PETITION: Low Bit-Rate 1080i 'HD-DVD' Does Not Serve Anybody's Best Interest. (1 Viewer)

[ChrisA]

I agree that this petition could be made into a "STATE OF AFFAIRS" general petition discussing several issues such as edge enhancement, OAR, etc....

By the way, does anybody know the difference in licensing fees between DD, DTS, and MLP? I was hoping MLP decoding would be universal in all DVD players by now. Certainly, any new HD-DVD format would HAVE to include DVD-A support, so using MLP would be a huge quality increase... it would forever end the lossly compression debate with an unquestionably superior MLP lossess compression.

Let's say you have 30 mbps bandwidth to play with. You could have 20 mbps video and 10 mbps 24/96 MLP fitting just fine together. In any case, MLP can also be run at 20/96 or 20/48 for that matter. As much as I hate the politics, you'd likely see suport of MLP as the next generation compression algorithm because it will already be a mandatory part of optical players. Dolby already has their hands in MLP, so I'd say the future is bright for use of MLP. DD and DTS playback will still be there for backward compatability *and* they can be utilized for higher compresion of ACCESSORY TRACKS AND OTHER SECONDARY LANGUAGES.

I'd like to discourage any talk about DSD in movies and focus on MLP. Without starting a debate on MLP vs DSD, it is quite apparent to me that any talk about using 24/192 MLP or DSD for a movie format is not constructive at this point in time. Perhaps in the year 2025 we can think about such issues. Any talk beyond MLP running at 24/96 for movies would be over 10mbps for the main audio track and at that point, you'd want to put more toward video anyway. Regardless, MLP at 20/48, 20/96, 24/96 is the answer for movies I believe. DTS running at full bitrate would be my second choice. DD and DTS running at half rate as in current DVD is no longer acceptable for an HD-DVD medium other than secondary tracks, backward compatability, commentary tracks, alternative languages.

I find it interesting that Dolby Digital hasn't developed a 'less harsh' algorithm to compete with DTS. The efficiency of DD is not the issue. DD should be able to design a lossy compression algorithm that could run in the 2 mbps range that would be much more faithful to the master than the current DD format.

The point is that current DVD total bandwidth of 10 mbps is not acceptable for an HD-DVD format.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I'd like to discourage any talk about DSD in movies and focus on MLP. Without starting a debate on MLP vs DSD, it is quite apparent to me that any talk about using 24/192 MLP or DSD for a movie format is not constructive at this point in time. Perhaps in the year 2025 we can think about such issues.

We don't need a new format to be introduced in 5 years just to accomodate advances in audio.
You want the new HD-DVD spec to include provisions for everything good...including 24/192 MLP audio.
If no one uses it right now, no problem. But it's there.
We keep looking at HD-DVD through the same bandwidth/bit-rate problems we have now. If a technology like FMD were employed, there WOULD BE NO BANDWIDTH PROBLEMS as FMD reads from all layers simultaneously. You could have your 20 mbps video stream along side your 24/192 7-channel audio with no "bandwidth competition" problems whatsoever.
That's one of the reasons why I want FMD so badly. It not only solves capacity problems, it solves bandwidth problems too.
-dave

 

[ChrisA]

David,

I totally agree. Acceptance of MLP as the standard for HD-DVD would allow just that! MLP as you know is amazingly flexible! To think we could forever end this DD vs DTS NONSENSE!!!

You are correct in that we could start with 20/48 MLP or perhaps 24/96 MLP... and if so desired, could advance to 24/192 if someday we are 'bathing' in bandwidth. MLP is the correct choice regardless.

So what would you like to see as a petition? I think we should do a "state of affairs" type of petition that adresses several issues. I'd like for people to UNIFY on some issues and draft a petition. Once the petition is formed, we can post it on the petition forum and begin collecting signatures.

So far I'd like the petition to include AT LEAST these topics:

1) Not RUSHING and releasing an INFERIOR narrow bandwidth DVD format to market, when it is already admitted by the entire industry that broad bandwidth/high storage capacity is already underway!

