[macintologist]

So I downloaded some of the HD samples on the Quicktime site.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/

I looked at some of the 720p and 1080p clips. They look fabulous, and guess what the bitrate is? Anywhere between 6-9Mbps.

So why do we need Blu-ray then? Why not just use the H.264 codec and fit them on normal DVDs which run at 9Mbps anyway.

[Railroader]

Watch a movie on a DVD and then the same movie on a HD DVD or Blu-Ray disc. It will be quite obvious.

You are watching video encoded for the web. Perhaps you just don't have as discerning of an eye and can't see the difference.

[The Godfather]

In standardized test terminology:

HD : DVD :: DVD : YouTube

Also, if your TV is smaller than 30", it makes no difference.

[Faust]

I agree with the reasons Railroader mentioned. Plus, you can get more on a Blu-Ray DVD as opposed to a normal DVD which holds the regular 4.7 GB. This is particularly cool if I like to put a few 120min live video bootlegs on a single disc for example.

[goMac]

I don't think you guys are getting what he's saying. He said he figured out that a movie in HD could fit on a normal DVD (as a lot of people have figured out), so why would you need a new media format?

I don't know if there is a good answer. HD-DVD will allow you to write an HD-DVD formatted movie to a regular DVD though.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I don't think you guys are getting what he's saying. He said he figured out that a movie in HD could fit on a normal DVD (as a lot of people have figured out), so why would you need a new media format?

Yes I did.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

You are watching video encoded for the web. Perhaps you just don't have as discerning of an eye and can't see the difference.

And so did The Godfather:

Also, if your TV is smaller than 30", it makes no difference.

He was watching video that has been compressed for transmission over the internet. At the size he was watching it his eyes probably could detect the compression artifacts. Or he simply can't see the difference.

[macintologist]

Ok, so really how much more Mbps do you need to get from the 6Mbps internet HD 720p, to say a commercial quality HD movie at 720p.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Ok, so really how much more Mbps do you need to get from the 6Mbps internet HD 720p, to say a commercial quality HD movie at 720p.

It depends on the footage. Slow moving footage with little detail doesn't need a very high bit-rate. Footage with a lot of detailed fast moving objects calls for a higher bit-rate. DVD tops out at 9.8 Mbit/s, HD DVD at 29.4 Mbit/s, and Blu-ray at 40 Mbit/s.

[jokell82]

We don't need Blu-Ray. HD-DVD can stick around, though.

[macintologist]

I think the only reason I'm not enthusiastic about HD is all the new DRM schemes that come with it.

[Railroader]

It was cracked a lot faster than DVD.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

He was watching video that has been compressed for transmission over the internet. At the size he was watching it his eyes probably could detect the compression artifacts. Or he simply can't see the difference.

Actually video compressed for Hi Def optical formats will still fit on a standard DVD. You can't fit all the audio niceties, but for basic 1080p video, a DVD will do just fine.

H.264 does 1080p at 7-8 megabits. That means the average HD movies in h.264 is about 6.8 gigs, which is the same codec that Bluray and HD-DVD use. Of course again, this won't mean uncompressed audio or other niceties, but DVD is a perfectly ample format for HD video.

[starman]

Hey, we have Toyotas, why do we need Porsches?

[The Godfather]

When I want to catch artifacts in lossy video compression, I look for:

* edges of character and background during high action scenes.
* big black areas that grow on screen.
* big white areas that are supposed to remain pure white.

You can always catch them when a DVD is compressed to 1/2 the bitrate into divx, which is more efficient than MPEG2. I imagine it will be worse for 1080p compressed to H.264 at a lesser bitrate fraction.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

We don't need Blu-Ray. HD-DVD can stick around, though.

Blu-Ray has already beaten HD-DVD.

140,000 stand-alone HD-DVD players sold so far

vs.

100,000 stand-alone Blu-Ray players
AND
1.5 million Playstation 3 consoles


Kiss your HD-DVD goodbye.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Blu-Ray has already beaten HD-DVD.

140,000 stand-alone HD-DVD players sold so far

vs.

100,000 stand-alone Blu-Ray players
AND
1.5 million Playstation 3 consoles


Kiss your HD-DVD goodbye.

Another BR fanboi

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman 

Another BR fanboi

Yeah. I guess a majority of the standalone buyers must just be crazy for buying into a dead format. Jokes on them.

P.S. The Macintosh and BMW are at least 8x more dead.

