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

[ChrisA]

Well the nice thing about D-VHS and HD-DVD is the fact that 720p or 1080i output is capable by the player, its just a matter of the studios releasing 720p instead of 1080i. 1080p is the ultimate target we are headed to whether output directly by the player, or de-interlaced by a scaler. No question progressive is the way to go...

I'm really hoping to get the final revision soon, simply because I don't want to have to keep bumping this post up. I'm also considering taking the latest petition to other forums for more feedback. One we post the petition on the Internet, you can't change it. More contributions please.

 

[ChrisA]

Latest version copied to page 3:
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, add this section:

Subtitles:

The subtitle feature should be a true text-based system and not a graphically-based system (as it is on the current DVD standard). If the subtitles were encoded as true text, the font size, style, color, and placement in the image area could all be modified by the user during disc playback.

As an example, this would be of benefit as one user will be reading subtitles on a 32" monitor while another user reads his subtitles on a 100" projection system. The same size/style font may not be ideal for both display methods. Users of specially equipped home-theaters could even opt to display subtitles on a dedicated monitor or display so that they do not intrude into the image area of the film at all (similar to the super-titles now being shown at high-prfile film festivals).

Graphical images may be included in subtitle data as an option, but the text should be of a true text type and not limited to a hard-coded "image" that cannot be adapted to the end user's needs.

 

[ChrisA]

David,

Should we really add that? I'm afraid we will become overly demanding. The more demanding you are, the easier it is to refute the main goals of our objective. Your suggestion on subtitles is outstanding, there is no question about it. If employment of such a subtitle system is not reasonably feasible, we further risk having the much more important main goals dissmissed in an overly demanding proposal. I still think we need to pick and chose our battles. What do you think?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Can you list "primary" and "secondary" goals separately? Obviously the subtitle thing isn't in the same league as 1080P or 24/192 7-channel MLP
I'd be happy with it added in a possible list of "other items to consider" which can include less imperative items. If you think it would diminish the overall agenda to include it for the on-line petition feel free not to include it. But if you have several other "lesser" items that would be great if they did...but not so important that you've sought to add them to the list thus far...maybe they could be grouped together in a second "other considerations" category or something? Sortof like "additional recommendations" vs the primary list of "demands".
Either way I defer to your discresion.
-dave

 

[Bjoern Roy]

Sorry for the complete lack of participation. I am on my way to a 4-day trip with a tight schedule and all hell broke loose just when i was about to leave. Currently i don't even know how to reschedule.
As much as this topic is of utter importance to me, i think i won't be of any help before next Wednesday. :frowning:
IMHO, the petition should have a single goal: Stop the red laser low-bandwidth stopgap format that the studios seem to have settled on for prerecorded HD content in favor of a blue laser high-bandwidth format. Even if it takes a bit longer to get that.
The problem is the industries reluctance to exchange an old medium with a new one. There are many reasons for this, one of the bigger ones is the 'multiple stock' issue that Blockbuster and the like are facing.
A red laser stop-gap format NOW and a blue laser format AS SOON AS ITS POSSIBLE would be great from a technology point of view, but it won't happen. Whatever they decide on as the next format will probably have at least the same life expectency as DVD.
So i think the petition should make clear that we want a blue laser high-bandwidth HD format as the NEXT format. DVHS does already serve as a nice stop-gap for the most eager among us.
Every other issue that will also be in the petition will only make it sound as if we are an overly demanding bunch of freaks who 'want it all'. I think the impact will be zero.
If we really get the industry to NOT settle for red-laser HD, but rather wait and push blue-laser HD, i think all other issues will probably fall into place quite nicely. They have the bandwidth on DVHS and came up with specs that i am very pleased with, WITHOUT our input.

...HD-DVD should provide a no-compromise format in terms of audio quality, video quality, and resolution...

A high resolution is a determining factor for high PQ, so its kinda redundant. It should be stated, though, that we think it would be best for the format to store film content as 1080p24 instead of 1080i right from the beginning. Only video content should be stored in 1080i. As long as 1080p24 is stored on the discs, we can still ask for players which output 1080p48, p60 or p72 later on.
High bitrate DD (576, 640) and high bitrate DTS (1.5k, 2k...) is all i would ask for. MLP would be nice, but IMO not reasonable as the 'standard' sound format. Having it included in the specs as an option should be possible, though.
Dangit, i really have to go.
Regards
Bjoern

 

[Bjoern Roy]

I just read Davids suggestion about the primary and secondary goals. Thats an excellent idea.

 

[ChrisA]

'low-bitrate, low-bandwidth' is redundant. I would definitely include 'red laser', so it should read 'red laser low-bandwidth' IMO.

I see what you mean about the redundancy.

As far as red laser, FMD technology does utilise red laser. I wanted to avoid the politics as much as possible. I think I mentioned "utilising current DVD technology" as a way to 'pleasantly' adress this issue. I'll work on it as you describe.

I still need your input on the edge enhancement portion sentence and would like to possibly expand on that sentence or paragraph (That paragraph has your name in it).

