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

[AaronMK]

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.

But who has a 20x9 displar?

A downscaled image to x ratio will never look as good as an image that is encoded in that x ratio. Why would anyone encode at 20x9 if it is not going to give anyone an optimal image quality.

I would be very much in favor of this idea if there were 20x9 displays, or if displays had a 20x9 squeeze mode, much like many 4x3 diplays have a 16x9 sqeeze mode.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I would be very much in favor of this idea if there were 20x9 displays, or if displays had a 20x9 squeeze mode, much like many 4x3 diplays have a 16x9 sqeeze mode.

Right now all CRT front-projection systems can do this. Any CRT RP set could be designed with a "20x9 sqeeze" as well.

More tricky are digital displays which have a "fixed" matrix of resolution. However, right now these displays must scale alternate resolutions to match their pixel arrays and often with great success (I'm thining of 1080 downconverted to 720) so that's a good sign of things to come. Where this would really serve an advanatage would bein the front projection arena where aspect ratio and screen shape are often more flexible than in the home environment. Many use PCs to scale DVDs to their projector's optimal resolution. Might as well have as much resolution to start with in the native image as you can.

BTW, digital cinemas will be using the *FULL* resolution of the HD format for 2.35:1 movies (no letterboxing in the 20x9 frame). They'll use anamorphic lenses to project these images on the screen. Why should the theater get more resolution than your "ultimate" HD DVD disc???

The display technology will be there more quickly than we think.

-dave

 

[ChrisA]

CRT technology really is dying fast, although the 8 and especially 9 inch CRTS still are king of home theater. I can't think of a display device I'd want more than a Sony G90 or top of the line Electrohome/Runco... Nonetheless, it appears that CRT is going to continue to be slowly abandoned. (I certainly won't miss all the geometry and convergence problems, and regular maintanance of CRT). The digital projectors are contunuing to increase in quality--improving at an incredible rate. The Marantz DLP is doing incredibly well with the HD1 chip. I plan on switching to DLP when they release the 1920 x 1080 DLP chips.

Texas Instruments does have a working prototype of the 1920 x 1080 DLP. Texas Instruments is not releasing the 1920 x 1080 DLP chip because it thinks the market is to small. I don't feel like finding the threads to back-up what I'm saying, but trust me, that will be one of our next petitions--a friendly petition to tell Texas Instruments that there is indeed demand for 1920 x 1080p DLP. So everything is INDEED in place for successful 1080p home theater.

I expect 1080p capable DLP projectors to be available to consumers in CES 2004 without any need for a friendly petition. I'd like to think 1080p DLP would be available this 2003 so we could display 1080p full resolution D-VHS. 1080p digital projectors can't come soon enough. D-ILA projectors may hit 1080p sooner, but it appears that DLP is still the best 'overall quality' digital method.

Perhaps Bjorn can comment on David's proposed paragraph on 20x9.... Again, what are the dissadvantages or reasons NOT to provide 20x9 ??

 

[ChrisA]

We need to re-word some of the audio portion, just to show how flexible we really are and how important audio is...

I'll do a minor adjustment tonight.

Bjorn is supposed to be back today. Hopefully we can get this posted on the Internet by weeks end, although there is no hurry. I wish we could get more input and secondary ideas...

 

[Bjoern Roy]

I am back and have to play catch up. I read the news ticker about the supposed 'new' direction of the DVD forum at the dvdforum.org homepage. Most excellent if true. What else happened?

 

[ChrisA]

Bjoern,

We are simply waiting on you to go through all the threads on this petition thread and come up with some more suggestions or opinions. Please make a post regarding the various issues posted here. We can submit the petition tomorrow or wait another week after taking our petition to HT SPOT or HT TALK if you think we can get more feedback there. In any case, we await more input from you.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

ChrisA:

I'm not arguing the fact that MLP as a packing medium for PCM encoding isn't damn flexible, it is. What I am saying is that the DVD Forum limited it to 5.1 channels at a maximum of 24 bit/96 kHz for current red laser DVDs.

