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

[JonZ]

I added this to my signature and website about a week ago when I read those articles.
Here we go again:rolleyes

 

[Paul E. Fox II]

I agree that the Toshiba Plan IS the way to go and the PLAYER must be backwards compatible with today's DVDs.

That being said, if the studios want ot creat hybrid HD/SD DVDs, that's fine, but I could live without that as long as the PLAYER itself is backward compatible. My collection hasn't reached 600 titles yet and I would hate to start buying all those over again. With that in mind, think about people like Obi, RAF, and Max Yokell whose collections number in the thousands!

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

The Toshiba proposal sounds good to me as well. I think it would be nice if the player was backward compatible and could play DVDs, as long as the backward-compatibility doesn't compromise the quality of the new format.

I would also suggest that there not be unskippable FBI (and other) warnings on this new format like there are on DVDs. Unskippable warnings do nothing to stop piracy. They only annoy people who purchased the discs legally.

 

[Eric F]

I'd like to throw my support behind the idea of having a regular dvd version on the HD discs at the beginning. What I've learned from the sacd dvd-audio war is that if dvd-audio discs would have had a cd layer, the war would be over. Sony promised us hybrid discs but has not delivered. Putting both versions on dual sided discs eliminates dual inventory, allows people that don't want to upgrade to still be able to play the discs, and it makes it easier for the format to be accepted.

Ok, someone finally gets my point.
You have to remember that we're mostly well informed folks here, and most of us are willing to pay for the bleeding edge if we can afford it. But Joe Shmoe is going to be very apprehensive of a new format that needs a new TV and new player to really see the difference. If he could have the new discs play on his old machine, it would be easier to get him to pony up for a new one. One less purchase he has to make.
You folks do realize that the average size TVs in the US are 27" and smaller, right? If we want this format to have mass market acceptance we might have to make a few sacrifices in the beginning. DVDs had no huge sacrifices because the technology was pretty much there to begin with: You could see and hear the difference on current TVs and stereos.
Most folks haven't even heard of SACD or DVD-A much less buying them. Ask the guy in the street if they need better sound than comes from a CD and I bet most will answer "No". I fear this could be the fate of a HD-DVD format. Only having D-VHS to compete with, selling at prices of $40+ per title, very slow to catch on...
Anyone remember DCC?

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

There's a good article at http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020829S0062 which explains what Toshiba's proposal is and how it relates to DVD and Blu-Ray. There's also a link early in the story to a similar article that was written when Blu-Ray first made the news in February.

 

[Scott_G]

I've got a Toshiba HDTV and toshiba DVD. I love the idea of one upgrade to DVD-HD.

Count me in for Toshiba.

 

[John Berggren]

I'm not sure why there would need to be an SD layer on an HD-DVD to allow non HDTV users to use HD-DVD. It would be unlikely that standard DVD would go away right away. The two formats would likely coexist for several years.

Why would someone with a Standard Definition set buy HDDVD? Therefore, why should their needs be caterred to in the spec?

Backwards compatibility on the HARDWARE. Not on the software.

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

You're right, John. There are slightly more than 100 million "TV households" according to Nielsen, and many of them have multiple TVs. In the future a significant number of households may have a single HDTV but it's unlikely that a household will replace all of its bedroom TV sets with HDTV. The FCC recently mandated that all TV sets have digital TV tuners by 2007, but that does not mean that the 27" sets will become HDTV. They will be able to display HDTV format video, but only after downconverting the video to DVD-like SD resolution. HD-DVD would be a waste on these TVs. So regular DVD remains a viable product for a long time to come. DVD will become the new VHS while HD-DVD becomes the new deluxe videophile format.

When Toshiba says their proposal is backward compatible, they mean that they're using the same lens on the laser and the same disc substrate thickness (two 0.6mm substrates bonded back to back) as DVD. The makes it easier to build a player which can play both HD-DVD and DVD. And apparently the same style of disc manufacturing can leverage existing DVD pressing machinery. It seems that yes they could bond a HD-DVD side with a DVD side to make a hybrid double-sided disc but I don't see why they would want to.

Blu-Ray uses a different lens than DVD. And they put the substrate just 0.1mm beyond the surface, which explains why they want to put the disc in a cartridge. This does not mean that they can't make a Blu-Ray player that can also play DVD, but it would be difficult and therefore more expensive.