[Super Mario]

"640K ought to be enough for anybody" Bill Gates

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by starman 

Hey, we have Toyotas, why do we need Porsches?

Since I can't afford Porsche's, we don't.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

"640K ought to be enough for anybody" Bill Gates

I'm really getting tired of this non-quote.

-t

[goMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm really getting tired of this non-quote.

-t

I think he's trying to say that our optical media needs to be more than 640k.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I think he's trying to say that our optical media needs to be more than 640k.

He should start a new thread.

Or a whole new forum.

-t

[Eug]

I will point out that H.264 on DVD is HD DVD (if mastered correctly).

3X DVD is part of the official HD DVD spec. There is something similar with Blu-ray.

However, neither will play in a DVD player, hence the new format requirements.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by starman 

Another BR fanboi

Hardly. I'm just looking at the reality.

I own neither.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by starman 

Hey, we have Toyotas, why do we need Porsches?

Not a valid comparison since Toyotas and Porches use the same fuel and drive on the same roads

[torsoboy]

My TV is less than 30" and I don't want to spend $25-30 on a video, so DVD is just fine for me. Like with video games, content makes the movie, not the snazzy graphics. Long live the Wii!!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Blu-Ray has already beaten HD-DVD.

140,000 stand-alone HD-DVD players sold so far

vs.

100,000 stand-alone Blu-Ray players
AND
1.5 million Playstation 3 consoles


Kiss your HD-DVD goodbye.

Yes, I'm sure all those pissed-off PS3 owners with nothing decent to play on their overpriced crap are getting ready to bury HD-DVD as we speak.

[Super Mario]

Whenever this debate comes up for the godzillionth time I always want to remind people that they are repeated the same arguments that occured when DVD went head to head against DiVX and then the PS2 came out when stand alone DVD players were still too pricy. The larger format won the format war and the games console made it popular.

I don't think I will mention or remind anyone of that though

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Whenever this debate comes up for the godzillionth time I always want to remind people that they are repeated the same arguments that occured when DVD went head to head against DiVX and then the PS2 came out when stand alone DVD players were still too pricy. The larger format won the format war and the games console made it popular.

I don't think I will mention or remind anyone of that though

Yeah, because it's not relevant to the current situation. No popular game console includes either format by default.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, because it's not relevant to the current situation. No popular game console includes either format by default.

Tell that to Blockbuster Video. They're moving Blu-ray discs pretty well to PS3 owners and have almost dropped HD-DVD completely. It's history repeating itself. The same thing is going to happen again in ten years when super high definition becomes popular. 4K digital cinema at home.

[Big Mac]

Eug has the answer: the reason why a successor to the DVD format is necessary for HD is because although HD content can fit on regular DVD discs, such content cannot be played by DVD players. Additionally, it should be noted that one of the Blu-Ray supported codecs is H.264.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Tell that to Blockbuster Video. They're moving Blu-ray discs pretty well to PS3 owners and have almost dropped HD-DVD completely. It's history repeating itself. The same thing is going to happen again in ten years when super high definition becomes popular. 4K digital cinema at home.

Gee... You're right. I looked at Blockbuster's site and they only have 26 pages of HD-DVD titles:
Blockbuster Online�-�HD DVD

Not to mention they're still stocking HD-DVD in the 250 original trial stores.

I also was in a Blockbuster a few weeks back, no HD titles in sight for either format.

Also, I doubt super high definition is going to hit homes like you think it will. 1080p is getting close to the visual limit that our eyes can see for most TV's. 1280p will get us closer. But you'd have to have a gigantic TV to take advantage of cinema quality video (hence "cinema" quality). We're getting close to the limit of what our eyes can handle.

Look at the average tv size consumers buy, and then look at what the maximum discernible resolution is for that tv size. Even if TV's become cheaper, leading to consumers buying larger TV's, we're still limited as to how much space we have to dedicate to our tv's, which will also cap tv sizes.

[BasketofPuppies]

You know, I was neutral in this Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD format battle, not only puzzled as to how nerds could get attached to inanimate objects but also figuring that digital distribution would prematurely kill both formats in a few years, but with HD-DVD zealots being far more annoying than Blu-ray zealots, I want Blu-ray to dominate, only to spite the HD-DVD zealots.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Gee... You're right.

