DVD Forum will select HD-DVD laser and spec in March...act NOW! (1 Viewer)

[Alistair_M]

I was surprised at how low the bitrates are on certain recent dvds I have bought - both goldmember and XXX had very low bitrates 2.5-3.5 over whole chunks of the movie. And yet these movies were highly rated in terms of picture quality and sharpness. DVD encoding is getting better and better.

I would wait until we see what high def looks like on dvd9. It may surprise us.

However I do subscribe to the conspiracy theory that hollywood wants to sell us the same movies MANY times over over the next 20 years.

SD DVD
SD DVD Special Edition Deluxe Edn
HD DVD Red laser (low bitrate, 720)
HD DVD Blue Laser (high bitrate, 720)
HD DVD Blue Laser (high bitrate 1080) etc etc

Personally if I was in the movie indusry with my make money hat on - that is exactly what I would do. It makes no sense to them to give us a 1080 based product now. The smart business decision for them will be to make it 'good enough' to coax us to upgrade...but stop you from being totally satisfied so they can sell you the movie again in 5 years time in the next iteration in quality.

 

[Alistair_M]

Another point for folks in Blighty (UK).

If they go for a red laser product - can we use our existing dvdrom drives (which are red-laser already) in our pcs? - all we would have to do is install the new codec and we could watch HD-DVD on our pcs and laptops? I think this is a good tempory solution for us Europeans as we don't have Hi def at all.

If true - then I would buy hd-dvd versions of my fav films eg Lord of the Rings, Excalibur, Blade Runner etc....

 

[Chris*Liberti]

I want limited compression and a technology that has enough disc space to offer uncompresses or slightly compressed DVD-A quality sound with atleast 7 channels (6 plus a LFE) with room for future expansion in the codec. I also would prefer to have a disc like what is proposed for one of the blu-ray specs where it looks almost like an old DVD-RAM disc (with the outer holder)

 

[Joe Schwartz]

There is a chance that what is meant by "low-bit-rate codec" really means "newer, more efficient codec than old-fashioned MPEG2".

Yes, I think that's precisely what it means. It's a good thing that the DVD Forum is evaluating newer and better codecs than MPEG-2. Any of these codecs would work with a red-laser or a blue-laser system (although we'd certainly prefer the latter for its higher capacity and bitrate).

 

[Jeff Kohn]

I think the best overall compromise would be the Toshiba blue-laser, using MPEG-4 or some other newer codec, so that we can get video quality even better than D-VHS (which uses 28Mb MPEG-2). And the new players need to be made backwards-compatible with SD-DVD, failing to do so would be a big mistake IMHO. That rules Blu-Ray out, from what I've read so I really think the Toshiba spec is the way to go.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

However, what if the Blue Ray disc format is the better technology when it finally gets released? Remember, this camp is not under the DVD Forum's thumb. Perhaps they would add better audio quality into the mix rather than sticking with DTS and Dolby Digital (both lossy compression schemes).

I really like the fact that Blue Ray has more capacity (using dual layered discs) and the disc is protected in a caddy.

I can see unprotected Toshiba/NEC discs having far more problems with dust, scratches, fingerprints, etc. since the pit length is even smaller than DVD and it has no protection. You definitely wouldn't want to use those for the rental market since standard DVDs already get a beating and have a short shelf life.

Dan

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

However, what if the Blue Ray disc format is the better technology when it finally gets released? Remember, this camp is not under the DVD Forum's thumb. Perhaps they would add better audio quality into the mix rather than sticking with DTS and Dolby Digital (both lossy compression schemes).

The best technology in the world will be useless if you can't create a market big enough to make the releases on it profitable. And bulky cartridge encased discs that would mean jumping through hoops to ensure backwards compatibility at all may not pull that off. The disc space on the Toshiba/NEC format is fairly close to that of the BluRay discs. Coupled with the advanced compression codecs, they should still be able to create a standard that would exceed any previous HD format in quality.

 

[Rob T]

1505

 

[DaViD Boulet]

SD DVD
SD DVD Special Edition Deluxe Edn
HD DVD Red laser (low bitrate, 720)
HD DVD Blue Laser (high bitrate, 720)
HD DVD Blue Laser (high bitrate 1080) etc etc

