What's new

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

James Morrow

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
107
Microsoft are pushing for HD on red laser products using WMV at around 8Mbps, and I've had a close look at the dozen or so demos of this they've provided on their website. On an identical resolution display (i.e. 1280 by 1024 pixels for the 720p24 demos and 1920 by 1440 pixels for the 1080p24 demos) they look awesome, considering the bitrate. However, it appears that alignment errors - probably an artifact of the motion vector estimation process which is fundamental to WMV and MPeg4 getting down to the low bitrates they were designed for - cause strange "cogging" movements as the camera pans across trees, and other motion artifacts, particularly on natural objects - manmade objects tend to look fine. If these are a consequence of the decisions made to get down to low bitrates, these artifacts may still appear in higher bitrate WMV/MPeg4 because motion vector estimation is still used. MPeg2 doesn't have these artifacts because it doesn't use this compression technology - but then it doesn't go down to single figure Mbitrates either. :rolleyes

Just because MPeg4/WMV are younger than MPeg2 does not make them better. MPeg2 has been steadily improved, and MPeg4/WMV were not designed to producer better quality than MPeg2, just lower bitrates. You can’t just give them more bits and expect them to improve on HD MPeg2 at, say, 28Mbps. Given that high definition capable discs now exist which can easily support over four hours at 24Mbps or so, it would be nice to see codecs optimised for these rates. Maybe even MPeg4/WMV with an "intelligent" tuning process which restricts or adapts the use of motion vector estimation across natural areas? :emoji_thumbsup:

Of course, the best way to compare MPeg2 with MPeg4/WMV is with a large high quality screen at full 1920 by 1080 p24 (or higher) resolution, but not too many people have those yet. It would also best show if the motion vector artifacts present in MPeg4/WMV are better suppressed at higher bitrates than 8Mbps or if the precision of the compression algorithm is not currently sufficient when handling natural objects to provide a convincing impression of stability. :)

The 15, 20, 25 and 30 Mbit tests that John speaks of would show us where we are now, I would guess that a more intelligent use of the MPeg4/WMV algorithms within each image sequence would allow the best of these to avoid such artifacts whilst still delivering a more stable picture than MPeg2 and at a bitrate of around 20Mbps - this would also leave enough room for lossless audio - even Sony's first generation BD recorder could cope with a bitrate of at least 28.6Mbps. ;)
 

Paul.S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2000
Messages
3,909
Location
Hollywood, California
Real Name
Paul
James Morrow et al.:
This is very unlikely. I think your obvious enthusiasm for Blu-ray has you myopically putting the micro hi def optical disc-based home video cart before the macro deal structure horse.

Amongst other things, such a deal structure would very likely dilute a more clear chain of title for the films in a way unacceptable to Sony Pictures Entertainment. Who would then own the distribution and home vid rights to the films? A consortium that may disband in a few years? If a split rights deal, then how are profits to be shared? Typically film rights are owned by a studio, in all media, in perpetuity.

It's not unfathomable, but is highly unlikely and would be unprecedented. All of these issues would have to be haggled over by dozens of $500/hour lawyers. Sony Pictures Entertainment has already faced time-consuming issues in negotiating an acceptable financial structure and exit strategy for its three private equity partners (Texas Pacific Group, Providence Equity and CSFB). This is a large part of the reason the exclusivity window expired without Sony closing the deal. Although we're seeing unprecedented encroachment by private equity in Hollywood dealmaking in recent years (i.e., Philip Anschutz in the exhibition biz, the role private equity played in the WMG acquisition), typically one company partners with money from multiple sources. The Blu-ray consortium bidding for MGM would see multiple companies partnering for an unwieldy deal that could be a rights disaster.

Also, a thread management point if I may be so bold: it seems to me that you could have simply linked people to your post #228 in the "HD-DVD to use WMV Codec" thread as opposed to duplicating all that info. about testing and studies in this thread. TWICE (your post #s 154 and 167 herein are essentially the same).

-p
 

James Morrow

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
107
Hi Paul, I didn't qualify the likelihood of such a multi-company deal, I simply raised the possibility for discussion. That does not mean that I think it is a good idea. I have enthusiasm for what Blu-ray technology can do now and in the future, but I don't care what it's called - note that even Toshiba have described AOD as a stepping stone on the path to Blu-ray. Remember also that the fairly large personal computer wagon needs a rather bigger horse than HD-DVD's 30GB. However, severely compromising a format both in the short and the longer term through a form of backwards compatibility that is of no practical relevance to the consumer seems rather short-sighted to me. :rolleyes