With BlueRay or a holographic disc technology, the door must be opened to something like 24 bit/192 kHz with 7.1 discrete channels. 10.2 may be overkill for most (if not all) home uses, but I feel (as do others, like THX and Lexicon, and many up and coming surround music engineers) that 7.1 with full range, stereo side & stereo rear channels would fit the bill nicely without being overkill for home use.

If BlueRay was adopted w/o MPEG-4 compression then they should use 2 dual layered discs for one average length movie-- that's over 100 Gigabytes to play with for an averaged length movie. Enough data room for possibly 1080p and 7.1 MLP. The DVD-Forum shouldn't look at dual layered discs as a windfall for 4 hours of average quality HDTV programming, but for extremely high quality video and audio instead. Far better than D-VHS.

Dan

 

[Bjoern Roy]

...The DVD-Forum shouldn't look at dual layered discs as a windfall for 4 hours of average quality HDTV programming, but for extremely high quality video and audio instead. Far better than D-VHS.

I agree that they should shoot for quality over quantity, but a single dual-layer blue laser disc has about the same storage capacity that a DVHS tape offers today, so how is it 'far better'?
Bjoern

 

[Bjoern Roy]

Then again, we ARE petitioning for a blue laser format that is several years away anyway. So assuming the film industry DOES come up with a 7.1 format in the next 3 years, it would certainly be reasonable to push 7.1 as an option on HD-DVD.

Its also a reasonable timeframe to introduce new equipment, even if its only available from the field pioneers like TagMcLaren in the beginning.

Its obvious though, that 7.1, whether through MLP or a new DD or DTS derivate, can only be an option alongside a regular DD track.

In my opinion, MLP 7.1 could make DTS pretty much obsolete. Having a widely compatible DD soundtrack with 576 or 640kbps should be pretty much a given, just like on DVHS. Having a mid- to high-bitrate DTS track alongside is going to have the same limited benefit that it has today. But lossless MLP 7.1 as the 'other', the 'highend' soundtrack on a HD-DVD would make a real difference and would certainly be a no-brainer selling argument for every audiophile.

Hm...

 

[ChrisA]

As far as the petition is concerned regarding audio, I'm failry happy about the way MLP is mentioned in the primary section--it is not too demanding and it makes the point-- of course I'm open for any wording changes.

I'd love to say "HEY! DD is not acceptable for HD-DVD, and it is questionable whether DTS is even suited for HD-DVD. DTS is not all that either. DTS actually has increased compression when running 24/96 on current DVD as proposed (They actually did not increase the bandwidth in proportion to the added word length/sampling rate). In other words, DTS played a marketing game to achive 24/96. 24/96 and lossy coding is an oxymoron--the first thing a perceptual, lossy codec should do is basically get rid of bits 20-24, and remove the higher frequencies and any unecessary sampling rate to achieve such frequencies. That said, perhaps DTS can run at much higher rates for D-VHS/HD-DVD.

I'm fairly disgusted with Dolby Digital's lack of scalability. I don't see why they couldn't have designed Dolby Digital to run at much higher bandwidths such as DTS. At least DTS is capable of much less lossy compression and is fully scalable, but by the time you get DTS running where you really need it for 24/96, your already running at levels achievable by MLP, which provides flawless 24/96. I think we can safely mention Dan;s suggestion about more channels--although I think this is a part of flexibility. Dan, Chesky is 2+2+2 is really 6.0.. The DVD Forum did not limit DVD-A to 5.1, there simply isn't much storage space/bandwidth for much more.

I'd much rather have MLP using 24/96 across the front 3 speakers, and 20/48 for the rear/side speakers (if sapce is an issue), than anything DTS offers. It is hard to hold back enthusiasm for MLP for HD-DVD... it makes too much damn sense. I think we must address this issue a bit stronger. And to show our flexibility, we must say we embrace any audio format which allows quality similar to that of MLP. I'd be happy to entertain some new improved Dolby Digital format for that matter if even to show how important audio quality really is to HD-DVD. On another note: it will be interesting to see what HD-DVD-Audio becomes --- think of it. The future is exciting, but it is still coming way too slow.

