[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yeah, 1080p24 video sources display at a paltry 24 Hz on my LCD projector. No flicker at all.

But in the end all this talk of 3D is a complete waste of time. The announcement for the PS3 is a gimmick, and a lame one at that. I think it'd be much more interesting if they simply redesigned the case to make it smaller and flatter and added an IR option... and make it cheaper.

Even if it wasn't cheaper I'd still buy one to replace my 60gig.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Disc insertion to movie playback. Actually it's about 4 s less for the Sony standalone and the Insignia, cuz it's actually load time until the audio starts... which is about 4 s after the movie actually starts. So the numbers should be:

Sony BDP-S350 (Firmware ver 010) - 137 seconds
Insignia NS-BRDVD - 115 seconds
Sony Playstation 3 - 75 seconds

One big difference seems to be the BD-J support. There is a disc-loading image encoded onto the disc, when loading The Dark Knight. I believe that part is most of the BD-J loading. On the Insignia, it takes about 20 s. On the Sony S350, it takes twice as long, at about 40 s! I even updated the firmware for the Sony to version 013, but it made no difference.

The sad part is the S350 is supposed to be WAY faster than the S300. I wonder how long it takes to load on the S300.

So what's deal here? They need faster processors? Faster drives? Were DVD players ever this slow?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The deal is that red/blue (red/green) glasses only really work for black and white material or for completely colorblind people, and that they SUCK.

Ain't that a bit harsh ?

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

So what's deal here? They need faster processors?

Yes.

Faster drives?

Probably not at this point since they're not the main bottleneck, but it wouldn't hurt.

Were DVD players ever this slow?

No. BD-Java is the main holdup I believe.

I bought a first generation DVD player in 1998 and for loading even the first dual-layer disc with motion menus that I remember (T2), it was way, way faster for loading the movie than even the PS3 is for The Dark Knight.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yes.


Probably not.


No. BD-Java is the main holdup I believe.

I'd say something like "This will hold-up mainstream integration", but really, I don't see consumers finding this out until it's too late (i.e., the player is already in the house). Still, though, this has me a little put off. I could probably stream an Netflix movie on my xbox in those kind of times (including boot-up time).

And one more thing to consider should I decide to take the plunge.

[Eug]

I'd say something like "This will hold-up mainstream integration", but really, I don't see consumers finding this out until it's too late (i.e., the player is already in the house). Still, though, this has me a little put off.

Yeah, the disc load times annoy me, but what also annoys me (and what would probably annoy a lot of mainstreamers too) is the handling of DVDs.

If you buy a $39 DVD player today, the disc navigation is super responsive and fast forward/fast backward has very smooth output. On the S350 it's like a slideshow, and on the Insignia it's like a faster slideshow.

It's almost as if the Blu-ray players are emulating DVD playback. I don't know if this is the case, but whatever the case, the S350 feels as slow as my 1st generation 1997 DVD player for DVD playback for some reason.

So in summary:

1) A 2008 Blu-ray player loads a Blu-ray disc many, many times slower than a first generation DVD player loads DVDs.
2) A 2008 Blu-ray player loads a DVD a bit slower than a first generation DVD player. (I didn't time it, but it feels that way.)
3) A 2008 Blu-ray player navigates a DVD as slow as a first generation DVD player.

I could probably stream an Netflix movie on my xbox in those kind of times (including boot-up time).

On my projector, Blu-ray has noticeably better quality than downloaded WMV and QT HD trailers. (We don't have Netflix here.)

Plus, my internet access is not fast enough to stream HD video.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Eug 

On my projector, Blu-ray has noticeably better quality that downloaded WMV and QT HD trailers. (We don't have Netflix here.)

There's no question Blu-Ray is better quality, I just think it's noteworthy that the somewhat arduous process of booting the 360, loading netflix, getting your connection rated, and buffering is probably less time consuming than simply loading a a Blu-Ray movie.

[Eug]

Well the good news is that with properly authored titles, like from Warner Bros, you just stick in the movie and come back 1.5-2 minutes later and it will have started without you having to press a single button.

OTOH, with movies from Disney, they have all sorts of preview crap and odd menus. I @#$@%^@#% hate Disney discs, and that applies to both Blu-ray and DVD...

[jokell82]

Are load times something that can be improved with specialized microchips? I know at one point during the HD-DVD life there was talk of "software on a chip" that would make playback instantaneous, similar to the way DVDs work now. Is this not possible with Blu-Ray and BD-Java?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Are load times something that can be improved with specialized microchips? I know at one point during the HD-DVD life there was talk of "software on a chip" that would make playback instantaneous, similar to the way DVDs work now. Is this not possible with Blu-Ray and BD-Java?

