only consider recommending a 9" EM CRT - like an MP9 or G90. Honestly you could probably buy two used ones for the cost of a Qualia and stack'em for an incredible picture.

While I am personally not impressed by Sony's business model nor their track record, I do applaud their efforts to push the envelope in video display technology and the Qualia is an excellent example of that dedication.

 

[Tony_Ramos]

Nils, if this is true I'm going to read Widescreen Review with a grain of salt from now on. They did provide data that showed that the JVC DILA has better black lvls, and that this provided a better DVD picture, which is subjective, but I have always trusted the magazine. I'm guessing it's true that it was some other part of the video chain that fluenced their decision.