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

[Joshua Moran]

Personally I think to limit people to a 2.35:1 TV at this point in time is unfeasible their are to many Aspect Ratio's being used where as 16x9 can compensate for viewing of multiple aspect ratios. Of course I could be wrong in my understanding of a 2.35:1 TV.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

still think that putting in backwards compatible layers in order to be playable in both machines IS A MISTAKE.
The HD-DVD player should be backwards compatible with today's DVD standard, NOT THE DISC ITSELF.
Here we talk about wanting the best possible audio and video on this next generation disc, and yet we bicker about DUMBING DOWN THE FORMAT already.
The entire bandwidth should be used for the best audio and video presentation technology can give us. That would be true 1080p (no filtering) and uncompressed or lossless compressed high resolution PCM or DSD (hopefully with more than just 6 channel discrete). A DTS or DD track for backwards compatibility with today's electronics. If there is room left over then they can add a few supplements.

Dan is right on.
Bjoern, I get what you're saying about how good Flat 1080P can look (why it's part of the HD-DVD petition). However, D-Cinema will have "anamorphic" 2.35:1 digital projection...why not the home-theater as well? If the theater gets full vertical resolution from the digital matrix why shouldn't the copy that I buy?
In any case...
What's the point of getting 1 HD-DVD format if it's not done right???
We already have a petition going stating the importance of audiophile-quality audio (like MLP and 24/192 PCM) that also stresses the importance of unfiltered 1080P encoded signals. You don't realize it right now...but all your DVDs are not really 480 resolution...they are PRE FILTERED in the studio to minimize aliasing on interlaced TVs. If they weren't, your 480-progressive scan DVD player would produce results that would blow-you away (why the 480P output from many HD tuners blows away the 480P DVD image). Do you want the same pre-filtered crap with HD-DVD movies??? (p.s. it takes no more space to store a "film" based signal in "1080P" vs "1080I"...the only increase for unfiltered signals would be that required for improved compression of the added visible detail.)
All filtering for interlaced displays should be peformed in the playback hardware and NOT encoded on the software/disc.
If you take your HD-DVD seriously then post the link to the peition along side the unified format logo!
Link:
http://www.petitiononline.com/cehddvd/petition.html

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

What about a 2.10:1 HDTV? That is the middle ground between 1.85 and 2.35, right? 1.85 + 2.35 = 2.1 Sound logical to me and Spock!
Hmmm, tricky stuff! :frowning:
Gordy

 

[Jacob_isham]

You guys can speak for yourselfs. But i want a format war (or at least i dont care if there is one), one format will end up being what everyone buys eventually. The only people that get stung by a format war are the early adopters, who generally have money to burn anyway. By the time I and many other people are ready to move from DVD to a new format, one of the formats would have won out. Competition is what pushes the technology, so we all end up with a better format in the end. The studios will always find a way to screw you over in the end, somthing like this isnt worth worrying about.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

one last thought about the whole "2.35:1 anamorphic HD" thing...

This does not in any way require 2.35:1 televisions. Just as the better Sony 4x3 TVs now offer a 16x9 "squeeze" which *really* improves picture quality when viewing 16x9 discs. so could any CRT-based HDTVs do a 2.35:1 "sqeeze" with 20x9 HD material.

Also, many front projection technologies would be very well suited to accomodating this. Right now many people with CRT projections use PCs to scale the image to the suitable resolution depending on aspect ratio and then adjust the H/V raster of the guns to project the proper aspect ratio...maximizing resoluion at the same time. With digital projectors, users are already using anamorphic lenses to "unsqeeze" a 2.35:1 aspect ratio with 4x3 and 16x9 chip-based projectors with amazing results even with just DVD software as the basis of the image. How much better it could be!!!

-dave

 

[Joe Bernardi]

The TOSHIBA blue laser, backward compatible, recordable format definitely gets my vote.