Even though I have you and the other grandmaster of the universe besson3c blocked, I'll answer you

Blockbuster chooses Blu-ray: is the war over? - Engadget
Blockbuster: Blu-Ray All The Way - Forbes.com
PC World - What Blu-ray's Blockbuster Popularity Proves
Slashdot | Blockbuster Chooses Blu-ray
Blu-ray's new attack on HD DVD: 5 movie freebies

Also, I doubt super high definition is going to hit homes like you think it will. 1080p is getting close to the visual limit that our eyes can see for most TV's. 1280p will get us closer. But you'd have to have a gigantic TV to take advantage of cinema quality video (hence "cinema" quality). We're getting close to the limit of what our eyes can handle.

(wtf planet does this guy and besson3c come from?)


Eyes don't see in pixels. Eyes can handle all the detail you can throw at them if their healthy. There's no visual limit you can define in pixels.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Eyes don't see in pixels. Eyes can handle all the detail you can throw at them if their healthy. There's no visual limit you can define in pixels.

Thank you for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Pop quiz, hot shot: at 15 feet away from a 50" TV set, could your eyes discern the difference between a 1080p image and a 480p image?

The answer is no.

[DakarÊ’]

If the original guy's question has been answered, can we lock this bitch up and continue bickering in the old thread?

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Thank you for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Pop quiz, hot shot: at 15 feet away from a 50" TV set, could your eyes discern the difference between a 1080p image and a 480p image?

COLOR="White"The answer is no./COLOR

This one nearly killed me laughing

I can tell the difference. I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p too. If you can't it is time to get glasses.

If anyone thinks we won't go beyond 1080p and all the way up to 4K digital cinema then I'll keep an eye out for you on this forum if you or this forum are still around. When the time comes I bet you'll be dropping the cash for it and being going red faced every time what your opinion was in 2007 is mentioned.

[jokell82]

Mario, you are flat out wrong. There is a limit to what our eyes can discern. You cannot read a sign on the road that is 2 miles away, even if you can see the sign.

Read this page to understand:
1080p Does Matter - Here's When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution) » CarltonBale.com

And fyi, I have 20/10 vision, so please don't try and tell me I need glasses.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Mario, you are flat out wrong. There is a limit to what our eyes can discern. You cannot read a sign on the road that is 2 miles away, even if you can see the sign.

Please, save the analogies and save yourself the embarrassment. There are already 4K digital cameras and 4K projectors. To the naked eye it takes 4K digital to approximate the level of detail of 35mm film which nearly all filmmakers use when shooting on film. 1080p reduces depth and detail significantly and barely gives the image quality of 16mm. Filmmakers don't want you watching a reduced quality version of their work so when technology allows it you'll be watching 4K digital cinema at home. 4.5K even because that is closer and there's already the RED Digital Cinema system that can shoot 4.5K progressive. Your eyes will know the difference when you watch 4K footage. Everyone who went to NAB this year and saw what the RED was capturing had to pick their jaws off the floor. Peter Jackson shot a World War I short on it and projected it in full resolution and then compared it to 1080P.

Lesson: Don't side with goMac or you'll look ass.

[starman]

16mm??????????????????

Dude, you're talking out of your ass.

I own a 16mm and a 35mm projector. 16mm looks like ass compared to a good 1080p presentation. I've personally shown 16 and 35mm prints to large groups of people in real movie theaters and 16mm just doesn't cut it.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Please, save the analogies and save yourself the embarrassment. There are already 4K digital cameras and 4K projectors. To the naked eye it takes 4K digital to approximate the level of detail of 35mm film which nearly all filmmakers use when shooting on film. 1080p reduces depth and detail significantly and barely gives the image quality of 16mm. Filmmakers don't want you watching a reduced quality version of their work so when technology allows it you'll be watching 4K digital cinema at home. 4.5K even because that is closer and there's already the RED Digital Cinema system that can shoot 4.5K progressive. Your eyes will know the difference when you watch 4K footage. Everyone who went to NAB this year and saw what the RED was capturing had to pick their jaws off the floor. Peter Jackson shot a World War I short on it and projected it in full resolution and then compared it to 1080P.

Lesson: Don't side with goMac or you'll look ass.

If you're watching on a display bigger than available on consumer televisions, then yes you can see all that added detail. But did you even look at the link I posted? Or are you just continuing to talk out of your ass?

Here's a pretty picture to show you why increased resolution DOES NOT MATTER until you get a large enough screen or you sit close enough to it:

[DakarÊ’]

1440p? God save us.