The SoC chips for HD DVD didn't make them super fast, even though they're way faster than the mini-PC designs like the Toshiba's HD-A1. I actually bought an HD-A1 open box unit for uber, uber cheap, but took the thing back because it was so slow it made me want to rip my hair out.

The HD-A2 and Venturer SHD7000 were much, much faster... but still way slower than DVD players. Both the SHD7000 and HD-A2 were basically SoC designs.

ALso, the Sony BDP-S350 is based around an SoC design, but see my results above. Uber slow. However, despite its uber slowness, it's actually still much faster than the older S300... which I believe also had an SoC design.



ie. You can have an SoC design, but if the general purpose compute power of the unit is slow, then general purpose activities like Java are also going to be slow, even it's super fast at decoding MPEG, VC-1, and H.264.

P.S. Microsoft bragged that HD DVD's HDi was faster and more efficient than Java. I suspect that is partially true, especially it was built from the ground up for HD DVD, and wasn't built to be as all-encompassing as Java can be. However, HDi was still relatively slow in standalone HD DVD players.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Being able to accept SIGNALS of that rate is not the same thing as having a screen fast enough to display it.

The problem with most flat-screens, AFAIK, is that images don't fade fast enough. This is why they never flicker the way CRTs would if you caught them out of the corner of your eye, but it's also why most consumer LCDs weren't useful for gaming for years - and why actually displaying full, discrete 60 FPS is probably not going to be easy/cheap.

Correct, however most LCDs now have gaming modes which allow a faster refresh rate dropping the speed down to about 3-5ms or some lower. I know all Samsungs do and think some of the others have this option standard as well.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

Correct, however most LCDs now have gaming modes which allow a faster refresh rate dropping the speed down to about 3-5ms or some lower.

So what does it sacrifice that it can't function this way 100% of time time?

[Eug]

I thought LCD pixels don't fade at all, until specifically told to do so?

Anyways, the CRT analogy isn't really a good one, because the pixels on LCDs are individually controlled unlike CRTs. CRTs must have the entire screen refreshed every cycle.

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

So what does it sacrifice that it can't function this way 100% of time time?

Image quality to a certain extent.

[brassplayersrock²]

so, uhh, my dark knight blu-ray disk doesn't work in my dual player :/ hopefully there's a firmware update for it.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I thought LCD pixels don't fade at all, until specifically told to do so?

Anyways, the CRT analogy isn't really a good one, because the pixels on LCDs are individually controlled unlike CRTs. CRTs must have the entire screen refreshed every cycle.

The circuitry that turns on and off an LCD pixel is usually built with a specific time constant within which the pixel will remain on. It's this driver circuitry, rather than the pixels themselves, that is responsible for response time in most cases. On the other hand, there is an inherent time within which the tiny transistors that actually do the switching IN the screen function, and even with the best, fastest drivers in the world, a slow panel will have artifacts and smear with motion. And while the individual pixels in an LCD don't require refreshing, the driver circuits DO need refreshing so that they don't themselves "time out" and turn off the pixel (or otherwise change it).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

so, uhh, my dark knight blu-ray disk doesn't work in my dual player :/ hopefully there's a firmware update for it.

Which model? LG BH100? Just wondering.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The circuitry that turns on and off an LCD pixel is usually built with a specific time constant within which the pixel will remain on. It's this driver circuitry, rather than the pixels themselves, that is responsible for response time in most cases. On the other hand, there is an inherent time within which the tiny transistors that actually do the switching IN the screen function, and even with the best, fastest drivers in the world, a slow panel will have artifacts and smear with motion. And while the individual pixels in an LCD don't require refreshing, the driver circuits DO need refreshing so that they don't themselves "time out" and turn off the pixel (or otherwise change it).

Sure. The good news though is that today, smear isn't really a major issue for movie watching, with current model LCD HDTVs and projectors. There are bigger issues to worry about, like black levels, contrast, and motion judder.

I will probably upgrade to a 1080p projector in the future, not because my Panasonic PT-AX200U is 720p, but because the higher end LCD projectors have better black levels and contrast. I really don't care about the 1080p-ness of them. It just happens that all the higher end LCD projectors are 1080p anyway. Motion judder isn't a major issue for me anymore, since my projector supports 24 Hz operation, and because of the characteristics of LCD pixel circuitry, 24 Hz is just fine. No need for 120 Hz.

