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

[Bjoern Roy]

I will try to contribute in this thread, but i haven't even had time to read half of the current posts.

My first thought is that i would definitely leave out anything about current DVDs quality like EE. A petition has to have a strong focus. It looses impact if its too broad.

The petition should be about making sure when HD-DVD does indeed become a reality, that it is a no-compromise format that equals or betters DVHS, and not an intermediate step like the currently favored red-laser proposal.

If it needs them 2 or 3 years to get a format like that out, so be it. But if they really throw in an intermediate format, they very likely won't migrate to the 'real deal' bluray (or FMD) technology as soon as it is possible, but rather milk us for several years with the red-laser medium.

 

[ChrisA]

Bjoern,
When you get a chance, please read the entire thread and let us know what you think.
I do understand that one can a certain degree of strength if several issues are included to make a 'State of Affairs' petition, however, we are likely to get more people to sign the petition, and we might even get a few points across.

if they really throw in an intermediate format, they very likely won't migrate to the 'real deal' bluray (or FMD) technology as soon as it is possible, but rather milk us for several years with the red-laser medium

Acceptance of a compromised intermediate format will indeed delay a true HD-DVD format, and several years may be kind in estimation. WHAT ABOUT AUDIO IMPROVEMENT? HD-DVD SHOULD ALSO BE ABOUT IMPROVING AUDIO BEYOND CURRENT DVD, YET I SEE NO IMPROVEMENT PROPOSED IN THAT REGARD.
I'd like to draft the petition today/tomorrow, so keep the contributions coming, as well as what people would like to see the petition state.

 

[ChrisA]

More rough draft/outline ideas:

Title adjusted per recommendation to petition "For" something rather than against:

[rant]Consumer Petition of Expectations from HD-DVD[/rant]

HD-DVD Should represent a significant and uncompromised increase in audio quality, video quality, and resolution.

The video compression algorithm selected for HD-DVD should have the highest degree of picture quality, with picture quality being of utmost priority. Since large bandwidth, large storage medium is now available, the emphasis of video algorithm chosen for HD-DVD should be strictly based on achieving the highest degree of accuracy/picture quality.

HD-DVD should represent an improvement in audio quality. It is quite clear that audio compression algorithms have reached a limit. More bandwidth is required to improve upon Dolby Digital and low-bitrate DTS offerings. It is also suggested that MLP should be adopted as the compression algorithm of choice for HD-DVD because of MLP's lossless compression, flexibility, and mandatory inclusion of MLP into HD-DVD players for DVD-Audio.

HD-DVD should eliminate current problems seen with DVD utilizing edge enhancement. (Bjoern, what kinds of artifacts would we expect to see from higher rates of compression, albiet the newer compression algorithms are improved. Given the proposed red laser 7mbps MPEG-4 HD video, do you think edge enhancement will continue to be utilized?)

HD-DVD should provide a no-compromise format in terms of audio quality, video quality, and resolution, such as seen with digital VHS. The currently proposed low-bitrate HD-DVD that continues to utilize outdated DVD technology does not offer....

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Chris,

So far so good! I'd definitely make the case clear that audio fidelity is as big a concern an image quality. I think it should be explicit that a 24/192 level of fidelity achieved through lossless compression should be written into the format. This quality is of course optional.

Also, without bogging down the details too much, I feel the basic goal should be that audio fidelity never falls below that of 16/44.1 linear PCM sound quality. Whatever compression schemes or resolutions are used, the end result is that the sound should never fall below this threshold. My concern isn't so much for the big-budget 5.1/6.1 soundtracks that will easily get 24 bit DTS or MLP compression...it's more a question of the many 2.0 and mono soundtracks out there that may get second best. My vote is for all 2.0 and mono soundtracks to be encoded in 20/48 PCM or higher...or using a hi-res DTS or MLP compression scheme.

Those of us with LD libraries are always dismayed when we spin one of those (blurry) 12" platters only to discover that that out-dated Pro-Logic soundtrack betters *all* our 2.0 DVDs and many 5.1 DVDs!!!

-dave

 

[ChrisA]

My vote is for all 2.0 and mono soundtracks to be encoded in 20/48 PCM or higher...or using a hi-res DTS or MLP compression scheme

This was also mentioned by another contributor. We will include a sentence or two on mono and 2.0 audio tracks as you describe.