I can point out that the macro deal structure horse is no thoroughbred, but as this thread is about reasons to believe in Blu-ray being the future and, based upon the specifications and development path from a technical viewpoint at least it should be the preferred choice of medium for high definition, etc. - whatever the impact of the demands of the deal structure is. If Blu-ray is adopted by the DVD Forum and renamed HD-DVD who cares as long as we get the best product with the greatest potential? I know that Blu-ray may not "win" and that we may end up with red laser products for high definition and HD-DVD for PC data recording, but at this early stage I'm more interested in understanding which product is preferable from a technical viewpoint than discussing in depth which product we might be saddled with from a commercial and political viewpoint. :eek:

Talking of thread management, as you say, I could have linked people to posts in another thread, but I thought it would be more convenient for people to duplicate - although I might have added a little more information. In retrospect, perhaps I should have duplicated but then also added the link at the bottom. You will have noticed, Paul, that the response to the posting on the "HD-DVD to use WMV Codec" thread was immediately to claim that WMV offered much higher performance than MPeg2 and MPeg4, citing studies by Joe Kane. Whilst I have looked at several dozen reports into studies he has carried out, and test calibration material he has produced which has been used in these studies, I haven't yet seen any comment about the test data using footage of zooming, panning and other movements relative to natural objects such as trees, scrubland, etc. - where the deficiencies of HD WMV material that I have seen are most apparent. :confused:

Until I had more information in this regard (I am waiting for replies to some of my questions) I didn't feel that it would be that helpful to simply quote the Joe Kane demonstrations and close the discussion - I intended to provide the link when things were clarified, but this hasn't yet occurred. I didn't think this mattered in the short term, but I apologize if you think it was a mistake.

Anyway, back to "Why I think BluRay ..... :)
 

Paul.S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2000
Messages
3,909
Location
Hollywood, California
Real Name
Paul
You're apparently apologizing for something (the absence of even more text in the duplicate posts in question) that has nothing to do with the suggestion I'm making (which is that it's unneccessary to have made virtually identical posts of such length three times).

No worries, mate--it's just a point of form that relates to ease of reading/reference by other members.

-p
 

Lee Scoggins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
6,395
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Real Name
Lee


My money is on the Sony team since I have worked before with Texas Pacific Group. They are sharp and tenacious and have oodles of dealmaking experience. They may also have a ceiling price they are willing to pay for the films and may walk away versus a big entertainment conglomerate mentality at Time Warner which could lead to overpaying for the films. The so-called winner's curse....
 

Michael St. Clair

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 3, 1999
Messages
6,001
Ah, so if Sony buys they are smart, if Time Warner wins they overpaid.

Why does this not surprise me...

Regarding WM9/MPEG4/etc, remember that there isn't just the potential advantage of HD at equal or better quality, there is also the benefit of more hours of standard-def material (like an entire season of TV shows on a single disc). I can think of no logical reason to not include multiple codecs, even if 'most people won't tell the difference.'.
 

James Morrow

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
107
Cheers Paul, just to clarify that the type of backwards compatibility that the current HD-DVD offers over Blu-ray has a short-term impact on the production lines - although through lower material costs (using paper in the substrate, etc.) and manufacturing developments the BDF claim to have got disc manufacturing costs down to DVD levels - but a long term impact on the capacity of the disc, 30GB compared to BD's 50GB then 100GB and 200GB. :rolleyes

The type of backwards compatibility more relevant to the consumer is the ability to also play CDs and DVDs. Production BD recorders, of which there is one, all offer this backwards compatibility, and production HD-DVD recorders, no, no sign of any yet, promise it. Both need at least two lasers to achieve it, and both have demonstrated single optical heads which support it. :)

You didn't seriously think that I considered backwards compatibility with CDs and DVDs to be irrelevant Paul? Just because the HD-DVD camp goes on about the importance of backwards compatibility with CDs and DVDs doesn't mean that BD doesn't provide it - Sony have even developed an optical head employing three lasers built on the one substrate, which can support reading and writing of CDs, DVDs and BDs, if required. Whilst there are many press reports which propagate the myth that HD-DVD offers backwards compatibility but BD doesn't, I would hope that all of us in a thread centred upon Blu-ray would be aware of its basic abilities such as this - even the first consumer high definition BD recorder, the Sony BDZ-S77, offered backwards compatibility, and its performance and specifications have been discussed and reviewed many times since it was launched early last year. :emoji_thumbsup:

... and with the threat of red laser HD products, maybe the blue laser groups will come together and combine the marketing of DVD with the ability of BD. As I mentioned before, Toshiba (one of the two developers of AOD/HD-DVD) have stated that AOD is a stepping-stone on the way to BD. But as BD already exists in the marketplace in both 27GB single-layer and now 50GB dual-layer recordable forms, what is the point of stepping backwards on to a stepping-stone you've already jumped across? :wink:
 

James Morrow

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
107
Multiple codecs sound fine to me - the algorithms could even be taken from a set of common resources, which in the case of the motion vector estimation used in MPeg4 and WMV could also potentially be employed to "in-between" non-standard footage. For example, very early films were often shot at around 12fps and hand-cranked, and are often played too quickly when viewed on television. An appropriately adaptive algorithm could generate a more realistic and accurate presentation of such material.