I'm not concerned about the lower disc capacity of Toshiba's proposal. The read-only version has 15GB on a single layer and 30GB on dual layer, and I think 30GB is enough for a three hour movie. No, it won't be 28.2 Mbps like D-VHS, but using VBR it would average about 22 Mbps and the transfer rate of the disc could allow the bitrate to peak even higher than D-VHS when the scene needs it.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

I have some examples of what Enhanced Widescreen HD-DVD could bring to home theater on my website.
Click here for Enhanced HD-DVD examples.
Hope this explains things well enough.
Dan

 

[John Berggren]

I strongly doubt you'll see 2.35 enhancement built into the HD-DVD spec. Their majority of their target audience will own 16x9 HDTV monitors.

However small the bars would be, why would you windowbox a 2.35 transfer on the majority of monitors showing it?

I would tend to disagree with this.

 

[Brenton]

I strongly doubt you'll see 2.35 enhancement built into the HD-DVD spec. Their majority of their target audience will own 16x9 HDTV monitors.

However small the bars would be, why would you windowbox a 2.35 transfer on the majority of monitors showing it?

A 2.35:1-enhanced transfer of a 2.35:1 film would look the same on a 16:9 as a 16:9-enhanced transfer of a 2.35:1 film. The difference would be that if 2.35:1 TVs are someday released (crossing my fingers), you will be able to view a 2.35:1 film full height while a 1.85:1 film would be slightly "pillarboxed". A 1.33:1 film (TV program?) would be even more pillarboxed. You would only notice the difference on a 2.35:1 TV (that is, assuming your HD-DVD player is configured correctly).

If any potential HD-DVD studios are listening, I hope they take 2.35:1-enhancement into consideration.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

2.35:1 televisions will never, ever happen, definately not in our lifetimes. It's just not practical. For one thing, small tube sets of the ratio are virtually impossible to produce on an economical level, and small tube sets are what make the most money. Live and love 16:9 enhancement, configure your projector so that you don't have black bars, and deal. Otherwise, buy a 35mm projector, get yourself some prints and go home happy.

The idea behind this is so that the studios can make one disc to sell to both the DVD people and the HD-DVD people. That way, when the DVD people upgrade to HD, many of their current discs that were purchased with the dual-format already initiated will be able to be viewed in HD.

Again, not going to happen. They want to sell it to you again.

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

Adding the HD-DVD side to DVDs would increase their cost, which isn't fair to the people who are not and may never be interested in HD-DVD. I can agree with the idea of selling hybrid discs for the benefit of those who want to start their HD-DVD collection before they buy the necessary hardware, or so they can still play the disc in the old DVD player hooked up to the old TV in the bedroom, but only in addition to standard DVDs, not as a replacement.

 

[Brenton]

2.35:1 televisions will never, ever happen, definately not in our lifetimes. It's just not practical. For one thing, small tube sets of the ratio are virtually impossible to produce on an economical level, and small tube sets are what make the most money.

One question: is it feasible to manufacture plasma flat screen TVs in that ratio? If so, then if flatscreen and front-projection TVs begin to arise as the primary widescreen HD-ready TV, then I can imagine that a 2.35:1 television to be introduced. But it can't happen if there isn't the media to view with it.

They way I see it, it may not hurt to get our media format prepared for it in case it happens, instead of have a library full of 16:9-enhanced HD-DVDs when (if) the new TVs are introduced. Anyways, 2.35:1 TVs are not even a remote possibility if we don't have 2.35:1-enhanced HD-DVDs.

-Brenton-

 

[Joe Schwartz]

There is NO point in producing a supposed High Definition DVD format by increasing the compression ratio, that is completely against what HIGH FIDELITY is all about and why we are here discussing an improved format.

I disagree. I think the ideal HD-DVD format would increase the compression ratio in addition to increasing the physical storage capacity and throughput. For instance, why not combine MPEG-4 compression with a blue laser? There's no need to limit ourselves to MPEG-2 compression.

 

[Bjoern Roy]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but stumbled across the discussion on 2.35:1 enhancement in the last few posts here.
2.35:1 enhancement on HD material doesn't make any sense. On standard definion DVD, it would be an interesting option, though.
At first sight, it might sound desirable. But this is only from a theoretical perspective that COMPLETELY misses the reality of HD telecine and compression technology, both of today and of the near-mid future.