 

[Eric F]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that a recorded HD format that offers less quality than what is available now, free (OTA HDTV) will ever be accepted? They are clearly shooting for the same market.

Unless the networks decide to eliminate broadcast HD altogether, nobody is going to settle for this.

 

[ChrisA]

I would like to submit the petition tomorrow if possible. I'd like more participation on what people would like this petition to state.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Chris,
Let me contribute some specifics about video specs:
HD-DVD needs to be fully compatible for 1080 progressive encoding (from 24 fps film to 60 fps), even if the first-generation of machines downconvert to 1080I output during playback.
Also, if a film-sourced image is encoded for 1080I playback (like 480I DVDs mastered from film), the source 1080P signal should *not* be pre-filtered to minimize aliasing during 1080I playback.
Let me put it this way:
1080 Progressive should not just be a provision or add-on for HD-DVD, it should be it's over-riding goal and direction (even if the first/second-generation of machines downconvert to 1080I output during playback).
Axiom #2:
Software quality should never be sacrificed or compromised for hardware/playback concerns.
(Remember, it was not holding to this philosopy that gave Fox and Criterion their argument for not going 16x9 for WS titles because they didn't want to "compromise the viewing of those who only had 4x3 NTSC TVs with downconversion artifacts".)
Any vertical filtering that needs to be applied for 1080I displays should be done by the hardware so the source signal is not compromised. This way, when 3-2 reversal for 1080I signals becomes cheap and commonplace in a few years (when we'll have a whole crop of digital 1080P based projectors to choose from) our new 1080-Progressive scan HD-DVD players will be able to deinterlace and produce a true, native, 1080 progressive image.
Right now we get excited about our deinterlacing DVD players which recreate progressive frames from the disc information (and in the case of some players like the cinematrix they they get upscaled to 720P etc). The problem is that we never see the true 480P resolution image that the studio originally worked with during mastering as vertical filtering was applied to minimize aliasing on 480-interlaced displays. So when we reassemble that progressive frame the best we can do is reassemble the *vertically filtered* progressive frame.
This filtering is really damaging to fine detail. If any of you have ever had the luxury of seeing *real* 480-progressive images they look so clear and sharp it's almost HD-like. I used to wonder why downconverted HD-images looked so much better than DVD on the Sony 400Q LCD projector...which only had 480 vertical pixels to work with. Theoretically, DVD and downconverted HD should have looked identical since the end result was a 480P image.
Nope. The vertical filtering applied to the DVD images during mastering kept them always looking several steps behind the downconverted HD image. What was really shocking was just how "windowlike" and HD-looking the 480P downconverted HD images were! Most casual viewers just assumed they were looking at real 720 or 1080 HD in its native form!!!! I can promise you that many of you would wonder "how much better could it get?" after watching these pristine 480P images from downconverted HD. Yes, it's really that good (naturally, it *can* get better...which is why I want 1080P in full resolution).
We don't want HD-DVD images to be compromised in any way for playback hardware. There WILL be 1080P displays and it won't be long. We should have access to that 1080P resolution on our HD-DVD software and all that has to happen to accomplish this is that the software not be pre-filtered. Let the HD-DVD player filter it on its own while creating a 1080I image for your interlaced display. You'll reap the benefits when a few years later you upgrade to a 1080P machine and display.
Remember...getting these titles in HD may be our last chance at many of them. We want them done right.
Oh, along with this principle of "not compromising the source signal for playback hardware issues" is that NEVER should a 5.1 mix be "altered" to produce a better-sounding 2.0 down-mix for ProLogic limited systems.
The videophiles and audiophiles who care most will buy equipment to take advantage of the best quality they can. Those who don't have the latest in gear (5.1 audio or 1080P 16x9 displays) who also care would rather have that level of fidelity preserved for their *future* system than compromised for their current (and fast becoming obsolete) gear.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

We need HIGH quality audio too.

My opinion is that at least 7.1 discrete surround (speaker layout much like THX and Lexicon's current recommendations, but with full range, discrete stereo back channels) with either DSD (Direct Stream Digital) or 24 bit/192 kHz LPCM, bit-for-bit lossless compressed if needed, should be adopted for the primary soundtrack on any future HD-DVD format. If LPCM is chosen, then 24 bit/192 kHz resolution can be used for any channel configuration even for 7.1 discrete surround mixes. This would benefit both the future of surround music (engineers would be itching for something like this to impart side wall and rear wall effects and ambiance to their recordings) as well as giving movie sound engineers (like Gary Rydstrom and others) more leeway, unlike the 5.1 surround formats of today.