I agree with a secondary 'suggestion' area, which will be 'light-hearted' in nature. I will also include my discrete tactile channel in that area also.

 

[ChrisA]

[rant] Consumer Petition for 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 format utilizing standard (red laser/low-bandwidth)DVD technology. We do not feel that current DVD technolgy (red laser/low-bandwidth) 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, such as utilization of edge enhancement.

1080p capable display devices will continue become more 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. We think it would be best for the HD-DVD format to store film content as 1080p24 instead of 1080i right from the beginning. Only video content should be stored in 1080i. As long as 1080p24 is stored on the discs, we can eventually produce players which output 1080p48, p60 or p72. 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. In any case, improvement in HD-DVD audio quality is equally important as the improvement in HD-DVD video quality.

It is suggested that MLP could be utilized as one of the compression algorithms 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.

We have also listed several secondary requests below, which we feel would be helpful in producing a more enjoyable HD-DVD format:

Subtitles:

The subtitle feature should be a true text-based system and not a graphically-based system (as it is on the current DVD standard). If the subtitles were encoded as true text, the font size, style, color, and placement in the image area could all be modified by the user during disc playback.

As an example, this would be of benefit as one user will be reading subtitles on a 32" monitor while another user reads his subtitles on a 100" projection system. The same size/style font may not be ideal for both display methods. Users of specially equipped home-theaters could even opt to display subtitles on a dedicated monitor or display so that they do not intrude into the image area of the film at all (similar to the super-titles now being shown at high-profile film festivals).

Graphical images may be included in subtitle data as an option, but the text should be of a true text type and not limited to a hard-coded "image" that cannot be adapted to the end user's needs.

 

[ChrisA]

A high resolution is a determining factor for high PQ, so its kinda redundant.

Here is the distinction I am making... Think about DVD at its current resolution and the proposed 1080 resolution. If you used MPEG-4 to achieve only 480 instead of 1080, you could use less compression on the 480 format. I was mearly discriminating that resolution and picture quality do not neccesarily go hand in hand. This was one of my initial points! SDVT and many 'HD-ready' display devices that cannot sync with or fully resolve 1080i, would benefit from KEEPING THE RESOLUTION the SAME, but applying a better agorithm! This is one of our ACES in the HOLE, IMO. This is exactly why I feel the proposed low bitrate HD-DVD format does NOT serve ANYBODY's best interest.

Please give me feedback regarding my stament above.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Hey Chris,

another thing to include in the "secondary" category is 20x9 aspect ratio encoding. Also, I personally fell that 4x3 aspect ratio encoding should be an option too...but *only* for aspect ratios more narrow than 1.55:1. It seems silly to "hard code" side-bars on 1.33:1 HD tranfers and needlessly sacrifice all that horizontal resolution.

-dave

 

[ChrisA]

Dave,

Could you finalize a paragraph about 20x9 and/or aspect ratio encoding, just as you did for subtitles.

Also, I'd like feedback on my above statement (2) posts above.

I can't contnue to put endless hours in this. Perhaps we should wait also until Bjoern comes back before rushing a petition to the Internet. I think we are getting very close.

I'd appreciate someone/anyone to start threads on other forums regarding this thread and the drafting of a petition. And once the petition is posted, we need to spread the word to various forums and webisites. I'm contacting WSR. Someone needs to take care of SGHT, The Digital BITS, etc...

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Okay, so how about MLP lossless compression for PCM, but more flexible than that of today's DVD-Audio standard.

Audio manipulation watermarking such as Varance MUST be eliminated from that spec. too. SACD's use of a disc/player based serial number encryption that does nothing to the audio quality would be ideal.

If some engineer wants 7.1 discrete channel surround with 24 bit/192 kHz resolution for each channel, then that should be in the spec.

Right now it's limited to 5.1 discrete with only 24 bit/96 kHz resolution. 24 bit/192 kHz is only slated for 2 channel PCM currently using today's DVD-Audio standard.

As I stated before, 7.1 would be a step in the right direction for those wanting a more realistic holosonic experience for music and/or movies.

Hell, I'd love it if they leave a window open for 24 bit/192 kHz PCM with 10.2 channels!

Dan

 

[ChrisA]

As far as MLP is concerned, I toned it down just a bit, but did not eliminate it per Bjoern's request. MLP makes way to much sense. DTS makes a lot of sense also because DTS is fully scalable, albeit lossy. I don't agree with Bjorn to say max DD and DTS. For all intensive purposes Dolby Digital is a damn joke for HD-DVD. I don't give a rats ass if somebody made it madatory for DVD/HDTV. For an HD-DVD format, or D-VHS with 28.2 mbps, Dolby Digital is not acceptable. DTS is FULLY scalable, and yes, MLP is MUCH better. MLP is actually the most flexible format.

