blu-ray v. HDDVD

[Achrono]

I don't support either although if I had to choose, I'd get HD-DVD. Blu-ray just seems like another format thats going to fail... (ie UMD)

And really, whats the big difference between either of them?

[Joshi]

Blu-Ray has a higher capacity then HD-DVD and thus, can hold higher resolution images and better sound quality for better High Definition picture and sound.

[Ray Jones]

That is not true, Neil. It can hold more high-res thingers due to it's higher capacity. Not higher resolutions.


Also, since both techniques are based on the same principles, like CDs and DVDs, and basically it's still nothing else than a suped up CD, the market will most probably end up with "omnipotent" players/writers, just like we see nowadays with combined CD/DVD drives.

[Joshi]

Technically, if it wanted to it, could holder higher resolution images or more images. The only difference being one would hold more data (more movie, more special features and so on) and one would hold better data.

[Thrik]

Well actually he's right. At the end of the day, data is data. If you've got more capacity, then that can be used for either higher resolution images or longer movies. Of course, whether or not any televisions would be able to display the higher resolution images is another matter, but the discs could certainly hold them.

[Joshi]

HD images have been around a lot longer than there were TV's that could display them (by very definition, CAD artists tend to work in extremely high resolution and then compress down for viewing, movies are made in the same way these days and have been for a few years now). All it would really take is for the TV manufacturers to catch up (or the people who make projectors as these seem to be a common Home Theatre item these days).

Even still, before the release of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD's, there were Superbit DVD's, which were essentially normal DVD's, but the entire space of the DVD taken up with just the movie, at a very high resolution (higher than most TV's could display at the time) and better sound.

[Ray Jones]

HD-DVDs are normal DVDs, too. The whole thing is a stupid hype over a small advance in commonly available technique, nothing more. Also, I don't think it's too useful to increase resolutions and sound-quality up to what ever, because in the end it's something that is not needed for the common or even more advanced screen experience. Okay, it is useful this time, because it's a noticeable difference for the TV sector. But we all know high resolution graphics from what we have on our computer screens, and that is also why HD tech becomes "necessary", because seriously, if you gonna watch a normal DVD via PC it visually sucks to no extend on a crystal clear TFT display due to data reduction and possible de-compression losses. But high-res is nothing new, DVD isn't either. And HDTV was introduced like over ten years ago.

Originally Posted by Joshi

The only difference being one would hold more data (more movie, more special features and so on) and one would hold better data.

You can put full HD-DVD data onto a floppy disk, if you want. That may mean you need 10 floppy disks for one pixel, and another 10 for the audio data, you still have full HD data on floppy.

[Joshi]

Never said that wasn't possible, but now it's possible for it all to be on one Disc.

And as for who'd want better resolution, you'd be surprised at the kind of people out there that strive for perfection with this type of thing.

[Ray Jones]

Originally Posted by Joshi

And as for who'd want better resolution, you'd be surprised at the kind of people out there that strive for perfection with this type of thing.

No, I wouldn't, because I'm one of them. Though I think there is a point where "perfection" is not more than a substitute for "small-penis-compensation", if you get my meaning.

[Joshi]

True, but tell someone who loves this stuff that they can get really good picture with one thing, and then slightly better picture with something else and what are they going to choose?

[Ray Jones]

Well, I guess that'd be "equipped small", then. On the other hand, often there is simply no possibility for a direct comparison of two pictures produced by two separate systems, so what's "producing a slightly better image" anyway? And those "with/without THX"-split-screen type of presentation medias would show a difference even on a solar driven calculator so these render themselves pretty pointless.

[Joshi]

Yeah, but it's still on principal. People do stupid things for something they know to be slightly better than another despite there being practically no difference. That's why there's a format war at all.

[Thrik]

I think the psychological need to have the best possible experience is an element of most enthusiasts' areas of choice, and this results in small or even imperceptible improvements being perceived as worth the substantially extra cost.

A classic example is audiophiles, many of whom can't actually tell the difference between lossless and and a super-high-quality lossy format, yet are addicted to checking the bitrate or whatever and aren't satisfied until they know it isn't flawed, regardless of whether or not they can pick out the flaws; this can lead to buying incredibly expensive headphones and lord knows what else. I have to admit I've fallen victim to the whole bitrate thing and feel a bit down if my mp3 isn't 320kbps.