Firstly, "SD DVD" and "SD DVD Special Edituion Deluxe Edn" are all the same format. Whether a studio takes advantage of all the potenial a format has to offer is not what we're talking about. In fact, you've just proved how important it is that the format chosen be capable of great potential so that it *can* be taken advantage of. We wouldn't be able to get nice new 16x9 special-editions with 5.1 DD audio if the current DVD format had not been designed from the start to provide these features and quality.
Secondly, when we *did* get our current SD-DVD format, the industry gave us the absolute BEST it could technically deliver. They weren't intentionally holding-back on a better level of quality they could provide planning on giving it to us a few years down the road to rake in more profits (whether particular STUDIOS did this by releasing shoddy transfers that they new they would re-release is another matter...but the DVD format itself was able to accomodate the very best from day one).
They included things like progressive-scan encoding and 16x9 encoding that less that .01 percent of the population could even take advantage of at the time. Now just 5 years later the majority of HT enthusiasts are enjoying progressive-scan and 16x9 images as the norm.
1080P HD will follow the same pattern if we can get our HD-DVD to be done right. Five years from now most of the HD-enthusiast crowd will be upgrading to their new 1080P HD rear/front projection system for about $5,000 - $10,000. Don't you want all your HD-DVDs to match with that potential? If you're glad that most of your widescreen DVDs were 16x9 when you finally bought your first 16x9 set then you should "get it".
Those of you thinking that HD-DVD is somehow a format that can "evolve" think again. Unless the potential and data-storage is part of the initial format released...that's it. The idea that some of you sound like you're almost *proposing* a beta-VHS war between red v.s. blue-laser is SCARY! Do you want HD-DVD to survive at all...in any form? Then it needs to be ONE format plain and simple. DVD-A and SACD are already floundering along while the audiophile community just stands by and watches. The videophile community...those who care about picture quality and have HD sets...WE are the ones who will make HD-DVD happen. So why not push for the format that is RIGHT from the very start?
Whether a studio chooses to take full advantage of the 1080P potentail and 7-channel 24/192 MLP-compressed audio is not the debate. We still get absolute horrid 4x3 lbxed (or P/S) transfers and bad audio on SD-DVD. But the *potential* is there in the same format for Columbia to do a SB Fifth Element if they want to. We need to make sure that the HD-DVD format *allows* for maxiumum quality as well for those studios that choose to use it.
Every time the specification or disc-format changes you're introcing a completely new format that will not play in previous players. The public will accept being told they have to buy a new DVD player once...to get HD. You can't then tell them 2 years later "oh, you need a new HD-DVD player because there's a new HD-DVD format being released".
This is it people. Unless you want a beta-VHS format war with your HD format and want to see the public confused and the success of the format flounder as a result...this is the time to make sure we get what we should. A high-quality HD picture on a disc that has enough room to sound BETTER than the PCM on your laserdisc and give you commentary and extras all at the same time.
DVD has more problems than being only 480P. Right now the disc producers have to decide if you're going to get better picture, better sound, or extras because they can't do all 3 at the same time (there's always a compromise with bit-space and bandwidth). We can fix all those limitations and get 1080P and 24/192 at the same time if we can get the DVD forum to share our values. Don't *you* share them?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

And bulky cartridge encased discs that would mean jumping through hoops to ensure backwards compatibility at all may not pull that off.

Several DVD recorders (and PC DVD burners) from Panasonic can take either a cartridge disc or a loose disc. Have you seen how the trays work? It seems quite simple.

And the rental stores would love the extra protection a cartridge affords.

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

You're absolutely right, DaViD

 

[WilliamJulien]

My Specs for HD-DVD

Constant data rate of at least 50Mbps
Optional resolution of 2538x1080(2.35)for future displays (player to downconvert).
Progressive playback at 24fps, 30fps, or 60fps.
8.1 channel 24/96 MPL LPCM
Room for at least 2 DTS and/or 6 DD tracks
Able to playback 4 hours at 2538x1080p 24fps and still have room for the equivalent of 2 hours of standard DVD bonus material.
Able to playback over 2.5 hours at 2538x1080p 60fps.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I agree that we should be able to have about 6 hours of footage without sacrificing quality. That should mostly eliminate the need for multidisc sets. They would still be needed for tv shows of course, but it's pointless to put room for much more than 6 hours per as nothing would use except tv shows and multi-movie compilations.

For audio, I'd like to see something higher than DVDs 8-track limit. I would make it easier to do international (or even European) releases. Same for subtitles.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

My Specs for HD-DVD

Constant data rate of at least 50Mbps
Optional resolution of 2538x1080(2.35)for future displays (player to downconvert).
Progressive playback at 24fps, 30fps, or 60fps.
8.1 channel 24/96 MPL LPCM
Room for at least 2 DTS and/or 6 DD tracks
Able to playback 4 hours at 2538x1080p 24fps and still have room for the equivalent of 2 hours of standard DVD bonus material.
Able to playback over 2.5 hours at 2538x1080p 60fps.

And with what technology are you going to acheive this with? Even BluRay can't achieve bitrates at the levels you're talking. Also, why support for a 2.35:1 ratio when no TV will be made at that ratio? All future TVs are 16x9. I don't see that changing. The reason it was picked was because it was the balance between the wide and square. Also, why support for nine channel surround sound when AFAIK there are no mixes made for that that many channels. Don't get me wrong, I want the format to be the best it can be too, but some people's suggestions exist totally outside the realm of reality.