However, another problem is frame rate judder. 24 Hz is too low for completely smooth pans and motion, but that's the nature of most films, and that's how most BR discs are encoded so we're stuck with that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Sure. The good news though is that today, smear isn't really a major issue for movie watching, with current model LCD HDTVs and projectors. There are bigger issues to worry about, like black levels, contrast, and motion judder.

Ah, but the subject at hand was the frame-by-frame alteration of *two completely separate movies* (as it were, one aimed at the left eye, and one aimed at the right), synchronized with a polarizing shutter, for true 3D.

Smear may not be an issue for normal movie watching, but how about for 60 fps where every single frame MUST be completely rebuilt, with no artefacts from the image before?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Ah, but the subject at hand was the frame-by-frame alteration of *two completely separate movies* (as it were, one aimed at the left eye, and one aimed at the right), synchronized with a polarizing shutter, for true 3D.

Smear may not be an issue for normal movie watching, but how about for 60 fps where every single frame MUST be completely rebuilt, with no artefacts from the image before?

LCD solutions already exist for 3D. However, they are dedicated setups.

However, the fact that some LCDs may be problematic just reinforces how much that Sony PS3 3D announcement is just a lame gimmick.

BTW, I don't see how polarization would work in this context, since LCD TV screens wouldn't emit properly polarized light for this purpose. Any 3D solution provided by the PS3 and other home systems would thus not be using polarization.

[brassplayersrock²]

yep, bh100.

after doing some searching, it seems that it's a known thing, and there's an update for my player to accept BDJava or whatever it's called. mmm, yummy, having to boot into vista should be fun.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

LCD solutions already exist for 3D. However, they are dedicated setups.

However, the fact that some LCDs may be problematic just reinforces how much that Sony PS3 3D announcement is just a lame gimmick.

BTW, I don't see how polarization would work in this context, since LCD TV screens wouldn't emit properly polarized light for this purpose. Any 3D solution provided by the PS3 and other home systems would thus not be using polarization.

Over when we were actually talking about 3D movies, I mentioned that I'd read about a polarizing filter added to the front of a screen that could alternate polarizations in synch with the video images.

[brassplayersrock²]

so I downloaded the firmware update under vista, but I don't have any windows disk burning software. any suggestions on free or cheap disk burning software for vista?

[Montezuma58]

I just ordered a b'day present for my self, the Sony S550 from MacMall for $299.99 and a rebate for shipping. It was a toss up between that and the Panny BD55 from 6th Ave. for practically the same price.

I'm also putting in an order for the Band Of Brothers set from Amazon for $37. I'll probably head out to Movie Stop and Best Buy tomorrow and pick up a couple of more discs with my Christmas cash.

[Jawbone54]

I'm finally using the PS3's Blu-ray features as they were meant to be experienced: in full 1080p.

I've been using a 32" 720p Westinghouse for about two years, but the wife and I picked up a 47" 1080p 120 Hz Vizio last week. I couldn't be more pleased with my purchase.

Bought Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Memoirs of a Geisha (the wife loves it), Wall-E, and John Mayer's "Where the Light Is" concert. Any titles that you guys think are Blu-ray necessities?

[Eug]

Not really BR, but it's related, as BR was one of the audio sources, but....

I've been having issues with my surrounds. I just couldn't tweak them to be happy with the sound. Part of it was related to the speakers themselves (small bookshelf monopoles), but it turns out some was due to the wiring too.

The existing wiring in the home theatre room to each surround speaker was 20 gauge wiring, around 75 feet long. Despite the crappy wiring, I was just too lazy to swap it out. Finally I had to give in though, and put in 14 gauge instead, at about 50'.

I usually a skeptic about these things, but it actually made an audible difference. In fact, it was the first and only time ever in my life I had noticed any change related to just the wires. I guess the resistance of the 20 gauge wiring was high enough to affect the speaker quality. It has a resistance of 0.0119 Ohm per foot, or about 0.9 Ohms. That's 11% of the rated 8 Ohms of my speaker, and probably over 20% of the minimum impedance of the speaker, which I'm guessing is closer to 4 Ohms.

With 14 gauge wiring, it's 0.00297 Ohm per foot, or about 0.15 Ohms over 50'. That's only 1.9% of the rated 8 Ohms, and about 3.7% of 4 Ohm.