2) Consider using MLP as the standard, with DD and DTS useage as described above. I'm not sure if MLP would be cost prohibited due to licensing costs. If so, Meridian and Dolby need to reduce licensing costs for movie based audio compression.

3) Use an algorithm that would achive maximum picture quality running in broader bandwidths and yield maximum picture quality, not necessarily the most efficient algorithm.

4) Stop Edge enhancement.

We could address more issues.. OAR, and some others listed above.

I also find it quite interesting how DVD-Audio will be handled on Blue Ray/FMD types of technology. Things are getting VERY interesting. No doubt they will move DVD-Audio to multichannel 24/192 instead of 24/96.

What I find outastanding is that we can finally have FULL MOTION VIDEO and 24/96 multichannel. Great for movies like Pink Floyd, the WALL. No more poor quality music videos! Finally we can have our cake and eat it to!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

BTW, let me know when, where, and how to support our cause.

HD-DVD should be everything it can be, and not merely a slightly higher-resolution version of DVD with all its existing problems like space-concerns, audio limiations, and compresison artifacting.

I'll sign. I'll carry a banner. I'll even give a speech.

-dave

 

[ChrisA]

I'd like to see more people PARTICIPATE in this petition. I think it is best to draft a "STATE OF AFFAIRS" petition about CONSUMER EXPECTATIONS and what they want from HD-DVD.

I would appreciate help on this matter. I am very busy and simply need help. Strating threads on other forums would certainly be beneficial now, and when the actual petition is posted.

We can consider discussing the importance of OAR, and other issues as well.

[rant] CONSIDER THIS THE CONSUMER STEERING COMITTEE [/rant]

 

[ChrisA]

Here is a great article discussing competing algorithms.
http://www.eet.com/issue/fp/OEG20020322S0105
Which algorithm yields the highest quality 1080 video while running at 20 Mbps is what we seek. Out of curiosity, perhaps Bjoern knows, what format is the D5 master itself?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

If you have the means, you can view a piece of homebrew MPEG4 HDTV here...

That has no application as

A-The format won't be out for at least 6-7 years. Compare the first run of DVDs compression to the ones done today. Compression algorithms and techniques improve exponentially over the years

B-It's homebrew, it's not done on a professional system with the same tools these DVDs will be authored with.

 

[VicRuiz]

No, that's not what we should seek. If D-VHS is going to be at 28 Mbps, then we should be pushing for at least that much for HD-DVD, or more if possible.
MPEG-4 at 7-8 Mbps is absolutely ridiculous for HDTV. You can count me in on the petition.

 

[ChrisA]

Vic,

I meant to say 20+ mbps. Point being that an algorithm should be chosen which yields maximum quality, not necessarily maximum compression/efficiency.

I was reading that Blue Ray bandwidth is 38 Mbps bandwidth. I believe FMD, utilizing RED LASER, is in the 30-40 mbps range.

No HD-DVD format should be released with a total of 10mbps bandwidth.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Use an algorithm that would achive maximum picture quality running in broader bandwidths and yield maximum picture quality

Drop the part about bandwidth. QUALITY is the driver, bandwidth is secondary. If it can be done at lower bandwidth, fine. Everyone seems to be thinking in terms of what is being done RIGHT NOW with compression. Open your horizon far enough to see that algorithms are getting better. 28Mbps MPEG2 on D-VHS could be exceeded by 15MBps MPEG4 or wavelet. Sure, more processor horsepower is needed, but Moore's Law will deliver that (actually, it's available now).

I think the CONCEPT of FMD is very appealing, but it's vaporware. AFAIK, no one has shown an HD clip from a multi-layered (more than two) FMD yet. I'm not sure they have what it takes to bring the hardware out, and replicate a billion discs in such a format. Blu-ray, even with the so-called fragile blue laser, is simple from where we are. Increase the pit density on the discs, change the laser to blue- DONE!

Todd

 

[ChrisA]

Drop the part about bandwidth. QUALITY is the driver, bandwidth is secondary. If it can be done at lower bandwidth, fine. Everyone seems to be thinking in terms of what is being done RIGHT NOW with compression. Open your horizon far enough to see that algorithms are getting better. 28Mbps MPEG2 on D-VHS could be exceeded by 15MBps MPEG4 or wavelet.