No audio watermarking, or dynamic range compression, or dialog normalization, or bass manipulations shall be applied to dumb down the original digital master recordings. This is done currently to most if not all Dolby Digital tracks, and some DTS tracks on today's DVD's. The part about Varance audio watermarking has reared its ugly head especially on DVD-Audio titles. DSD used on SACD's, to date, has not had this applied, thankfully.

Lossy compressed, non-audiophile formats such as DTS and Dolby Digital could be added only for purposes of backwards compatibility, but not to be a substitute for truer audiophile sound.

The space can be there for the taking for superb audio fidelity, so it needs to be used.

Dan

 

[Marshall Alsup]

Hey Chris,

I dont have anything to contribute to the petition (I dont really understand most of the technical stuff yet!). I just wanted to let you know that I'll sign this petition when it comes out. It pisses me off that the studios want such a shitty (by comparison to other possibilities like Blu-Ray and FMD) HD-DVD format. WTF are they thinking.... oh, that they want to make as much money as possible. Anyway, consider this a note of thanks for the work you're doing on this.

Later,

Marshall

 

[ChrisA]

Dan,

The only high quality lossless format that would ever be accepted would be MLP, and frankly, if it is good enough for DVD-Audio, it is more than good enough for movies. MLP is really magnificent and should be embraced wholeheartedly. We don't need to force the issue of 24/192 because MLP is capable of ANYTHING and ANY amount of channels! MLP is basically infinitely flexible and can provide identical fidelity to any sound master. You can't ask for more than that! (The last thing we need is a DSD/MLP debate).

MLP WILL and SHOULD be a part of all HD-DVD players. We need to make that an issue. Can you believe the DVD-FOrum would actually release HD-DVD players without MLP support? Obviously DVD-audio will be an intergal part of all DVD players.

I'd like to get more input from Bjoern. I'll work on updating the drafet again. I'd appreciate constructive criticism and more contributions.

 

[ChrisA]

Latest version (I excluded the part about 2.0 and mono for now, because I think it would be absolutely insane to think any studio releasing product on HD-DVD would encode at low-bitrate... IF LOW BITRATE HD-DVD does get released, then you might have that to worry about, but that is one of the reasons we are here with this petition) P.S. If you can think of a better title, let me know ... any constructive criticism is welcome.. better wording, grammar, spell checks
[rant] Consumer Petition of Expectations from HD-DVD [/rant]
HD-DVD should represent a significant and uncompromised increase in audio quality, video quality, and resolution. We, the consumers, do not accept the current proposed low-bitrate, low-bandwidth format utilizing standard DVD technology. We do not feel that current DVD technology can meet the basic consumer requirements of an HD-DVD format as stated.
Picture quality should be the ultimate determinant of which video compression algorithm is selected for HD-DVD. Since large bandwidth, large storage medium is already available, the emphasis of video algorithm chosen for HD-DVD should be strictly based on achieving the highest degree of accuracy, resolution, and overall picture quality. HD-DVD should eliminate current problems seen with DVD utilizing edge enhancement. (Bjoern, what kinds of artifacts would we expect to see from higher rates of compression, albiet the newer compression algorithms are improved. Given the proposed red laser 7mbps MPEG-4 HD video, do you think edge enhancement will continue to be utilized?) 1080p capable display devices will become commonplace. If a film-sourced image is encoded for 1080I playback (such as 480i DVDs mastered from film), the source 1080P signal should *not* be pre-filtered to minimize aliasing during 1080I playback. 1080 Progressive should not just be a provision or add-on for HD-DVD, it should be the over-riding goal and direction.
HD-DVD should represent an improvement in audio quality. It is quite clear that audio compression algorithms have reached a limit. More bandwidth is required to improve upon Dolby Digital and low-bitrate DTS offerings. For instance, D-VHS offers a considerable improvement over DVD with the ability to utilize 24 bit/96 kHz DTS with significantly higher bit rates than current DVD technology can provide.
It is suggested that MLP should be adopted as the compression algorithm of choice for HD-DVD because of MLP's lossless compression, amazing flexibility, and the already mandatory inclusion of MLP into HD-DVD players for DVD-Audio.
HD-DVD should provide a no-compromise format in terms of audio quality, video quality, and resolution, such as seen with digital VHS. The currently proposed low-bitrate HD-DVD proposed by utilizing current DVD technology cannot successfully meet consumer demands and expectations of an HD-DVD format. We petition that any high resolution optical format (HD-DVD) not be released unless consumer expectations are met.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Chris, excellent so far.