I think we need to hold off on talk of 2.10 or 2.35 monitors until we first get the majority of broadcasts in widescreen, preferably hi-def format. I think any change from the current widescreen HDTV format is AT LEAST 10-15 years away.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Sorry Jacob, but I have to disagree. You think they'd learn from the 'Betamax' wars. The better format DID NOT win out in the end, and in the beginning, even with just two formats available, the smarter people that did their research before buying and selected Beta, ended up with a huge paperweight.

Glenn

 

[DaViD Boulet]

If issues like 20x9 encoding (for 2.35:1 films), 1080-progressive encoding (without pre-filtering), MLP and 24/192 multi-channel audio etc. are not discusses and written into the standard to start with, there is little to no chance that they could/would be added later.

When DTS dropped the ball getting their spec together for DVD's roll-out and came to the table a year after it's introduction, it was a huge mess...some players were DTS compatible...others not... That was actually an amazing success story but it only happened because the DVD forum *knew* that DTS *would* be added and had left the format with an open-ended flag that could be utilized once the spec was finalized. If they don't incorporate and plan for 20x9 aspect ratios, 1080P, and all the rest, they can't be retro-fitted onto the format once large-scale penetration has taken place.

And the problem is that while HD-DVD will have the dramatic gains to warrant a whole new format being introduced along side SD-DVD...it would be near impossible to replace one HD-DVD format with another that offers 24/192 mulit-channel sound as it's distinguishing advantage.

-dave

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Whoa nelly!

Nobody (least of all me) said you need a 2.35:1 ratio TV to view these "enhanced" discs, nor do you have to INCREASE the resolution beyond 1920 x 1080p (yes, I want unfiltered 1080p as the standard as well) for it to work.

What I'm (and some others are) saying is that a 2.35:1 movie (as one example given since that's the most common super wide ratio) currently does not receive the full 1920 x 1080 pixel array due to letterbox bars being introduced into the 1.78:1 HDTV ratio. With 20x9 (as some people call it-- although, I'm not sure of the exact ratio for a 2.35:1 image squeezed into a 1.78:1 frame) telecine enhancement added to the 1080 spec. you would finally allow these super wide ratio movies to get the same amount of resolution as normal 1.78:1 HD material.

1.33:1 and 1.66:1 would still be windowboxed with no 20x9 enhancement and 1.85:1 would still be slightly letterboxed with no enhancement (given the fact it's so close to 1.78:1), just 2.0:1 and above ratios would call for it.

Yes, over on the AVS Forum there are members right now that do pseudo scaling in order to do just what I'm getting at. However, that does not gain you any resolution, just a blow up. What this proposal is doing is actually giving back resolution that wide ratio films have been robbed of up to now.

Since the HD-DVD spec would be, in many ways, new they can most certainly add lossless compressed 24 bit/96 kHz (or more) PCM resolution audio (at up to 8 channel discrete) to the spec. if they would only listen to us.

Dan

 

[Bill Hunt]

Just an update for all of you on the HD-DVD: One Format Only campaign. As of 9/5, the following websites have officially joined the effort:
The Cinema Laser
The Digital Bits
Digitally Obsessed
DVD Angle
The DVD Cyber Center
DVD File
DVD Insider
DVD Review
DVD Talk
The Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Talk
IGN DVD
Obi's Reviews
This effectively represents a majority of the major members of the online DVD community. Many other smaller sites have added the logo to their home pages as well, and we expect a few other major sites to be added soon.
The official campaign website is now online, with the basic details of what the campaign is about, a list of the member sites and links to additional reading material. There are also campaign logos available for download for general website and print use (in .jpg and .psd formats). We would appreciate it if ALL of you who have added the logo to your sites would change the link to the official site: www.dvdsite.org
Also, a story about the campaign should appear in Video Store magazine in the coming days, featuring interviews with a few of the webmasters involved in the effort.
And that's where we stand as of today. Not bad for one week. If anyone has suggestions for other sites that may wish to be involved, ideas for plans of action, etc, we'd love to hear them.
One note... until we learn more about the different proposed specs, we'll probably wait before endorsing one in particular. We want to make sure we all agree on this. I don't want to speak for the other webmasters, although I think the general consensus is that a blue-laser based format that will be backward-compatible will all existing DVD software is the best starting point.
We'll keep you all up to date, and be sure to visit the new campaign website for all the latest. Best wishes and thanks for all your support!