Todd,
I hope it is apparent that nobody would WANT more bandwidth for the SAKE of bandwidth. Obviously *IF* one algorithm can provide identical results to another algorithm, but do so with less bandwidth, then the algorithm which uses less bandwidth is superior.
I agree that the tone or the way 'bandwidth' should be included in the petition should be carefully chosen as you mention.
Herein lies the problems:
Emphasis continues to be placed on maximum compression/efficiency, with quality being secondary.
We also need more bandwidth to improve sound fidelity. It is quite clear that audio compression algorithms have reached a limit so we are forced to use more bandwidth to improve upon the current DD and 'half-rate' DTS offerings.
We have around 30-40 mbps bandwidth with Lbue-ray or FMD technology. 10 mbps for 6 channel 24/96 MLP primary audio is hardly farfetched. Sure I'm up for 20 Mbps wavelet and 10 Mbps MLP.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I think the CONCEPT of FMD is very appealing, but it's vaporware. AFAIK, no one has shown an HD clip from a multi-layered (more than two) FMD yet. I'm not sure they have what it takes to bring the hardware out, and replicate a billion discs in such a format. Blu-ray, even with the so-called fragile blue laser, is simple from where we are. Increase the pit density on the discs, change the laser to blue- DONE!

The reason you haven't seen FMD demos being heralded by the DVD consortium is that they don't want FMD because the big Japanese companies didn't invent it.

And that's not quite rigth about the simple answer: FMD can use red-lasers and it is the red laser which makes the device "simple". Blue-lasers have all sorts of reliability issues and read-error problems are more prevelant as the smaller pit size is more at risk from scratches and finger prints (not to mention the life-span of a blue-laser is dramatically less than that of a red-laser).

-dave

 

[ChrisA]

I wanted to go over the bandwidth issue again.

28Mbps MPEG2 on D-VHS could be exceeded by 15MBps MPEG4 or wavelet

What it boils down to is optimising how to best utilize roughly 30mbps bandwidth (assuming you have enough storage space for roughly 3 hours of material at 30mbps).

Also, which compression algorithm yileds the highest overall quality, regardless of bandwidth compared would be ideal. If MPEG-4 for instance can provide 99.99% of wavelt performance running at 20mbps, then obviously there are other issues which are more important in chosing the algorithm.

I'm mearly emphasizing that we want an algorithm which yelds maximum quality, as you suggest. It seems that these companies are persuing maximum efficiency and obtaining the highest degree of compression, than developing an algorithm that yields the highest obtainable picture quality utilizing wide bandwidth. Since we have 20+ mbps bandwidth, we should use an algorithm that emphasizes quality as the number one priority.

However you want to word the petition is fine with me.

The other consideration is what do YOU want in terms of audio quality? What are YOUR priorities? How do you want to divide up the bandwidth?

At this time it would be great to hear your individual petition as you would like it. Would you like to cover Edge enhancement, OAR and some other issues?

 

[ChrisA]

http://www.eetimes.com/at/news/OEG20020328S0018
With technolgy like FMD, Blue Ray, and holographic video like this, who accepts 10mbps outdated technolgy for HD-DVD!
A prototype of the world's first holographic video recorder will be unveiled at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) show in Las Vegas next week (8-10 April).
InPhase Technologies, a spin-out from Lucent Technologies, has developed Tapestry, a write-once product capable of recording 100Gbyte of holographic video on one disk.
The company predicts that future generations of the product will offer terabytes of storage.
InPhase says its technology offers greater security than other optical recording technologies.
Nelson Diaz, president and CEO, said: "The next generation of video storage will be holographic, and will enable professionals to edit, transfer and archive more efficiently than ever before.
"At NAB, we will introduce the industry to the kind of low-cost, long-life, high-capacity, ultra-reliable removable medium for which they've been waiting years."

