Both HP and Dell committed to supporting Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Jacobson]

On doom9.net there is a link to an article stating that (quoted from doom9)

 

[Johnny G]

That's great news!

I haven't read much about the format that the DVD Forum agreed upon so tell me if I'm wrong but if they intend to use a disc with a similar capacity to current DVDs (less than say 50Gb or so) and use compression to fit HD material on, (mpeg4 or whatever), it is just pointless upgrading.

How many other major DVD player manufacturers are not on this list? I can only think of Toshiba & Philips (I think Panasonic are part of Matsushita). Obviously there are lots of other smaller companies (Sanyo, Apex, Bush etc etc)

 

[Joe Schwartz]

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD both have about 4 times the storage capacity of DVD -- about 20 GB per layer. HD-DVD sounds more attractive to me because it will likely use better compression than Blu-Ray (MPEG4 or WM9 vs MPEG2).

 

[Johnny G]

I was under the impression Blu Ray had a larger capacity due to the finer laser and hence needing less compression ie much greater than 20 GB per layer which isn't that much more than DVD when you consider the difference of uncompressed HD vs standard video.

Are you saying MPEG2 may be used by Blu Ray or the DVD Forum's disc because I haven't seen MPEG4 myself but know someone who has worked on it & they say it is appalling.

 

[Kristoffer]

+
I like blu-ray..but come on better region coding! I really hope these can be craked eventualy. I don't want a plyer that can only play pal!

 

[Joe Schwartz]

The last I read, Blu-Ray is still using MPEG2, and HD-DVD will probably use WM9 or H.264 (an extension of MPEG4). These newer codecs are roughly twice as efficient as MPEG2 -- they can provide equal quality at about half the bitrate, which effectively doubles the storage capacity.

 

[oscar_merkx]

I would have thought that Region Coding would be a thing of the past.

Too bad

 

[KylePete]

I thought that all the Blu-Ray group had to do was simply add a decoder (or encoders in their post-production houses) in their systems for WM9 to make it compatible. That's not hard at all is it?

It's not like their absolutely bound to MPEG-2, right?

Kyle

 

[Johnny G]

FROM THE DIGITAL BITS:

 

[Kristoffer]

Well the article from the bits is interesting! I had a few questions which I mailed them about.
What resolution was it ( 1080i or 1080p ) and if they had heard anything more about sound formats.

 

[Johnny G]

I really can't see the point of demoing such a high quality format on a 42" screen, the best DVDs already look as good as a screen that size can look to the human eye.

If you consider the picture below of a 9 foot screen was taken with a digital camera at 2160x1440 & scaled down using photoshop to 800x533 (ie not showing it as good as it actually looks), I would think a screen of around at least 60" is needed to show a drastic improvement over DVD.

 

[Adam Horak]

I completely disagree Johnny. My current display is 47" and I see a DRASTIC differnce between HD and DVD. I've seen very significant differences on smaller screens as well.

 

[Johnny G]

what source are you using for DVD?

 

[Adam Horak]

I use either a Panasonic XP30 or a HTPC. I am using a MyHD card to get OTA HD reception. HD shows considerably more detail that even the best DVDs on my screen.

 

[Johnny G]

which software do you run DVDs on your PC?

 

[Adam Horak]

I've used TheaterTek and WinDVD. This is getting pretty off-topic, so if you want to continue this discussion, drop me a PM.

 

[Sean Moon]

Personally I think this is all bad news, as I smell a format war coming, which is the one thing we definitely DO NOT want to happen.

 

[Johnny G]

OK forget getting the best out of DVD but what I'm saying is standing close enough to a 42" to see the difference isn't going to do the format any favors, you'll see the pixels on the plasma, wheres a bigger display would show the difference much better from a distance that you'd be looking at the picture & not the make up of the screen.

As far as disc capacity, for a resolution around 5 times greater than the current video standard, I think a storage of at least 5 times current DVD is needed to save using more compression than currently. This is achieved with Blu Ray but with HD-DVD at more or less half the capacity, I'd be inclined to go with the "bigger" disc.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Johnny,

With the preliminary specifications of Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD (no longer known as AOD), irrespective of disc capacity, HD-DVD looks like the winner so far from a technical standpoint.

Blu-Ray:

Outdated, inefficient MPEG-2 with 1080p resolution gobbling up the data capacity and bitrate. (There is absolutely no reason to go with MPEG-2 when there are more than a handful of super sophisticated codecs to go with today-- post production houses have had the capability to play with many different video codecs for quite some time).

Full bitrate DTS as the highest possible sound quality. No provisions for DSD and/or PCM multi-channel so far.


HD-DVD:

Higher efficiency MS's Corona (WM9) or H.264 (improved MPEG-4 offshoot) with 1080p resolution at average video bitrates at around 15 Megabits/sec.

DVD-Audio quality, high resolution PCM multi-channel soundtracks.

DTS and/or Dolby Digital for backwards compatibility.


HD-DVD comes off as DVD-Audio with HD video added in, which I'm all for. You get the best of both worlds until they come up with an even better HD A/V format.

Dan

 

[Johnny G]

Thanks Dan,

Like I said, I haven't read much about the format and you've just educated me.

I'd heard from someone that worked with MPEG4 that it looked like shite but if there are further improved codecs, that will do for me.