I do agree with discrete side channels, perhaps height channels. there is nothing wrong with putting that in secondary suggestions. I'd certainly like to put something in about a discrete tactile channel. We can make the secondary issues section sincere but somewhat lighthearted.

It is a shame they don't make seperate mixes for the home and the theater. I don't like being held back by commercial theaters. Commercial theaters don't need to be as good as IMAX, but they need to start implementing height channels and new commercial audio formats such as 10.2 by Homlison (THX).

Let's start thinking of wrapping this up. It doesn't seem like anyone has anything more to contribute, so let's start making some final changes. Do you guys participate in HT Talk and HT Spot Forums? I'd be curious to know if you think we can get more input there. I really want to make sure we can get everyone involved. We can really make a statement, ecpecially if we get enough signatures and media attention.

 

[Thomas Newton]

I'd certainly like to put something in about a discrete tactile channel.

So when are you wiring up your home theater room sofa, Matinee-style?

 

[Bill Slack]

I've seen MPEG4 @ 1280x720p. I could tell it was MPEG4 before looking at the marketing material next to it. This was last June at Streaming Media West at the huge Microsoft booth. I think MPEG4 is a great thing... for downloading and streaming video clips.

For archival movie purposes, it's pretty lame. Yes, using blue lasers will mean it will take a bit longer for the technology to develop, and will cost more, at first. But I'd rather have something good, than just have something now.

 

[ChrisA]

I'm on call tomorrow, so I'll try to work on the final version Sunday, pending anymore comments.

Bjoern,

You never did comment on the 20x9 issue, please give all the threads a good read and let me know.

Chris

P.S. Did you see Gary at WSR published a small blurb from me in ISSUE 60 of WSR--> "DVD Forum's 7mbps HD-DVD"

I can't wait for us to get this petition going!

 

[Terrell]

Brad, I read your earlier post. No disrespect, but I'm sick of the planned obsolescence mentality of studios and consumer electronics companies. I don't feel for them. Honestly, if they can't at the very least put out an HD-DVD product that rivals or beats D-VHS, then that's pathetic. They should do it right. I've had it happen too often to me. They can do it right the first time, and end up making money. If it's costly, it will come down in price, just like HDTVs have done. Look at laserdisc. When they first came out, you couldn't find a player for a reasonable cost. Even the cheapest were a thousand dollars. By the end of the format's lifespan, you could buy a good LD player as cheaply as you could a VCR. And this is from a format that basically failed to gain a foothold, and had a very short lifespan.

DVD is a highly successful platform. Maybe the most successful ever, in such a short period of time. If they do it right the first time, and cut out all of this "do it just good enough to get consumers money mentality," they'd make a lot fo money.

Again, they should at the very least, put out a hi-def DVD format at least the equal of this new HD-VHS format. If they don't, it won't be because they can't. It will be because they don't want to.

As for this adding of new channels, which means I have o buy more boxes, I'm not big on that idea. Enough is enough. I think 6.1 or 7.1 is plenty for a home format. 10.1 is absolutely ridiculous in a home environment.

 

[AllenD]

I apologize if this has been mentioned already, but I haven't read the whole thread since it's getting really long. Has adding the ability to time shift HD-DVD been mentioned in the petition yet? How can HD-DVD compete with D-VHS if the DVD Forum doesn't feel consumers should have this option?

 

[Joe_H]

I don't know enough about HDTV or video or sound formats or anything to make too many comments on this, however I noticed someone talking about the feasability of using two different discs for a movie. Maybe it would be better to use one disc thats entirely audio and one disc thats entirely video and have a dual drive DVD player that would be able to sync the two together?

 

[ChrisA]

7.1 is plenty for a home format. 10.1 is absolutely ridiculous in a home environment

I think 7 discrete main channels + potentially some sort of height channel(s), is defintely a must at some point:

3 front, 2 side, 2 surround (+ *possibly* height channel(s)).