 

[Brad Eisenhauer]

Let me start by saying that I don't want to be taken for an apologist for the DVD Forum, and I think that the idea of a "state of affairs" petition laying out expectations is a very good idea, one that I would be more than willing to support.
However, I'd like to take a moment to look at this from the DVD Forum's perspective, and in doing so, get an idea of what we might realistically expect.
Consideration #1) The member companies of the DVD Forum have invested large amounts of money to develop the technologies that will bring us the next generation of DVD. This is money that they expect to bring a profit. That's why they're in the business after all. I find this talk about the companies being more interested in profits than quality a little naiive (sp?). More on this in a moment.
Consideration #2) The time value of money being what it is, the sooner those companies can release a marketable product, the better. These companies could throw the latest, greatest technology available today into a box and try to sell it. However, the price point for such a device would be so high that the market for it would be extremely small, and therefore not very profitable.
In a nutshell, quality costs. "The Highest Quality" is downright expensive, and all this talk about wanting the highest quality and excoriating the manufacturers for being interested in profits is a little bit silly.
We know that quality will continue to improve. We know that we will probably get some sort of an "intermediate" technology, something the manufacturers can market to a large enough consumer base to begin reaping a return on their considerable investment in the technology. Eventually, a high-bitrate technology will be part of that... eventually.
Having said all of that, I know that this place is populated with early-adopters, and we play an important part in the market dynamic. When we say that we want the highest quality achievable, we mean it and we would be willing to pay for it. I hope we get what we want. If what the manufacturers put out is not what we want, don't buy it. They'll get the message just like they did, after much consternation, with DivX. If what they produce is some of what we want, but not all, we'll have to decide whether it's worth the purchase.
Returning to what I said at the top of this post, I think a "state of affairs" petition is an excellent way to expedite the market process. By which I mean let the manufacturers know what we expect, and what we will pay for. Let them know where their profits lie. They're in OUR pockets, after all.

 

[ChrisA]

I certainly didn't mean to sound naive and disregarding of economics. Your points are well taken. This is more of a 'consumer steering comittee' and simply is trying to bring in a consumer point of view of expectations for an HD-DVD format.

"The Highest Quality" is downright expensive, and all this talk about wanting the highest quality and excoriating the manufacturers for being interested in profits is a little bit silly

I think we need to divide that into several parts:

1) HD Display devices are downright expensive. Getting NTSC performance from an HDTV display device is rather frustrating.

2) D-VHS/D-Theater gives us a great example of what is possible with a wide bandwidth/high storage format *today*.

3) I think most of us here have significantly contributed towards the CEMA, DVD-Forum manufacturers, and Studios QUITE SIGNIFICANTLY. We simply want to have expectations met, as well as our frustrations realized.

4) The Current DVD format has been plagued by many issues such as Edge enhancement that seem to remain unsolved. Perhaps it is best to improve the current DVD format further at the same resolution.

All advice is welcome, but we are representing the consumer point of view.

 

[Todd Hochard]

And that's not quite rigth about the simple answer: FMD can use red-lasers and it is the red laser which makes the device "simple". Blue-lasers have all sorts of reliability issues and read-error problems are more prevelant as the smaller pit size is more at risk from scratches and finger prints (not to mention the life-span of a blue-laser is dramatically less than that of a red-laser).

Remember, everyone said this about DVD, too. How quickly we forget.
I'm not sure I can think constructively on a petition right now. I'm still pissed at JVC for hoisting a Tape HD format at us, quality be damned.
Todd

 

[ChrisA]

I am very glad that D-VHS has been brought to the table. It shows what we need and what we expect from HD-DVD.

 

[Todd H]

Looks like we'll be seeing InPhase Technologies' Tapestry format, Matsushita's 2-sided optical rewriteable disc using violet lasers, and last but not least Constellation 3D's FMD demonstrated at the NAB show on April 8 (today). All three are capable of storing around 100 gigs on a single disc. Seems to me like the technology is here. So why are we going backwards by using existing technology with more compression? Count me in for any petition.

 

[ChrisA]

Sounds good. Lets focus on the drafting portion. I'd like to focus on what the petition should say: everything from the title to the contents. The more complete and the more detailed everyone's contribution, the better representative the petition will be of everyone's wishes. Somebody give Bjoern a nudge! Bjoern...