Toshiba and NEC HD-DVD (AOD) accepted (1 Viewer)

[Dan Hitchman]

Blu-Ray gurus have stated they will now be using a hard-coat laminate to protect the disc surface instead of a cartridge for pre-recorded movie/music discs (what about dust?). Whether this is as good as a built in caddy, we'll find out in a few years.

If AOD has superior, true 1080p video (given an efficient and better codec over MPEG-2) and as-good-as or better than DVD-Audio specifications for all soundtracks (rather than dusty ol' lossy compressed DTS and Dolby Digital) then I'll be all over this... like bees on flowers!!

Dan

 

[GarySchrock]

In this day and age, what kind of insular, myopic company introduces a new format that increases bulk?

I'd guess that it was people that realize just how susceptable to scratches these discs are going to be. With the size of the pits that will be involved for adding that much more capacity to a disc, it's going to be incredibly easy to cause scratches that affect playback. It's already pretty easy to do on a dvd.

Now, I'm not advocating one format or the other (especially since I honestly feel that hd-dvd will be at best a niche market for some time to come), but I do think that the relative ease of damaging discs is something that needs to be looked at.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

No way could they put blue laser discs into the rental market. They'd be good for one or two viewings given the way people treat rentals now, and then off to the scrap pile!

This susceptibility to laser rot and scratches is something that must be addressed in both the AOD and Blu-Ray factions.

Dan

 

[Clinton McClure]

1: How does AOD stack up to D-Theater? I never tossed cash the way of the souped-up VHS. Does anyone have any specs to compare?

2: My monitor is a Toshiba Theaterwide 40" (TW40x81) which is labeled as "HD Compatable", but is not HD ready (no HD tuner). It has both progressive and interlaced component video inputs so I'm assuming I will still achieve a much better picture quality than current progressive DVD? Also, how would a set like mine compare to, say a plasma or a newer RPTV which is HD ready or am I trying to compare apples to oranges?

 

[Marc_Sulinski]

My monitor is a Toshiba Theaterwide 40" (TW40x81) which is labeled as "HD Compatable", but is not HD ready

Actually, your TV is HD-Ready, it just isn't considered and HD TV. You can watch HD material on it right now via cable or satellite.

I am wondering if the HD-DVD players will output the full 1080p (or i) signal via component video cable. Also, does anyone know if VHS D-Theater does this?

 

[Pete Lee]

Blu-Ray gurus have stated they will now be using a hard-coat laminate to protect the disc surface instead of a cartridge for pre-recorded movie/music discs

This is good to hear but it still doesn't explain how rewritable Blu-Ray drives are going to fit into notebooks. I fully understand the cartridge was introduced to protect the disc. I just find it hard to believe that less cumbersome solutions couldn't be devised, especially when you consider that the demand for slim form factors only increases as the computer market shifts more and more to notebooks. To me, the cartridge effectively relegates Blu-Ray to replacing tape drives for backup storage.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Clinton, (Bill??!! )

There was a shoot out that Joe Kane did between the D-Theater (1080i and 720p) tapes of Digital Video Essentials and his optimized WM9 1080p transfers (the AOD board with the DVD Forum is considering this as the possible video compression algorithm, although it is undergoing testing with other similar codecs).

From the descriptions I've read of the match up, the WM9 version was much better than the D-Theater versions and that was even with the D-Theater player going through an outboard MPEG-2 decoder via the Firewire outputs (and going directly into a digital projector through DVI).

Now, that doesn't mean another wavelet codec couldn't then beat the pants off WM9, but that discussion is for another shootout.

Dan

 

[Clinton McClure]

Cool beans Dan! I'm giddy as a schoolgirl.

 

[AntonioBiz]

Quote from David Boulet:

"2. AOD will likely incorporate provisions for high-quality-multi-channel audio playback with full motion video. In other words, you could get your U2 music-video DVD with 24/192 6.1 surround sound (or something similar). BluRay is still a Dolby-Digital (DTS?) only format that doesn't take us beyond the audio capabilities of today's standard DVD-video.

Want to put an end to the DD vs DTS debates? Try 24/192 MLP

3. Because of the better video codecs on AOD, there will be much more room for special content material (like high-res audio, multiple audio tracks, extras etc) that we won't have room for on BluRay...without sacrificing picture quality. MPEG2 just can't give you that bandwidth for special feature content on BluRay without something having to compromise."