Gaming is another area where people spend huge amounts of money on minimal performance increases so they can run the absolute latest games on full settings, which of course moves on every few months and becomes very expensive. But for someone who cannot bear to play with a poor frame rate or turn the graphics down, doing so makes them deeply unhappy.

So, like any other medium, television and film is an area where people will always shell out for minimal quality improvements regardless of whether or not you personally think it's worth it. And more often than not, even they can't really see the difference. Or if they can, it doesn't make as much of a difference to their experience as they think it does -- it's simply having that cutting edge of technology that they desire.

But hey, if you have the money.

[Joshi]

I know once I get a decent job and the money to...splurge, I'll be that kind of person.

But it's true, it's like the people who claim to be able to tell the difference between a decent MP3 and the original CD it came from. I know there are people out there who can do that, but for the most part, there's little difference (and don't get me started on the "LP's sounded better" lot).

[Ray Jones]

Hey, LPs sound better. :P No, really, there *is* a difference. On the other hand, I'm perfectly fine if it's an LP recorded onto CD XD

As for the bitrate thing, I'm pretty sure when I'm in a silent room with supa dupa fly headphones I'm able to hear a difference between 320kbps MP3s and CD and whatnot. But the difference does not mean it sounds better/worse. As long as there are no audio artefacts, I'm fine with 192kbps and below. Also a 128kb/s OGG file easily pees over any MP3 bitrate, size- and qualitywise. Even more, usually the lowest OGG quality (-1) produces a 40-80kb/s file which is perfectly usable for "street purposes", while a MP3 at lowest vbr rapes your ears with artefacts and such.

[Joshi]

Yes, under the perfect circumstances, when you're in a soundproof room with an amazing speaker setup and sound system, you can tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a CD, but then hardly anyone is in that situation when listening to music. More often than not their either lounging about in their living room, on the street listening to the mp3 player or in their car driving down a motorway. Perfect conditions are hardly ever available, low quality mp3's are fine for me as long as, like you say, there are no artefacts.

But we're getting off topic here. With movies, visual artefacts are easier to see, a low bitrate for encoding a movie will show up as such in things like big action sequences or any time something is fast movie/fast changing. With a higher density in the Disc (which is really the defining factor between CD's/DVD's/Blu-Ray and HD-DVD) it's easier for there to be a higher bitrate with the encoding. Basically it'll get to such a point that we'll "Home Cinema" might actually mean something.

Like I said before, a lot of distribution companies are in talks about releasing DVD's at roughly the same time, if not the same time as cinema releases. With technology being what it is, why have a giant screen TV when a projector can do the work for you (at the moment they're expensive, even with upkeep because the bulbs cost so much and don't last very long). Get a decent sound system and you'll never have to visit the cinema again (and really, apart from the good picture and sound, what reason do we have to go to begin with?)

Personally, I'm holding out for this, just to quench the thirst of my inner Geek.

[Ray Jones]

Originally Posted by Joshi

But we're getting off topic here.

Nah. You can store those onto BR/HD, eh!

With movies, visual artefacts are easier to see, a low bitrate for encoding a movie will show up as such in things like big action sequences or any time something is fast movie/fast changing. With a higher density in the Disc (which is really the defining factor between CD's/DVD's/Blu-Ray and HD-DVD) it's easier for there to be a higher bit-rate with the encoding.

The optimum for them perfectionists would be lossless encoding, what of course will almost never be the optimum for the distributors. And it's not only higher data density for higher bit-rates, you'll need also hardware that is capable to do the decoding fast enough and transfer rates high enough to get the information where it belongs fast enough, because if you cannot decode the high-res pictures, or fully display them as needed, the whole thing becomes a pile of mammoth barf: undefinable crap which is uneasy on the eyes.

Get a decent sound system and you'll never have to visit the cinema again (and really, apart from the good picture and sound, what reason do we have to go to begin with?)

You know what I have to say now, why do you make me say that? You are soo ARRRGHGHHHH!!!

*holds breath* mmmmmhmhmhhnmmhhmhmmhmmhmmh



*sigh*





To make out with the opposite gender, spoothead!!

[Joshi]

Yeah, because doing that in the privacy of your own home (where there's more chance of... more happening) is a stupid idea :eyes:

And yes, obviously the hardware needs to be good enough to decode the pictures faster so that we don't simply get choppy pictures (hence why old computers with a low CPU have worse DVD playback than newer computers) but that's basically the way technology is moving these days.