If you are talking about Homlison from THX 10.2 format, I agree because that format utilizes 5 channels across the front and is made for huge commercial theaters. I believe SDDS utilizes 5 front channels. I'm currently not supportive of a rear center channel because I do not believe it is a benefit. A single rear center channel would be appealing, but apparently, psychoacoustics/proper phase warrants against a single rear center channel. I'm certainly not sticking 2 speakers side by side or any other lame rear center channel concept that compromises the beauty of discrete surrounds. I very much enjoy hearing something fade off into the distance towards the left or right --> discrete sides and discrete rears would be ideal IMO. I'm not a fan of EX/ES. I believe discrete sides and discrete surrounds would be our best case scenario.

Can someone clue me in to time shifting? Hehe. Is that recording when you want to?

 

[ChrisA]

I don't know enough about HDTV or video or sound formats or anything to make too many comments on this, however I noticed someone talking about the feasability of using two different discs for a movie. Maybe it would be better to use one disc thats entirely audio and one disc thats entirely video and have a dual drive DVD player that would be able to sync the two together?

You would double the storage and bandwidth, but in a rather expensive way. I believe commercial movie theaters do the sound in that fashion.

Economically, I don't think that would ever happen. FMD and Blue Ray DVD have around 4 times the bandwidth/storage of regular DVD, with FMD showing more potential considering thaey can achieve those rates with red laser. FMD is most appealing because they can add many layers as well as switch to Blue laser... FMD potential is VERY appealing. I don't see requiring two drives as being feasible, but I know there are a lot of us who would just like to get high bandwidth/storage one way or another ASAP. One thing is clear--> we won't settle for highly compressed 1080i running on current DVD technology.

 

[Kami]

SO blueray is only 4 times the storage as current dvds? Hmm, if they continue to use MPEG-2 then I don't see this as a big step really. If they used MPEG-4 (no, not streaming internet microsoft mpeg-4, but real stuff) and 4 times the current space then THAT would be an advancement. Continuing to use MPEG-2 would just be holding back technology IMO.

 

[Bjoern Roy]

Phew, just read all of the posts here. First of all, i would like to thank Chris and Dave for the time they spent on this
Both the content and the wording of the petition are great thus far, very professional.
About the 20:9 issue. Personally, i wouldn't include it.
First of all, HDTV masters are going to be 1080p24 for a long time to come. So there is NO additional information in the studio masters that a 20:9 encoded 1080 transfer could benefit from.
Second, there is basically no ultra high resolution 4:3 content available. HDTV video is always going to be 16:9 or wider, and older movies in the 1.37:1 ratio usually don't have more real detail than the 4:3 portion of a 1080p24 transfer (1440x1080) provides. So i think its a mood point from a technological point of view.
On top of that, completely unfiltered 1080p24 is going to be quite demanding to compress. So, 2.35:1 transfers that have black bars encoded within, have 25% more bandwidth to spare for the actual picture content, which in turn helps to make the 2.35:1 better compression wise. So 1.85:1 transfers would have a bit more resolution and 2.35:1 transfers a bit less compression artefacts. Sounds like a reasonable compromise even for people with a scope screen like me.
The biggest problem, though, and the reason why i would even petition AGAINST multiple strech modes on HD-DVD, is the fact that although technically possible, there is too big a chance that the first 2-3 generations of HD-DVD players are going to screw up again big time and yield downconversion artefacts all over the place. It doesn't even work properly on DVD yet.
For example, on DVD to get a 4:3 downconverted interlace output from a 16:9 enhanced DVD, you would ideally need to take the interlaced stream, deinterlace it with a Faroudja DCDi logic or inverse 3:2 pulldown, scale down the resulting progressive frame with a very high quality scaling algorithm and then produce an interlace signal again.
NO player does even close to that yet, so how do we expect them to get it even remotely right for HD-DVD. Because the steps above would be exactly what would be needed to get a simple 1080i output from a 20:9 encoded HD-DVD on most peoples 16:9 screens.
Well, my point is, its too complicated and not worthwhile. What do you think, David?