End quote

Hi everyone. Just feel the urge to say something about this.
Kodak specs are that, to fully capture a 35mm frame detail, you need a 4096*3072 resolution (don't have a link, sorry, but it's somewhere on kodak's website). Using a 12 bit depth, and 24fps, this would require a bitrate of 10368 Mbit per second (4096*3072*24*36/1024/1024). That's right, more than 10 thousand megabits per second. A loseless video codec would probably lower the bitrate requirements down to 3000/4000 Mbits per second.
Now, D5 masters are 270 Mbit per second, which is a lot less, meaning that full resolution is not captured (1920*1080), and what is captured is subject to further compression.
AOD will have a bitrate of 25/30 Mbit per second, and that INCLUDING audio. Blu ray is 36 Mbit per second.
Dolby Digital and DTS basically satisfy everyone. Never once in my life I happened to read a review stating "the sound lacks of resolution, it's grainy, we need more bits". That does not mean that DD/DTS are perfect, but certainly means that they are basically a very high quality system. DTS even needs the +4db trick to "prove" it is better.
Now, finally, my question: how can the poster (and a lot of other people as well) be willing to trade video bandwidth (which is, as proved by numbers INCREDIBLY SCARCE), for audio bandwidth, which is proved to be already almost perfect?
A lot of people are unable to distinguish among DD, DTS and MLP. These very same people readily (and with a 100% accuracy) can tell a 35mm frame from video. This proves (IMO) that video is a lot behind, in terms of quality, to audio.
BUT STILL, YOU WANT TO SACRIFICE VIDEO FOR AUDIO?
This just beats me, but I'm really interested in other people's opinion.
(Please dont flame me for my english )

 

[Brian-W]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, because this "win" for AOD isn't everything everyone here thinks it is:

1) This leaves Toshiba, NEC, and a handful of 'minor' companies to manufacture this new standard - Sony, Phillips, Pioneer, RCA, Samsung, Mitsubishi, LG, Sharp, Hitachi will all be moving forward with Blu-Ray.

Remember, last time there was a format war, it was Sony/Phillips in the spot that Toshiba/NEC currently occupy with regards to format acceptance.

2) No movie studio has endorsed (save Columbia Tri-Star) ANY of the formats. Who knows, they may end up supporting both or neither of them.

3) Don't spout off the "but the DVD-Forum has accepted AOD, and that means that is the standard." No it doesn't. It means that AOD is the standard for the DVD-Forum. And most of the major manufacturers obviously feel strongly in Blu-Ray that they a)voted no/abstained to support AOD and b)broke off and formed their own forum.

And, Blu-Ray was never submitted to the DVD-Forum, and never was planned to since Toshiba/NEC and a few other companies weren't going to support it. Rather than face any rejection, they formed their own group and elected to go that way.

So AOD was put up for a vote again and also (if I recall correctly) *after* some more members were added to the steering committee in order to get an approval since the other steering members were voting no. Otherwise, AOD would be dead based on the last vote.

4) Don't start with the anti-Sony rehtoric in this thread - Sony is NOT Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray is a CONSORTIUM of electronics companies, all of which are named above.


And lastly, just to reiterate the above, beg and plead all you want for all the features and codecs you want, but at the end of the day, what matters is Who (Studios) will support which format. Doesn't matter how good or bad the video codecs are, sound quality, or what the disc format looks like - if there is no software to play on these decks, then it doesn't matter the capabilities.

Only time will tell. It could very well be a repeat of DVD (Sony, Warner, etc. support DVD, while Disney, Fox, etc. supported DivX), could be SACD vs. DVD-A, with both formats surviving (barely).

 

[JeanSSullivan]

The WMP9 format is very impressive with 6mbits at 720p it just look amazing! Way better than any dvd that i have played back on my pc. One thing, it takes quite a good processor to use it. I got a P4 2ghz with a Radeon and i can barely watch T2 in WMP9 format.

You can download demos of the codec on the MediaPlayer9 site.

 

[Matt Broeska]

i'm gonna chime in on this:

Kodak specs are that, to fully capture a 35mm frame detail, you need a 4096*3072 resolution

i work in vfx and that resolution is rarely used in film. most film scans we receive in the super 35 format is 2048x1536.

anamorphic film also generally gets scanned at 2048x1556.

i'm not saying this to be argumentative, just that film doesn't HAVE to be 4096x3072.

 

[AntonioBiz]

i'm not saying this to be argumentative, just that film doesn't HAVE to be 4096x3072.

Matt, thank you for your info from the inside, which personally always appreciate because it gives me an idea of what is actually going on.
What I was trying to say, though, was not that that kind of resolution is a requirement (after all, DVDs at 720*480 are perfectly enjoyable), but that the original master used in movies (the negative) can go that high in resolution (this without considering 70mm, which goes much higher).
Nonetheless, the resolution you quote (which is a quarter) would still require about 2500 Mbits!!!!
So the question, in a way, becomes to me even more interesting: are you willing to throw away further bandwith, when all you have to start with is a quarter of a hundredth ot the original?!?

 

[Neil Joseph]

I am wondering if the HD-DVD players will output the full 1080p (or i) signal via component video cable.

This, I really would like to know the answer to. I would assume that there would be switchable options such as 1080i/1080p via dvi, and perhaps 1080i/1080p via component as well. At least I hope so.