[Ray Jones]

Originally Posted by Joshi

Yeah, because doing that in the privacy of your own home (where there's more chance of... more happening) is a stupid idea

Neil. Neil. Neil. It shouldn't be that hard. Go to the cinema, make out, go home, make out some more, bring her home, make out, make out, make out, make out.

You asked for a reason *aside* from sound and screen-size, I gave you one. P-E-A-R-E-E-O-U-T!

And yes, obviously the hardware needs to be good enough to decode the pictures faster so that we don't simply get choppy pictures

Not necessarily choppy, but the pictures are drawn when not fully decoded, which means artefacts, "motion blurs", etc. Choppiness comes last, when whole pictures are left out due to really, really lame hardware or media errors.

[Joshi]

Yeah, but why go to the cinema when you're just gonna end up back home anyway? May as well just stay home and slip a DVD into your R2D2 Unit.

[Ray Jones]

Maybe because you usually don't meet girls at home, while sitting on the couch. Or maybe it's 6pm and you still live with your parents and two younger siblings (which appears to be quite often the case when you're under 18).

Hey, or imagine that: you do that for the sheer fun of it.

[Joshi]

Honestly, I say one thing and you manage to move off onto an entire tangent. It's expected on the MI boards, but I was hoping for a more focussed discussion here (oh who am I kidding). But really, I don't expect 18 year olds or younger who still live with their parents to have an overly elaborate Home Theatre setup. And whilst I don't generally meet girls at my home, I sure as hell don't pick them up at the nearest cinema...

Back on to topic.

Question to you all:

Where do you think technology will move to in this area? Specifically with how movies are distributed. You can already download fairly high quality (and I think HD) movies from places like iTunes and so on and with faster and faster connections becoming cheaper and cheaper for the home user, do you think it might be possible that once a nice balance has been made between a distributors standpoint and a consumers standpoint things like DVD's/HD-DVD or whatever will become obsolete? Or will there always be those (like myself) who prefer to have a physical representation of what they've bought?

And if it is the latter, where do you think technology will move to in terms of things like disk space, size, what they look like and so on. Do you think technology could move so far that we could get full High Definition movies with special feature and all on something the size of, say an SD card? Would we want to? And what about the players themselves? Exactly how big/small would they have to be and what new features could they have?

Discuss.

[Ray Jones]

Originally Posted by Joshi

Honestly, I say one thing and you manage to move off onto an entire tangent. It's expected on the MI boards, but I was hoping for a more focussed discussion here (oh who am I kidding).

I was just answering to your question, so don't blame me! XP

But really, I don't expect 18 year olds or younger who still live with their parents to have an overly elaborate Home Theatre setup.

Oh, what a pity, I know a couple, and was one of them, too.

And whilst I don't generally meet girls at my home, I sure as hell don't pick them up at the nearest cinema...

Would you please stop that already? Else I'm afraid I'll have to report your behaviour, Neil, and I mean it!!!

Back on to topic.

Which topic?

Question to you all:

Ah.

Where do you think technology will move to in this area? Specifically with how movies are distributed. You can already download fairly high quality (and I think HD) movies from places like iTunes and so on and with faster and faster connections becoming cheaper and cheaper for the home user, do you think it might be possible that once a nice balance has been made between a distributors standpoint and a consumers standpoint things like DVD's/HD-DVD or whatever will become obsolete? Or will there always be those (like myself) who prefer to have a physical representation of what they've bought?

I think, basically, there will always be some kind of media available to store and transport data (what kind of data that ever may be). But the way those data, regardless if communications, multimedia or whatever, will be made available or commonly distributed will be network-like, possibly based upon what we currently know as the TUM!! TUUMM! TUUUUMMM!! internet.

And if it is the latter, where do you think technology will move to in terms of things like disk space, size, what they look like and so on. Do you think technology could move so far that we could get full High Definition movies with special feature and all on something the size of, say an SD card? Would we want to?

Oh, yes. And even further.

And what about the players themselves? Exactly how big/small would they have to be and what new features could they have?

You know, things will be pretty much Star-Trek-ish or the like. You'll have some small box which will "beam" the screen where you want to in the size you want to. Audio is delivered through some new kind of speaker, which needs no speaker as we know it now. The sonic waves will be produced by direct stimulation of the air molecules via MASER, LASER or whatever. Enhanced physics ATW and FTW, yeah.

Oh, and another feature would be, that those boxes can create some kind of visual barrier, so you can, while watching a movie in the bus on your way to your over-paid job on Pluto, easily make out with the opposite gender within an ramontish atmosphere. Eh.