 

[oscar_merkx]

Bill
congratulations on getting the ball rolling

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Bill,
can you please post a link to the HD-DVD petition on your site and urge other sites to do the same? Just as important as getting ONE HD-DVD format is getting the RIGHT HD-DVD format.
(see signature for link)
What's the point of getting all hyped for one format only to end up with filtered HD video (to minimize aliasing on interlaced-limited displays) with audio that's still inferior to laserdisc and DVD-audio? Not to mention those crappy ATARI 2600-resolution subtitles...
The petition address all these issues and they should be pushed now and pushed hard while the format and it's specifications are being decided.
-dave

 

[Joe Schwartz]

As I understand it, MPEG compression tends to lose high-frequency information, similar to JPEG compression. The higher the compression, the higher the "filtering" effect. This can't be avoided, but it can be adjusted by using a higher bitrate (less compression) and/or a more efficient codec (like MPEG-4).

I haven't seen any evidence that additional filtering is done to minimize aliasing on interlaced displays.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Hey Joe,
I'm not talking about the filtering applied to aid in compression...although it's good to minimize that too (like SB Sony DVDs). Have you every watched 480 progressive that has been downconverted from an HD source you have in your system (ie, not by the studio)? You'd be amazed. Owners of the old Sony 400Q 16x9 LCD (which had 480 vertical resolution) were stunned when they first hooked up the 1080I feed from their HD tuners to the projector...which downconverted to 480 progressive. The reason they were stunned was because how incredibly crisp, detailed, and sharp the HD images were (even those from film sources) compared to the 480P signal from DVD.
Theoretically there should have been no difference since both images were being displayed at 480P resolution and (when comparing Columbia DVDs) Sony/Tristar takes the 1080P master and downconverts to 480 for you in the studio vs letting the projector handle the chore. But the differences are there and are dramatic...which means that something is being lost when the studio downconverts to 480P that's being preserved when the projector did the downconversion.
The reason that this is the case is that a "vertical detail filter pass" is run on almost every 480 standard-definition signal before it is compressed for DVD. The reasons are 2-fold:
1. To aid in compression since every detail you remove is one that you won't have to spend bit-rate compressing (horizontal frequencies are also filtered for this reason) which is what you mentioned.
and
2. This is applied as standard practice to almost all 480 resolution signals to minimize aliasingon 480I displays. In fact, this practice has been such a part of our NTSC history that it's usually just part of what the equipment does when a 480 signal is being produced for DVD...no one has "think" to do it on purpose (much the same way ringing or "EE" seem to emerge in DVD transfer after transfer while the studios continue to deny that they've added any).
Essentially "480" signals are not mastered to optimize them for 480-Progressive display at all....they are by routine "downconverted" or degraded to be optimized for 480I playback.
That's why the HD-downconverted signal in the 480P projector blew away the direct 480P image from the DVD mastered from the same HD signal in the studio.
This is common practice and there's no debate about whether this is done or not.
From what I understand the DVD of Titanic (that 4x3 lxbed crap) was NOT vertically filtered for aliasing on interlaced displays...and therefore has almost as much perceptible detail as many "normal" 16x9 discs.
-dave