Dan, MLP is already totally flexible. You cannot ask for more flexibility. MLP/DVD-Audio can give you any number of channels desired and at any bit/sampling frequency. Since MLP will already be mandatory in HD-DVD for the sake of DVD-Audio, MLP just makes sense for use in movies. At the same time, there might be more licensing issues. Meridian owns MLP, but Meridian is partnered with Dolby for licensing purposes. As long as licensing fees do not exceed DD and DTS for movie soundtracks, MLP should be utilized for movie soundtracks. I don't see any reason to force the issue, but it is too obvious to make it a secondary issue. If you have 30 mbps to play with, and very efficient video codec such as wavelet and others, I see no reason why 24/96 MLP in 7.1 couldn't be the norm for the main channels.

Depending on the number of channels, or if space/bandwidth does become a concern, MLP is capable of 24/96 across the front, and the rears/surrounds can run at 20/48. All I'm saying is that MLP can do ANYTHING, so it just makes sense. DTS running wide open at 24/96 with 3:1 or less compression isn't too bad as a choice for HD-DVD either, but certainly not as preferrable as MLP. Dolby Digital just plain sucks for HD-DVD, it makes no sense. Dolby Digital is good for what it does, very good, but is clearly inferior to MLP or 24/96 DTS running at very high bandwidths. My major problem is with Dolby Digital because it just isn't scalable enough. Dolby Digital will probably tag along for backward compatability and because it is mandatory for *HDTV* .... whatever.

Watermarking is not an issue with movies, so I wouldn't expect that to be an issue. Although it has been suggested that watermarking and the usual tricks are going to be part of all digital media to some extent. The key is to what extent. Watermarking only needs to be placed in certain areas, not throughout the movie. I don't think its a quality issue for movies, if it is even employed at all-- What encryption does D-theater use?

 

[ChrisA]

I will wait until Bjorn gets back before starting the petition. He may be able to add some more information.

 

[Thomas Newton]

***** Many steering committee members hold IP (Intellectual Property) essential to MPEG-4 video. "Clearly, some DVD Forum members may feel that it's imperative to select MPEG-4 for HD DVD," observed an executive at a consumer electronics company. *****

Can someone elaborate on why MPEG-4 and intellectual property have anything signifiacnt to do with each other?

It sounds like any vendor who uses MPEG-4 must pay a number of companies that hold patents or copyrights on the MPEG-4 technology. This is the "IP" being referred to.

If HD-DVD uses MPEG-4, then MPEG-4 patent holders will reap money from every player (and disc?) sold. If HD-DVD does not use MPEG-4, someone else will get the dough.

I believe the executive is saying that steering committee members will feel strong pressure to vote their wallets ("will choosing this scheme automatically bring us an indefinite stream of royalties?"), without regards to the merits (or lack thereof) of competing technologies.

 

[Sean Bryan]

How does the recent "news" about the DVD forum saying they have decided to use blue laser tech for a single, best solution for HD-DVD factor into this?

I was surprised there was no mention on it in this thread yet.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

heard that too. I'm not getting to excited about anything until we see it repeated via several reliable sources.

BTW, even "blue laser", IMO, isn't the holy-grail of formats we should be waiting for. With so many other possibilities, like FMD or holographic recording, promising HUGE advances in storage capacity and bandwidth...why do we want an HD-version of DVD with all the same format limitations and restrictions we suffer with now? We already have to compromise with half-rate DTS and decide if there's space for extras or better image quality...blue laser would just be an HD version of the same. Don't get me wrong...I'm happy to have HD at all...but all those caveats would go away with FMD or other high-bandwidth/GB storage discs.

-dave

 

[ChrisA]

This is OUR chance to make a difference. The DVD forum is meeting in JUNE to decide on which algorithm to select as well as other topics. If we really work on creating a good petition, and if we can get enoug signatures and recognition, it will help. We are, after all, only trying to make a statement about how we want to spend our money. Perhaps this thread has already been looked at and pushed committee memebrs on the fence in the proper drection. Stranger things have happened These forums do have influence, and rightfully so... This is the time to make a nice, well-written petition. Let's keep the ideas coming, especially the constructive criticism.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Chris,

Agreed that now our proposal is more important than ever. There's a "working group" being formed by the DVD forum to discuss technical aspects and options of the HD-DVD (blue laser) format. We need to get our petition to them in a MAJOR WAY (once it's finalized).

BTW, here's my blurb about 20x9 encoding:

With the (current) 16x9-only HD-format, native 1.33:1 images sacrifice potential horizontal resolution in the 16x9 frame. Likewise, films with aspect ratios wider than 2.22:1 need to be "letterboxed" in the 16x9 window and thereby sacrifice potential vertical resolution.

Therefore, the ideal HD format would be compatible with three basic aspect ratios which could accomodate most films and video presentations with minimal unused image area to preserve OAR: 4x3, 16x9, 20x9. HD-DVD players would be designed to convert between these aspect ratios (just as today's DVD players downscale from 16x9 to 4x3) depending on display hardware needs.

Feel free to trim, edit, or leave out as needed (again, if you include this, it's definitely in the "secondary" list of options).