Actually, recommended for that 50' length is 12 gauge (or even 10), esp. if you're gonna be using 4 Ohm speakers, but 14 gauge is considered acceptable if you use only 8 Ohm speakers. (I didn't use 12 because it would have meant replacing the wire conduits as well. PITA.)

In the end, the sound was better, but I'm still going to change my surrounds. I'll probably get much higher end dipole speakers.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Bought Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Memoirs of a Geisha (the wife loves it), Wall-E, and John Mayer's "Where the Light Is" concert. Any titles that you guys think are Blu-ray necessities?

BBC Planet Earth.



I have the HD DVD version and it's great.

Don't get the Discovery Channel version, because it's a different narrator.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Eug 

BBC Planet Earth.

I have the HD DVD version and it's great.

Don't get the Discovery Channel version, because it's a different narrator.

Definitely on my list. I've only heard the BBC narrator; I won't touch Sigourney Weaver's version.

I've been trying to justify the price of re-buying Planet Earth in Blu-ray to my wife. She was formerly of the opinion that the DVD version (that we've owned for several months) was good enough, but after watching four or five movies on the new screen, I think I've got her sold on it. I always talk her into this stuff though. Long ago I assigned her the task of being my "financial watchdog," but she's been slipping in her duties for a while now.

[davidflas]

My sister just gave me the BBC Planet earth collection on Blu-Ray and its stunning. I also recommend the BBC version over the Discovery Channel version. In addition to the change in narrators, Discovery cut about 50 minutes of content out.

[Eug]

Latest version of Fox's BD+ DRM already cracked. Predictions were that it wouldn't be cracked until several months in to 2009, but here we are still in 2008 and it's already defeated.

http://forum.slysoft.com/showthread.php?t=24602

Give it up Fox, please! BD+ is wreaking havoc on several Blu-ray players.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by davidflas 

My sister just gave me the BBC Planet earth collection on Blu-Ray and its stunning. I also recommend the BBC version over the Discovery Channel version. In addition to the change in narrators, Discovery cut about 50 minutes of content out.

Don't the Blu-ray and HD-DVD versions cut out the special features after each episode?

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I'm finally using the PS3's Blu-ray features as they were meant to be experienced: in full 1080p.... Any titles that you guys think are Blu-ray necessities?

Bladerunner is a Blu-ray necessity if you're into that sort of thing. First of all the DVD was the worst quality of any DVD I ever saw. And second it's more than an amazing classic movie; it's a timeless work of art.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Don't the Blu-ray and HD-DVD versions cut out the special features after each episode?

Yes they do. Each episode is missing the "Planet Earth Diaries" sections off of each episode (presumably because those sections weren't done in HD). I solved that problem by buying a used copy of the DVD set for $10. The Blu-Ray and HD DVD sets also leave out the preachy "Let's all save the Earth for future generations" episodes (that really aren't part of the series proper anyways).

I watch an episode on the Blu-Ray version, then I stick in the DVD and watch the "Diary" for that episode.

[jokell82]

What Blu-ray needs to do in 2009 in order to gain ground
http://bit.ly/RUN6 (EngadgetHD)

Can't say I disagree with anything in that post.

[exca1ibur]

Why do they keep trying to compare this as a VHS-DVD transition? There are a few major factors missing they ALWAYS forget to point out. Why update to a Blu-ray player if you have a SDTV? VHS -> DVD never had this issue during its adoption, it was a straight cheap box swap, so of course it was a faster transition.

Blu-ray is 100% dependent on the HDTV market. So the two markets need to always be paired. Without the HDTV market there is no Blu-ray. Not to mention you are selling in a tanked economy.

Only thing I agree with are the movie prices should come down to $5 more than DVD at most. However, online you can find them for about that. In store prices are expensive, no doubt. ($34.99?!? I don't think so)

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Bought Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Memoirs of a Geisha (the wife loves it), Wall-E, and John Mayer's "Where the Light Is" concert. Any titles that you guys think are Blu-ray necessities?

Serenity
Ultimate Blade Runner (if you can find it, otherwise the CE is great)
Narnia movies
Pan's Labyrinth
Casino Royale
The Ultimate Matrix Collection
Baraka

All are reference quality transfers.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

Why do they keep trying to compare this as a VHS-DVD transition? There are a few major factors missing they ALWAYS forget to point out. Why update to a Blu-ray player if you have a SDTV? VHS -> DVD never had this issue during its adoption, it was a straight cheap box swap, so of course it was a faster transition.