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Okay, here's my minimum standard for HD-DVD (and the disc media used would have to have the bandwidth and capacity to handle it-- if it takes multiple discs then so be it):
100% OAR, 100% of the time!!!!
NO EDGE ENHANCEMENT!!!!
Fully unfiltered 1920 x 1080p resolution at professional grade component levels so no signal upsampling is necessary (no chroma bug could then be introduced and the colors would pop).
The best video compression algorithm available that allows for high frequency picture detail to be retained.
Mandatory MLP encoded, up to 8 channel discrete PCM for the primary soundtrack with at least 24 bit/96 kHz resolution on all channels (192 kHz support would be wonderful).
Smooth, higher rez. fonts for subtitles. And subtitles must stay in the picture frame.
-------------
2.35:1 enhancement would be icing on the cake! http://www.digitaldreamtheaters.com...ced%20HDDVD.htm
Extras should be secondary to quality audio and video.
Dan

 

[Anders Englund]

Link Removed now has the logo added.
--Anders

 

[Brian-W]

I'm probably one of the few holdouts, but I think the Blu-Ray version not only is the better format, but stands a greater chance of DVD-Forum acceptance.
The Toshiba-NEC standard allows for 15GB per single-sided, double layered disc. The Blu-Ray allows for 27GB per single-sided, single layered disc. Going single sided, double layered, you have 54GB of storage vs. the second proposed introduction of 40GB by Toshiba-NEC. I got this information from the respective press releases from each company.
Just going by the storage offered, the Blu-Ray offers the best chance at maximum storage using minimum compression.
In regards to backward compatibility, I have two views on this. One, regardless of the display device, the player (and/or external decoder) should down/up convert to any resolution (480i/480p/720p/1080i/1080p). Second, I don't care about backward compatibility for one reason: I already have a 480i/p DVD player in my possession.
I used to own a video game store, and many of the customers would complain every time a new game system came out that "it doesn't play my old games." What they all failed to realize is that a) they already have a system to play their old games and don't need a second that plays them and b) very rarely did they want to play their old games to begin with. This is an apples and oranges comparison, but one that has some substance. If you already own a DVD player (current), other than taking up another space on the equipment rack, there's not a big need for a new generation to be backwards compatible.
I'm not against a backwards compatible unit, and would prefer a unit that is capable. But at the expense of ultimate disc capacity, I'll live without backwards compatibility.
Having said that, I'm for the Blu-Ray standard.

 

[Todd Hochard]

I'm for Blu-Ray. Toshiba's proposal doesn't have enough storage on a dual-layered disc, IMO. We'll end up with more compromises at the HD level, than we have currently with DVD at the SD level.
I'm still curious to see what Warner can do with their "experiment," though. I'm not convinced it'll look good enough, but I would like a look-see.
Things I DON'T think we'll see-
1. Unfiltered video. Unless the market moves to 1080p displays (which I doubt), there'll be no good reason to go with this. Only a select few (us) would benefit, while everyone else suffers, so to speak. Massive interline flicker still looks like a** at 1080i- I've seen it.
2. Uncompressed multichannel audio- this blows the bit budget. I'm speaking of the streaming budget. If I have a 36mbps peak rate, do I want to run sustained 15mbps, just for audio? This doesn't make any sense. Next-gen dts-es or DD at 2-4mbps perhaps.
Todd

 

[Lewis Besze]

I'm also for Blue Ray.
We have to endorse a format that has more storage capacaty now that we could use, for future needs.
I also vote for MLP as the audio standard,though Todd brings up a good point with bandwith.

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

I don't agree with the dismissal of the need for backward compatibility. Movies on DVD are not like video games. When a new video game system comes along, nobody wants to play the old games, but I don't feel that way about the movies in my DVD collection. Yeah HD is going to look so much better, but I've got plenty of DVDs that I still want to be able to watch but will not be on my "must upgrade to HD" list. And if some day in the future my DVD player breaks and I have to buy a new one, that could be an opportunity to make the upgrade to HD-DVD, but I won't be able to do that if HD-DVD players can't play DVDs. I don't want the whole consumer electronics industry to take the same attitude toward backward compatibility as they already have with video games and computers.