After the sentence:

If a film-sourced image is encoded for 1080I playback (such as 480i DVDs mastered from film), the source 1080P signal should *not* be pre-filtered to minimize aliasing during 1080I playback.

I just might add:

"Filtering for 1080-interlaced display should only be performed in the HD-DVD player so that the source 1080-line recording (film material) can maintain the highest possible resolution."

I just want it to be clear that I'm not advocating that 1080-interlaced TV owners put up with aliasing...I just don't want the *source signal* compromised.

One more thing I just thought might be nice to add.

The subtitle feature on DVD is a nice idea, but pretty bad in practice. On a large front projection screen (as you know) the blocky-text can look pretty horrid.

Rather than hard-coded graphics being used for subtitles on HD-DVD, I feel that the subtitle feature should be a pure text/font-based scheme (which optional graphics included as an option). This way the HD-DVD player, depending on its sophistication, could output a smooth and high-resolution font style that looks watchable on a large screen. Also, users would then have the flexibility to choose the location of the subtitles in the image area, change the font size depending on the realtive size of their display to make the text legible, and even change font color.

Even more sophisticated systems could have a dedicated "subtitle out" video output and display subtitles on a separate display device all together so they do not interfere with the integrity of the image (much like supertitles at an opera...a new trend in some subititled-films as well).

Oh...and please I almost forgot: HDDVD should incorporate a 20x9 aspect ratio option so that 2.35:1 transfers won't have to sacrifice resolution in the 16x9 window area. Users of constant-height/anamorphic projection systems would benefit greatly.

-dave

 

[ChrisA]

To everyone, we need a group effort:

Can you make some posts on AVS forum, HT spot, HT Talk, and other forums pointing to this thread. I'd really like to get more feedback regarding the wording of the petition. I'd like to make sure we haven't left anything out. Most importantly, I'd like to make sure we represent as many people as possible. Additionally, we must remain focused, and not overly wordy. You have to pick and chose your battles. I'm certainly up for a better title if someone can think of one...

Dave is this the correction:

[rant] Consumer Petition of Expectations from HD-DVD [/rant]

HD-DVD should represent a significant and uncompromised increase in audio quality, video quality, and resolution. We, the consumers, do not accept the current proposed low-bitrate, low-bandwidth format utilizing standard DVD technology. We do not feel that current DVD technology can meet the basic consumer requirements of an HD-DVD format as stated below.

Picture quality should be the ultimate determinant of which video compression algorithm is selected for HD-DVD. Since large bandwidth, large storage medium is already available, the emphasis of video algorithm chosen for HD-DVD should be strictly based on achieving the highest degree of accuracy, resolution, and overall picture quality. HD-DVD should eliminate current problems seen with DVD utilizing edge enhancement. (Bjoern, what kinds of artifacts would we expect to see from higher rates of compression, albiet the newer compression algorithms are improved. Given the proposed red laser 7mbps MPEG-4 HD video, do you think edge enhancement will continue to be utilized?) 1080p capable display devices will become commonplace. Filtering for 1080-interlaced display should only be performed in the HD-DVD player so that the source 1080-line recording (film material) can maintain the highest possible resolution. 1080 Progressive should not just be a provision or add-on for HD-DVD, it should be the over-riding goal and direction.

HD-DVD should represent an improvement in audio quality. It is quite clear that audio compression algorithms have reached a limit. More bandwidth is required to improve upon Dolby Digital and low-bitrate DTS offerings. For instance, D-VHS offers a considerable improvement over DVD with the ability to utilize 24 bit/96 kHz DTS with significantly higher bit rates than current DVD technology can provide.

It is suggested that MLP should be adopted as the compression algorithm of choice for HD-DVD because of MLP's lossless compression, amazing flexibility, and the already mandatory inclusion of MLP into HD-DVD players for DVD-Audio.