 

[WilliamJulien]

...why support for a 2.35:1 ratio when no TV will be made at that ratio? All future TVs are 16x9. I don't see that changing....

How do you know the future? As a matter of fact right now in the present people are using a 1.78 (DPL) projectors combined with anamorphic lenses to achieve 2.35 ratio on a scope screen. I use an ISCO2 with my 1.33 DILA for 1.78 full panel. When JVC comes out with a 1.78 1080 DILA I plan on upgrading ,keeping my ISCO2 lens, and switching to a 2.35 screen myself. I would love to have 2.35 source with 1080 lines.

 

[Lew Crippen]

quote:
...why support for a 2.35:1 ratio when no TV will be made at that ratio? All future TVs are 16x9. I don't see that changing....
How do you know the future?

Of course no one knows the future, but in this case it is easy to make a reasonable assumption, understanding that front projection may be able to deal with a very wide variety of aspect ratios.

However, when HD was conceived, certain things were agreed upon in order to insure compatibility from a global perspective. One of these agreements was ATSC (in other words good by to the differencing specifications of NTSC, PAL and SECAM). Another was choosing 16:9 as the aspect ratio for telecast, digital TV. 16:9, to expand just a bit on what Adam wrote, works out to an aspect ratio of 1.78:1, a number between 1.85:1 (many U.S. films are in this aspect ratio) and 1.66:1 (many European films are in this aspect ratio). There are, as well some ascetic considerations, but they are not germane for this discussion.

Since 16:9 has been determined to be the worldwide TV standard as we move to digital telecasting, it is not likely that TV displays will be manufactured to accommodate aspect ratios specific to the film industry, such as 2.35:1. Just think how long the 4:3 aspect ratio lasted for TV displays.

I acknowledge that front projection may well accommodate any number of aspect ratios. But to generalize from this very specific case, is an error in logic, as well as ignoring practicality, at least imo.

 

[WilliamJulien]

...Another was choosing 16:9 as the aspect ratio for telecast, digital TV. 16:9, to expand just a bit on what Adam wrote, works out to an aspect ratio of 1.78:1, a number between 1.85:1 (many U.S. films are in this aspect ratio) and 1.66:1...

Actually 1.78 was picked because it is halfway between 2.35 scope and 1.33 Standard (or 1.37 Academy). It is 33% wider than 1.33 and 33% less wide than 2.35.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Actually 1.78 was picked because it is halfway between 2.35 scope and 1.33 Standard (or 1.37 Academy). It is 33% wider than 1.33 and 33% less wide than 2.35.

While that may be so (and how they ratio was originally devised), the reason countries around the world signed off on 16:9 because it was an acceptable compromise between 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 (which Europeon nations had originally been pushing for.)

And Lew conveyed my meaning better than I could. One could (and do) create a 2.35:1 screen using projection based methods. But since conventional direct view television will only be manufactured in 4x3 and 16x9 for the concievable future, it makes little sense to provide support for a format that essentially doesn't exist, except through the provisions of resourceful HT fans.

 

[Joe McKeown]

I hate to be promoting a conspiracy theory here, but wouldn't it be better to go with red-laser DVD and have true high-def on D-VHS? Better for the studios because it has always been a real bitch to work with tapes on PC's for anything more than clips at a time. i.e. harder to pirate a feature length film. Disc players will always be cheaper and more convienent in PC's than tape drives. Currently a (decent) VHS player goes for under $200 whareas a VHS tape unit for Computer use is easily 10 times that. Since D-VHS not currently in use on computers, (and not currently indended) it would be easy to deny the letitmacy of allowing a D-VHS-PC drive and most likely legally defendable. If you can't get a D-VHS attachec to a computer than even the possibility of piracy is eliminated. The only hacker-proof firewall is an air-gap. They would be effectively putting all their high-def content behind an air-gap firewall. any attempt to connect D-VHS to PC would be a clear DMCA violation.
I realize there are more holes in that logic than in a ton of swiss, but I imagine it is the kind of short-sighted carp that the technically incompetent (mpaa) might appreciate.

 

[Grant H]

Not only would the rental places like that the discs didn't get destroyed by careless renters, but I wouldn't have to ship so many of my DVD's back because they were loose and got scratched up by the box during shipping. Sounds good to me.
Frankly, I've been disappointed by the cartridge-less discs for years ever since I saw the encased discs in.Lawnmower Man
I didn't even start buying CD's until I got my first DVD player when I was in college. Maybe it's not as sexy, but it's nice to have protection.:b
If encased discs and naked discs can truly co-exist and it won't add $100 to the price of each player, I say go for it!!