 

[Joshua Moran]

You know recording option doesn't mean much to me, it would be nice and all but I don't put my purchasing decision behind it. I agree that the new HD-DVD players need to be backward compatible, to make the current DVD's totally obsolete would be asinine. Toshiba's format seems the best to me since it uses less compression and would benefit better picture quality from that. Lets just hope our voices are heard, that only one format should be made available.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

To John Berggren and others:
Enhanced Widescreen HD-DVD's can easily be a reality. All it takes is some digital manipulation, which is already done in the telecine process to fit a Super35 or "scope" 2.35:1 image into a 1.78:1 frame during transfer with the proper geometric shape.
The in-player downconversion with quality scaling would bring this squeezed image back to what it would look like without any enhancement on a 1.78:1 HDTV, with the same loss in resolution for 70mm and wider scope & Super35 films. The same thing happens to anamorphically enhanced standard DVDs for 4:3 ratio TVs.
What we are proposing with 2.35:1 enhancement is that on a properly set up digital front projector with de-squeezing anamorphic lens (this is a reality right now, not an impossible dream) you will have a MUCH bigger image and a 2.35:1 ratio picture using the full 1920 x 1080 resolution with far greater detail and clarity.
Obviously, with 2.0:1 to 2.20:1 ratio films being windowboxed and 2.55:1 to 2.76:1 ratio films slightly letterboxed within this new 2.35:1 frame you still wouldn't be using the entire 1920 x 1080 resolution, but still much more than by current letterboxing methods on HD transfers. And besides, 2.35:1 ratio films are far greater in number than those other ratios.
Those with 1.78:1 TVs would be losing nothing, while 1.78:1 paneled front projector owners would be gaining a great deal more.
The whole point of 70mm and scope pictures is to have a BIGGER picture than 1.33:1 to 1.85:1 ratio films. Now we could have it. Currently, the exact opposite is true.
Dan
Click here for Enhanced HD-DVD examples.

 

[Bjoern Roy]

No one said its not technically possible, Dan.

Yet, in reality, it doesn't make a lot of sense to increase the resolution beyond square pixeled 1080p.

Why? Well. Increasing the resolution beyond 1080p by doing 2.35:1 enhance HD, would only make sense if the resolution would currently actually be a limit to the frequency response of HD content. But it isn't. Not by a long shot.

The actual frequency response of todays HD material is SO far off a flat 1920x1080 pixels, that its not funny. Same is true for DVD material in regard to 720x480 pixels, btw.

And storing that limited frequency response in a higher resolution simply is a waste of time, bits and effort. To improve the PQ of HD, you need to fight the actual reasons for the mediocre frequency response and get it closer to flat.

So what might these reasons be?

1) Bitrate. HD material, even at the higher bitrate of D-Theater or the proposed HD-DVD specs, has a higher 'relative' compression ratio than DVD! And even on DVD, the bitrate doesn't allow for anything close to a flat frequency response. A higher bitrate would allow less pre-filtering.

2) Current HD telecine. Not even a D5 master has a flat frequency response, although it DOES have the bitrate to handle it. The reason is the 2k scan process with its anti-alias filters and the inevitable aperture effect of the sensors. Once all transfers are done at 4k, this will get better. 2) is nowhere nearly as important as 1), though.

So, ss long as bitrate is as puny for HD, as it is now and appears to be with HD-DVD, i think 2.35:1 enhancement is waste of time.

Flat 480p is amazing, acutally closer in frequency response to current broadcast HD than to DVD! No kidding.

Flat 1080p would be so unbelievably spectacular that people would drop dead.

Thats just the way it is. Asking for 2.35:1 enhanced HD is tuning at the wrong end.

Regards
Bjoern

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

The whole point of scope pictures is to provide a big wide screen for a big wide auditorium. How many living rooms are proportioned to allow a 2.35:1 screen on the wall and an appropriate viewing distance so you don't have to turn your head like you're watching a tennis match?

Consider that the size of the windowbox for viewing 1.33:1 on a 2.35:1 screen is the same size as the letterbox for viewing 2.35:1 on a 1.33:1 screen. In either case 43% of the screen will be black. You'll probably disagree on the relevance of displaying 1.33:1 material, but 1.78:1 is a damn good compromise, it's within a few scanlines of matching 1.85:1 and almost exactly midway between 1.33:1 and 2.35:1.

While you're wishing, why wish for anamorphic 2.35:1? Why not wish for an actual higher resolution on 2.35:1, such as 2400x1080?