HD-DVD should provide a no-compromise format in terms of audio quality, video quality, and resolution, such as seen with digital VHS. The currently proposed low-bitrate HD-DVD proposed by utilizing current DVD technology cannot successfully meet consumer demands and expectations of an HD-DVD format. We petition that any high resolution optical format (HD-DVD) not be released unless consumer expectations are met.

 

[ChrisA]

HDDVD should incorporate a 20x9 aspect ratio option so that 2.35:1 transfers won't have to sacrifice resolution in the 16x9 window area. Users of constant-height/anamorphic projection systems would benefit greatly

Is this too much to ask? What would it take to incorporate a 20x9 asect ratio? Can you provide more detail as well as how you would like it worded. Are there any disadvantages to anybody, including the studios, HD-DVD manufacturers, costs, ... any disadvantages/inconveniences to anybody?

Can you do me a favor and shorten your proposal on subtitles down a few sentences if possible, or at least word it exactly as you would like it in the petition.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Hey Chris,
Yes, that's the correction I was asking.
20x9 is part of the MPEG2 standard just like 4x3 and 16x9 aspect ratios. The only caveat is that 16x9-limited viewers (imagine that ) would have their 20x9 encoded images "downconverted" to 16x9 the same way that today's 4x3 viewers have their 16x9 images "downconverted". With a high-res signal to start, and with the improvements and falling costs of processing, producing an artifact-free downconversion process in affordable players should *not* be hard. Those who watch 1080-line HDTV on their 720P DLP projectors are seeing downconversion in action and do nothing but rave about the final picture quality.
20x9 adds an additional (rougly) 30% resolution to transfers 2:1 or wider that would normally be letterboxed in a 16x9 frame. BTW, the HD-transfers that you'll be watching in digital cinemas won't be sacrificing vertical resolution in a 16x9 window for their 2.35:1 films. Their images will use the full vertical pixel count and use an anamorphic lens (as with film) to project this on the 2.35:1 screen.
I'll work on condensing the subtitle thing down. Does it sound like a good idea to you too?
-dave

 

[ChrisA]

Dave,
I really haven't given any thought to '20x9' issue. Perhaps Bjoern can voice his opinion here. We risk losing focus of the main issues if we go out on a limb too much. Perhaps we should include what you say, I just don't know. I just don't want to lose focus unless this issue is very important. I think that we might be asking too much to include this issue, especially considering that HDTV display devices are all 16x9. Perhaps I'm mising something. Bjoern?
As far as the subtitle thing, I again don't want to lose focus and get overly bogged down in details, however, a good idea is a good idea. We just have to be reasonable. Next thing we will be asking for 3D holodeck with real characters I just want to stay on topic and not overly demanding, that's all. I want to make sure we refute a low-bitrate scheme and get our goals accomplished.

 

[johnbr]

Hd/dvd How about green laser.Three disc sizes 3"/5"/6" and three anamorphic mode's 2.05.1/2.20.1/2.35.1 . Audio 15mps so you can have mlp and commentarys.

 

[Eric F]

Those who watch 1080-line HDTV on their 720P DLP projectors are seeing downconversion in action and do nothing but rave about the final picture quality.

I realize this is an old topic, but going from 1080i to 720p is upconverting, not downconverting. Ok, here come the arguments that because 1080i displays more pixels that means it's a better/higher resolution format.

I watch everything output to my HDTV at 720p and it looks better to my eyes. At least I've found that a 720p source is better for movies, and 1080i is better for TV shows. Not sure why this is, because I'm watching everything at 720p anyways, but it looks that way on my 16:9 CRT. Maybe it's just the way the different networks handle their mastering process.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

mathmatically it's still downconverting in this convesion process despite the principle that a progressive signal may provide higher quality/resolution overall than an interlaced.

It's downconverting in this regard:

The projector *first* creates a 1080P signal out of the incoming 1080I. Now it must mathmatically *downconvert* these 1080 lines into 720 lines.

That's the downconversion I'm talking about. The point is that any "downconversion" artifacts that might be a problem with an HD-DVD player trying to convert a 20x9 signal into a 16x9 one would be similar to the conversion from 1080-720 vertical pixel in terms of the math employed. And since even entry level projectors have stunning HD images when folding 1080 to 720, it should be nothing to worry about.

-dave