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

Brian, the articles I've read say that the movie studios have been involved in evaluating the possible video codecs for AOD -- and they said that the studios want the highest quality, which is why we'll get a new higher capacity format instead of just a new codec slapped on old red laser DVD -- so I believe that at least some of the studios will back AOD. In particular, Warner's ties with Toshiba go way back, before Toshiba and Sony agreed to create the unified format now known as DVD, and Warner holds some of the DVD patents that will no doubt carry forward to AOD.

You're right, if there's no software to play on these decks, it won't matter. But there's more than just the player manufacturers and the movie studios that might limit the availability/affordability of the software. There's also the disc manufacturers. Blu-Ray has to start from scratch with a totally new disc manufacturing process, and right now only Sony and TDK know how to make them. On the other hand, AOD requires some retooling of existing DVD plants and it's ready to go. One company estimated that 80% of its plants are capable of retooling, and that it will take 15% longer to make an AOD disc and the yields will be only 10% lower than DVD. That is damned good for a format that is just starting. It also won't matter if the hardware and software are too expensive. AOD was designed with cost in consideration.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

AntonioBiz,

That's fine and dandy and I would LOVE to have a lossless video codec that recreates much more fully the resolution of top quality 35mm (hell, why not 70mm?). When will we get that? Probably 15-20 years from now. Care to wait that long for any sort of HD discs?

If a good wavelet codec is chosen with a fairly sustained bitrate of about 15 Megabits/sec (maybe somewhat more) then for now that should give us quite outstanding 1080p video (as long as the mastering is up to snuff) with the consumer video equipment we'll have for the forseeable future.

One of the big weaknesses of DVD discs currently is that we get just "okay" audio. Pretty much anyone from the days of laserdisc would tell you that (as one small example) if you put uncompressed PCM stereo up against today's 192 kilobits/sec Dolby Digital stereo, the PCM track will blow the DD track out of the water.

Now, jump to MLP (lossless) compressed PCM at, say 6 channels and 24/96 resolution (using MLP you probably could push it to 8 channel discrete with AOD and Blu-Ray!!). With a solid DVD-Audio player and a fairly decent sound system you can usually tell a pretty big difference between DTS or Dolby Digital and the PCM high resolution version.

I would kill to have both better than D-Theater 1080p video (and far, far better than broadcast TV quality) and master quality sound for movies, TV shows, and concerts, etc. No more DTS vs. Dolby Digital debates. There shouldn't be lossy compressed audio anyway!! We've been waiting for these features for a long time and many of us wouldn't want it any other way.

That does not mean it would be the end all be all of HD video/audio formats, but for the next cycle of pre-recorded product I could live with it. Then we could see about at least full 35mm quality and even better than PCM multichannel audio with consumer systems that support those features after that.

Dan

 

[Richard Paul]

Before to many people think that HD-DVD will use Corona as it's video codec there is a far better chance of it using MPEG-4. In Widescreen Review's November issue there was an article with two members of the AOD development team. They explained that there will be a "red laser HD-DVD" format using H.264 (A variant of MPEG-4) and that blue laser HD-DVD will be compatible with it. So this means they will have to support both MPEG-2 and H.264 on HD-DVD. Therefore it is most likely that they will end up using H.264 as HD-DVD's video codec even if Corona is better.

Also for those wondering about component video outputs on HD-DVD I'll quote what the representatives said when asked if it would be provided. Yamada(Toshiba): "That is really a difficult condition. Please ask the content providers.", Hayatsu(NEC): "That is up to them. The studios feel that interface is dangerous.". That is not exactly a reassuring message for those wanting component outputs on HD-DVD.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

But, didn't they also say they were testing H.264 against Corona (WM9) to see which one was better?

The AOD group keeps batting around the fact that Corona at around 15 Megabits/sec was a fairly strong contender.

Dan

 

[Pete Lee]

4) Don't start with the anti-Sony rehtoric in this thread - Sony is NOT Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray is a CONSORTIUM of electronics companies, all of which are named above.

With all due respect, when it comes to the possibility of Blu-Ray becoming the next format for hi-def, pre-recorded content, Sony IS Blu-Ray. Of course there are other members of Blu-Ray but Sony is the 800-pound gorilla because only it has a movie library. Try this thought experiment; if Sony announced that it's not going to release any movies in Blu-Ray, what are the chances of Blu-Ray becoming the next hi-def video format? Zero.

My criticism of Blu-Ray and by extension, Sony, was based on a very specific aspect of the format. I didn't criticize Sony because its name begins with the letter "S." I think the cartridge is a poor, inelegant way to address dirt and scratches and is a step back. Sony's support of Blu-Ray is all the more bizarre given that it has a sizeable notebook business that will have to figure out how to incorporate Blu-Ray drives into its famously slim portables (that is, if Blu-Ray ever becomes more than a niche product).

 

[Adam_R]

AntonioBiz - Excellent point. I agree.

Audio quality seems far ahead of video quality in today's home theater.

I would opt for more video bandwidth before audio improvements.

As an owner of an HDTV and a subscriber of 9 or so HDTV channels, I can safely say that HDTV is far beyond DVD video quality. (Not like most of you didn't already know that!)