I would hardly call that transition a "straight cheap box swap." There was the same issue with the comparative prices of the two media, and the same issue with the cost of DVD players as compared to VHS players. It took a number of years before either of these issues began to balance out. How long has BR been around?

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

Blu-ray is 100% dependent on the HDTV market. So the two markets need to always be paired. Without the HDTV market there is no Blu-ray. Not to mention you are selling in a tanked economy.

I agree here. There's no reason to buy an expensive player and expensive discs if you're going to connect the player to an SD display. I am already getting to the point where the otherwise very good resolution of my 37" CRT TV is "less than acceptable." By this time next year I expect to have at least a 42" LCD TV with 1080P resolution (new job by summer, better pay, etc.), and at that point I'll be looking at a BR player very seriously.

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

Only thing I agree with are the movie prices should come down to $5 more than DVD at most. However, online you can find them for about that. In store prices are expensive, no doubt. ($34.99?!? I don't think so)

I frequent DeepDiscount.com, which often has the lowest prices on movies and CDs that I can find. Their BR prices are getting close to your idealized range already.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I would hardly call that transition a "straight cheap box swap." There was the same issue with the comparative prices of the two media, and the same issue with the cost of DVD players as compared to VHS players. It took a number of years before either of these issues began to balance out. How long has BR been around?

VHS to DVD didn't require a new TV. Everyone that had a VCR could just buy a DVD player and could call it a day. So I'd expect Blu-ray growth to be a little slower, but the market IS growing consistently least.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I frequent DeepDiscount.com, which often has the lowest prices on movies and CDs that I can find. Their BR prices are getting close to your idealized range already.

Yeah I usually go to Amazon and get them for $19.99 to $24.99 so for me personally I usually find them in my range. The average Joe goes into Best Buy and thinks they are all this price and panics though. Thanks for the heads up on this site here, I'll check them out also.

[Big Mac]

At least the Blu-ray transition offers DVD playback, which the VHS to DVD transition could not offer. Blu-ray still plays on SDTVs and offers far more in features than DVDs. Now DVD versions are being really marginalized and cheapened as an incentive for people to upgrade. I won't be buying anymore DVD unless they're really cheap, despite the fact that I only have one HDTV and one Blu-ray player.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I won't be buying anymore DVD unless they're really cheap, despite the fact that I only have one HDTV and one Blu-ray player.

Depends on what it is for me.

New movies that I actually want to own? Blu-ray.

TV Shows? Most of what I want to buy was produced in Standard Definition to begin with, so I buy DVDs.

Greek movies? DVD. Unless available in Blu-ray.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

VHS to DVD didn't require a new TV. Everyone that had a VCR could just buy a DVD player and could call it a day. So I'd expect Blu-ray growth to be a little slower, but the market IS growing consistently least.

Now I see your point, the player hardware and media being only part of the issue. Of course there were plenty of us that got bigger TVs because of how pretty DVDs looked compared to VHS. Yep, I'm guilty of that!

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

VHS to DVD didn't require a new TV. Everyone that had a VCR could just buy a DVD player and could call it a day.

VHS and DVD to Blu-ray doesn't require a new TV. Everyone that has a VCR or DVD player can just buy a Blu-ray player and can call it a day. In fact a LOT of PS3 owners do that don't they?

[exca1ibur]

The entire point of Blu-ray is hi-def (720/1080p) movies, for gaming it's optional. If you are going to watch Blu-ray movies on a SDTV, why not buy the DVD?

[mrtew]

I know. I'm kidding. But the phrase 'require a new TV' forced me to respond. Blu-ray doesn't really require a new TV unless you want to appreciate it.

[olePigeon]

LOL @ Blu-Ray. I wonder how many more years it's going to take them to get it to a non-annoying setup.

So Blu-Ray has been on the market for 3 years now. Are there any 2.0 Profile players under $200?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

The entire point of Blu-ray is hi-def (720/1080p) movies, for gaming it's optional. If you are going to watch Blu-ray movies on a SDTV, why not buy the DVD?

Because DVD releases are starting to really suck, by design. The extra features are gone, and they're loaded up with trailer ads. The MPAA wants everyone to switch to Blu-ray, so you have a better experience with Blu-ray even if you're on an SDTV.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

The entire point of Blu-ray is hi-def (720/1080p) movies, for gaming it's optional. If you are going to watch Blu-ray movies on a SDTV, why not buy the DVD?

That makes since, IF Blu-Ray is to remain a niche product. But if it is to replace DVD, Blu-Rays will be played on SDTVs. Some displays are simply too small for HD (like portable players and the screens in cars) and will likely stay SD for the conceivable future.