[Joshi]

How about something like this?

Now to be honest, this, and it's various incarnations and similar products from other companies, is kinda ugly. I'm fairly sure an external power supply would be needed for any decent viewing time and the actual picture would just be so awkward that at the moment, they're not the most essential thing in the world...

But how about the future. For years Fighter pilots have had jet readouts and so on almost projected onto their visor. This means they can still see everything around them, their peripheral vision isn't affected, but things like altitude, and other important things are shown on their visors in such a way that it looks like it's being projected a few feet in from of them. Very recent Cars have had the same thing so that readouts of speed and fuel and so on look like they're being projected a few feet in front of the car. It's really just an optical illusion, but do you think that in the future, a stylish pair of glasses could be produced to do the same thing with movies?

[Ray Jones]

What you talk about here are 'head up displays' (HUDs), one of the first things you get to know when playing fighter jet simulations. But concerning picture quality, HUD technology will never ever reach a level worth watching a whole movie with it, if used with glasses or not, because the plane where the picture is created is has to be see-through, because that's the core thought of HUDs. Video telephony perhabs, or something like that, but not "home cinema" a la THX.

No, really, I think future display technology will be able to throw their stuff right into the air, in amazing quality and size.

[Joshi]

Oh okay, well I guess you know more about it than I do, I've only heard stuff

As for what you're suggesting, that would require a huge leap forward in hologram technology, something that's only in it's baby stages at the moment, but it should be viable.

[Ray Jones]

Yeah, a huge leap, like, from the equipment needed for the first photographic picture to photo-sensor-chips as large as your pinky-toe-nail taking hi-res pictures and movies through a hole one millimetre and less in diameter, in all possible ranges of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Fast enough to take a shot of the ending of a LASER beam.


Oh, and you can make a HUD on your own, just face your (active) mobile phone display towards a window (closed, with glass, just in case XD) and you should see the reflection of the display on the pane.

Et violina, H-U-D in yo' face mon. :P

[Echo-7]

Originally Posted by Davinq

I'm happy with normal DVDs thanks.

same here.

[Darth_Xasthur]

its all about regular old DVD....

[littleman794]

Originally Posted by Darth_Xasthur

its all about regular old DVD....

very true....why even bother getting something newer if old DVD's work?

[Joshi]

Blu-Ray's sitting on very thin ice at the moment. While it has won the war, it's battle costs were huge, giving it an unfair runout. At this point one of two things will happen, either Blu-ray players and discs become cheap enough that everyone buys one (along with a HD-TV), which will send regular old DVD's the way of the vhs tape, or Blu-ray won't be able to keep it's head above water with manufacturing costs and die an slow death leaving us with DVD until we get something better.

The latter version isn't all that likely, but there's still a chance it'll happen if Blu-ray doesn't make some drastic changes to it's pricing sooner than what's estimated.

[Thrik]

Originally Posted by littleman794

very true....why even bother getting something newer if old DVD's work?

While I won't comment on the HD format battle as a whole like Neil has (very adequately) done, I will say this: DVD quality looks like absolute crap on a large high-definition television. That's why these high-definition formats were created — big televisions simply need the larger image to avoid a blurry look.

If you look at life from a purely functional perspective then maybe the significantly worse quality isn't an issue. If you strive for the most luxurious home cinema experience like I do, there's no other option.

[Joshi]

Very true. The very basis of it works like this:

Right now, your average DVD's run at about 720x480 resolution (roughly, it'll change depending if you're using PAL or NTSC, people in America will be using NTSC). This is because, this is the highest resolution a normal TV can handle (no matter the size, from 14 inch to 19 and above, if the TV isn't HD ready it will be this resolution and on very large TV's, it won't look nearly as good).

HD TV's, though, require a lot more information for movies and so on to be HD, they run between 1280×720 and 1920×1080 (although higher is expected in about 2015). They also have a higher framerate (i.e, how many times a second the screen refreshes) to acommodate a larger picture. With all this considered, on such a TV, you'll see a large drop in quality when viewing a normal TV, when compared to Blu-Ray or just HD TV.

Again, as Thrik says, if this kind of thing really doesn't bother you, then wait it out (eventually everyone will be using HD, but that won't be for many years), but for those of us whom enjoy a good experience out of our home cinemas, it has come to be fairly important to us.

[littleman794]

Still....Original DVD players is where it is at....

[Joshi]

For the time being.