It would be even better if the multiple codecs can also be easily updated as the technology improves. :)
 

Lee Scoggins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
6,395
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Real Name
Lee


Mike, you should work in politics the way you twist people's words. I clearly left open the possibility for Sony to overpay, but I think their team probably has more deal experience amongst them. That's all.

There's a long history of every entertainment firm overpaying for things. One exception was Ted Turner's purchase of the MGM Bond films.
 

Paul.S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2000
Messages
3,909
Location
Hollywood, California
Real Name
Paul
I wasn't sure. I understand a little better now I think. Multi-laser BD players offering BD, CD and SD DVD read/write complicates the picture (in a positive way) a bit.

If we take the blue pill instead of the red, I really want those players to get affordable quickly so I can do something more than just fondle my Spider-Man 3 BD. :)

-p
 

James Morrow

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
107
"Full" high definition is 1920 by 1080 pixels, and whilst many current digital cameras only operate at 1440 by 1080 resolution, scaled to 1920 by 1080, telecined material from film can easily be 1920 by 1080. Microsoft claims that the full resolution demos on its website are true 1920 by 1080 pixel resolution, and when using WMV9 and full screen the controls along the bottom fill the rest of a standard 4:3 1920 by 1440 pixel display.

If material is not true 1920 by 1080 but is scaled, first, the compression algorithm is not working as hard as claimed and, second, many of the registration issues relating to motion vector estimation processes within the codec are likely to be at least partially masked by the spatial filtering required to scale 1440 pixels to 1920. As I stated in an earlier posting, to see how well any algorithm handles high definition material we need both true 1920 by 1080 pixel high definition material and an equivalent resolution display, with a one to one mapping between pixels in the recording and pixels on the display.
 

Brian-W

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
1,149
1440x1080 is the resolution listed in the MS Windows Explorer window when you click the file....
 

James Morrow

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
107
... surely you don't mean that Microsoft's demonstrations of high definition 1080p24 material - that require a 1920 by 1440 pixel display according to the blurb - are not actually true (1920 by 1080 pixel) high definition, but interpolated 1440 by 1080 pixel video, Brian? That would be misleading, at the very least - particularly as the 720p24 material is the correct 1280 by 720 pixels. :wink:

Misleading because:
  1. WMV is therefore not providing 8Mbps from 1920 by 1080 pixels but from just 1440 by 1080 pixels (the equivalent rate for full definition material is roughly 11Mbps, ceteris paribus)
  2. The interpolation required to scale for display from 1440 to 1920 pixels is likely to partially or completely mask the low level registration errors which are probably the most visible artefact of codecs based upon motion vector estimation (such as MPeg4 and WMV)
  3. If one wished to examine the advantages of 1080p material over 720p material, instead of having 50% greater horizontal resolution at 1080p the increase in resolution over 720p is just 12.5%
  4. The reduced horizontal resolution is one thing, but because the data is also scaled up horizontally by 33% this in itself is likely to add artefacts to which the 720p material is not subjected, and the effective horizontal resolution of the 1080p material is probably less than that of the 720p material![/list=1]
    If one was trying to push 720p material and downplay the advantages of (true) 1080p material, whilst at the same time pretending that the demonstrations truly showed a like for like comparison of each format, this would probably be a great way of doing it, but I'm sure that Bill Gates would not misrepresent the abilities of WMV, or allow the deliberate biasing of demonstration material in favour of intermediate definition 1280 by 720p material over high definition 1920 by 1080p material - even if red laser products have a relatively limited capacity compared to blue laser ones when storing 720p material using WMV, let alone full resolution 1080p material... :rolleyes
 

James Morrow

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
107
... for some other issues regarding the Microsoft WMV demos, check out the postings numbered 265 and 266 in the HD-DVD to use WMV Codec thread. :)
 

Jesper

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 17, 1999
Messages
188
Location
Denmark
Real Name
Jesper Nielsen
Disney is supporting MAC/OS now on DVD... Now I am thinking, aren't Apple's codec in use for HD-DVD? :)
 

John Kotches

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2000
Messages
2,635
Jesper:

The royalty pool for H.264/MPEG-4 has a number of parties. Apple and Microsoft are two of the parties that share in the royalties.

Cheers,
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,519
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top