I doubt the studios want to actually maintain two different formats, and I doubt retailers want to twice the space for a single movie.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Because DVD releases are starting to really suck, by design. The extra features are gone, and they're loaded up with trailer ads. The MPAA wants everyone to switch to Blu-ray, so you have a better experience with Blu-ray even if you're on an SDTV.

Hate to break it to you, but Blu-ray releases often suck too, by design. Many Disney Blu-ray releases suck royally. Unnecessarily complex navigation, designed specifically to make you watch as many idiotic trailers as possible. And cheap Blu-ray discs of catalogue titles often don't have many significant extras either.

And no, the experience on an SDTV is usually better with a DVD player, as compared to a Blu-ray player. DVD navigation on a $30 DVD player is usually much snappier than a $300 Blu-ray player.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Eug 

And no, the experience on an SDTV is usually better with a DVD player, as compared to a Blu-ray player. DVD navigation on a $30 DVD player is usually much snappier than a $300 Blu-ray player.

Which is one of the things they need to fix if they ever want to be more than a niche product.

[Eug]

Thank you Home Entertainment magazine.

I've been saying for years that if we consider H.264 and VC-1 at 1080p "hi-def", then we should consider 640 Kbps DD "hi-def" as well. Furthermore, uncompressed PCM is just a stupid waste of space. I can understand why some people might want TrueHD, but personally I don't want it enough to bother upgrading my receiver, because 640 Kbps DD and 1.5 Mbps DTS sounds pretty damn good to me. It would provide a very good baseline for discs, with the higher bitrate DD+ being very, very close to the original.

From the article:

Neither Geoff nor I could hear any differences between the original PCM track and the TrueHD version, which should be the case, as they’re bit-for-bit identical. The lossless coding process is analogous to “zipping” computer files—it’s simply a function of more efficient packing that loses nothing along the way. With movies, TrueHD typically provides a two- or three-to-one bitrate reduction compared to the original PCM source.

Next, we compared the original to the Dolby Digital Plus version (that codec is found on numerous BD titles, and like TrueHD, is fully backward compatible with regular Dolby Digital decoders). Even on this extremely high-end system, we couldn’t hear any difference between the uncompressed and the compressed. Then, we compared the higher bitrate (640 kbps) that is found on the Dolby Digital tracks on Blu-rays to the original. "Golden Ears" Morrison was able to hear the difference, but I, and most others in the room with us, did not. Each of us had our turn in the prime listening chair, and couldn’t know the origin of the clips or their order of presentation.

The shocker came when we compared the lower 448 kbps Dolby Digital DVD bitrate to the original. There was an audible difference, but it was only ever-so-slightly noticeable (and this is with a high end audio system in an acoustically controlled environment that is so far beyond what typical home theater systems are capable of resolving). There was just the slightest decrease in presence with the DD version, not exactly a softening of the sound, but just a tad less ambience and a similarly small tightening of the front soundstage’s depth. Quite a remarkable result, I thought, and I was highly impressed with how much fidelity can be packed into such a relatively small amount of bitspace. If I was doing actual scoring, I would have awarded a 4.8 grade to the results I heard – the audible difference was that subtle.

ie.

In their blinded test:

PCM = TrueHD = Dolby Digital Plus

640 Kbps Dolby Digital very, very close to the above.

Even 448 Kbps Dolby Digital is quite close to the above.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

That makes since, IF Blu-Ray is to remain a niche product. But if it is to replace DVD, Blu-Rays will be played on SDTVs. Some displays are simply too small for HD (like portable players and the screens in cars) and will likely stay SD for the conceivable future.

I doubt the studios want to actually maintain two different formats, and I doubt retailers want to twice the space for a single movie.

Not really, the point it HDTV is still new and trying to becoming a standard, eventually everything will be HD whether you believe it or not. You seems to think this is an overnight process. Right now it is being marketed at the home, not cars and portable players, as it should at this point in its life. Once the technology has been out there for a while and stuff is cheap (your $100 player price) they can make them for cars and portables easily. Movies already scale from 480p to 1080p for SDTV and up. Once the players have more of a market studios can just create Blu-ray movies only if they want. However, I think they will need at least 5-10 years I think before that is even a thought, like I said this is not an overnight process.

[Eug]

I think there will be signficant Blu-ray adoption, but I'm not convinced yet that it will completely eliminate DVD. And who knows, maybe in 10 years, the general population just won't care that much about disc media in general.