Edit: Also, thanks for the chart, jokell82

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by starman 

I own a 16mm and a 35mm projector. 16mm looks like ass compared to a good 1080p presentation. I've personally shown 16 and 35mm prints to large groups of people in real movie theaters and 16mm just doesn't cut it.

No, your 16mm footage looked like ass. Ask any projectionist or filmmaker if you don't want to believe me. 4K approximates the look and detail of 35mm. The sensors in the latest best professional digital cameras are 4K 35mm sensors...

4K 35mm - Google Search

When shooting 2K or 1080p the image doesn't cover the entire size of a 35mm sensor and has to be upscaled and loses detail from the interpolation. It's not just a matter of resolution either. At 4K, colors, contrast, and depth of field and focus are much better too.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Here's a pretty picture to show you why increased resolution DOES NOT MATTER until you get a large enough screen or you sit close enough to it:

Dear God did you think we won't also have 4K screens? Yeah, we'll be watching 4K digital on a 1920x1080 screen in 10-20 years. That's a genius idea. I got a better idea, I'll jump on the HD-DVD idiot bandwagon and support the idea we'll only have 1080p video and screens for the rest of eternity and that lower capacity media is better than high capacity media just because the latter is supported by Sony and not Nintendope.

[starman]

I don't have to believe you. I've been dealing with film for 30 years. 16mm looks like SH*T. I have ORIGINAL 35 and 16mm prints of Star Wars, cartoons, Star Trek episodes, you name it. The best 16mm prints absolutely DO NOT have the level of detail that a 1080p presentation does. It hasn't for 30 years and never will.

35mm is another story but to compare 16mm to 1080p is ludicrous.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by starman 

35mm is another story but to compare 16mm to 1080p is ludicrous.

You can't blame me for what an entire industry believes.

The accurate measurements are 35mm = 4520 x 2540 pixels approximately. That's 4.5K.
4K is the standard most are comfortable with for now because it's close enough without increasing cost.

Google "4K equals 35mm" and there's all your answers. So if 2K approximates S16 or 16mm then what's 1080p? Or take a look at all the CG work that gets done for movies. All rendered out at 4K minimum before printed to film.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Dear God did you think we won't also have 4K screens? Yeah, we'll be watching 4K digital on a 1920x1080 screen in 10-20 years. That's a genius idea. I got a better idea, I'll jump on the HD-DVD idiot bandwagon and support the idea we'll only have 1080p video and screens for the rest of eternity and that lower capacity media is better than high capacity media just because the latter is supported by Sony and not Nintendope.

You sure you're not a troll? Because you're doing a very good job of ignoring any facts that have been made in this thread.

Check the chart, unless consumers start putting in 120" screens in their homes (and only if they sit 10 feet away) then your increased resolution wont matter, because the human eye can not physically discern the difference.

But my guess is you're also the kind of person who thinks Monster cables "sound" better. Get a clue.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

If you're watching on a display bigger than available on consumer televisions, then yes you can see all that added detail. But did you even look at the link I posted? Or are you just continuing to talk out of your ass?

Here's a pretty picture to show you why increased resolution DOES NOT MATTER until you get a large enough screen or you sit close enough to it:

Actually there's a huge difference between HD DVD/Blu-ray vs. DVD even on smaller TVs.

There are many more visible artifacts on DVD in comparison, when testing a good quality HD encode vs. a good quality DVD encode.

In fact, in many instances, this difference is more important than the actual resolution difference IMO.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

You can't blame me for what an entire industry believes.

The accurate measurements are 35mm = 4520 x 2540 pixels approximately. That's 4.5K.
4K is the standard most are comfortable with for now because it's close enough without increasing cost.

Google "4K equals 35mm" and there's all your answers. So if 2K approximates S16 or 16mm then what's 1080p? Or take a look at all the CG work that gets done for movies. All rendered out at 4K minimum before printed to film.

You're going by MATH, but you neglect to understand the basics of 16mm film. When you understand THAT, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

noob

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Actually there's a huge difference between HD DVD/Blu-ray vs. DVD even on smaller TVs.

There are many more visible artifacts on DVD in comparison, when testing a good quality HD encode vs. a good quality DVD encode.

In fact, in many instances, this difference is more important than the actual resolution difference IMO.

That chart is a guide for purchasing and setting up a TV, and whether or not someone needs to move from 720p to 1080p. Has nothing to do with HD/BR vs. DVD.