Slashdot Mirror
Blu-ray vs. HD DVD Round Two
An anonymous reader writes "A second set of four movies are now available on both high-def disc formats, allowing for another set of head-to-head comparisons — and unlike last month's first round comparisons, Blu-ray fared much better this time. In fact, in comparing Warner's four latest Blu-ray disc releases ('Firewall,' 'Lethal Weapon,' 'Blazing Saddles' and 'Full Metal Jacket') to their HD DVD predecessors, High-Def Digest found three of the four titles to be more or less at picture quality parity. The key difference between these titles and Warner's Blu-ray launch titles last month? On all three of the titles receiving high marks, Warner switched from using the MPEG-2 compression codec to VC-1, which the studio has been using from the start on its counterpart HD DVD releases."
I have already seen "Full Metal Jacket".
From the article:
Aside from the mere annoyance factor, this is either the blessing or the curse of HD (generic) DVD, and HD TV in general. It is tiresome to see a bad picture and go through the script:
Also, from the article:
WTH? "(F)irmware upgrade" is fast becoming a permanent part of the consumer electronics lexicon?!? Gosh, I hope not! That just means more "consumer support" I have to do. Aside from general consumers not having any idea what firmware is (nor should they have to), the notion of "modding" their units, even under the aegis of "fixing" something is foreign, and frightening to them.
And, now there's a battle brewing over the appropriate codec? Again, WTH? So now we have 2 competing hardware formats, and at least 2 codecs? Are the studios going to ship with a version of each codec? Are all of our players going to be compatible (sans firmware hoops)?
All of this roiling, and a missing piece of the reviews and comparisons. How do these new formats and codecs hold up to and compare with the workhorse DVD of today? Considering today's DVDs have matured quite well, no hassle, no muss, no fuss, it'd be nice to know if the new expensive, complex, and not yet settled new DVD technology is even worth the bother.... Right now, for most, I'm guessing it's not.
No Die Hard yet?
How long until we get some Blu-ray or HD-DVD pr0n? That's when the formats will explode, pardon the pun. Are there any pr0n titles yet available? Why not? A pr0n connissour demands answers.
Picture quality is a function of the codec used. Format: irrelevant.
The reviewer touches on why the movie is the way it is but then ignores the obvious fact. THE MOVIE WAS MADE IN THE 1970s! Think about how many people felt back then. We may live in a time now where "nigger" offends both races now for some reason and mimicking our favorite rap stars is cool but back then it was not like that at all. The fact that he can't grab Mel's humor as it fits perfectly in the era it was released is very sad. Other then that, yeah, who hasn't already seen blazing saddles? I need to see a 35 year old movie in high def because....?
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
So for a modest investment of a couple of grand, I can see Mary Lynn Rajskub sulk and pout in full high-definition glory? I'm almost tempted!
But seriously. As much as I love Chloe and her big-screen clone, Firewall? Who the fuck do they think would be rushing out to buy this as an example of the best in high-definition viewing? "Guys! Come round to my house to watch a mediocre Harrison Ford thriller, 90% of which takes place in such exotic locations as a house and an office - in high-def!" I bet that shitty in-car greenscreen work in the last 20 minutes looks fantastic in HD...
From the lame selection of movies - in both HD-DVD and BR - so far, it's obvious that the studios are either shit-scared about eating into the profit margin of their DVD ranges, or really couldn't give a crap about HD and have been forced into launching it by the suits.
You must think in Russian.
"How long until we get some Blu-ray or HD-DVD pr0n? That's when the formats will explode, pardon the pun."
The LAST thing porn needs is High Definition. Nobody needs to see every pimple (or, heaven forbid - genital wart) on a porn actresses body. Ditto for surgery-based stretch marks and razor burn.
Porn, like Playboy, benefits from a soft lens.
Why are people making comparisons between HD standards that I personally:
1) Won't need. Current DVD produce is fine.
2) Can't afford. Bring prices down for HD TVs, HD cable boxes, HD cable, HD players, etc.
3) Don't want. *cough* DRM *cough* and too few selections for movies, currently anyway.
I watch movies for the content and story, NOT for the blemishes on the actors faces. My 19" screens and standard DVDs are good enough. That said, HD is good for sporting events. That's all I'd use it for.
Funny createSig(Witty remark, Odd reference)
{
return (Funny)remark + (Funny)reference;
}
I especially love how they're using large chunks of badly written text in favor of comparative screenshots of each movie! Why waste time and space looking at comparative pictures when we can read endless blocks of text written by Some Guy!
(disclaimer: yes, I'm being sarcastic)
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
...wouldn't have skipped pointing out that even by year's end - which it is to be assumed this "round two" encompasses - Blu-Ray will have, perhaps generously, a dozen movies using VC-1 (or AVC). Are consumers supposed to pretend, then, that the many dozens of other movies don't look too poor to actually spend $40 on? Meanwhile, the competing format will be able to boast a movie repertoire that ISN'T a shooting gallery; literally every movie release looks the way high-def was meant to look.
Simultaneously, the reviewer seemed eager to suggest that BD50 was going to be a common and perhaps defacto studio choice in very short order, but a little research reveals otherwise. So far, exactly one disc is planned to use said capacity. And the good money is on the worry that the thus-far unused format may prove to be less than fully compatible with all Blu-Ray players (or that the disc may get scratched too easily, owing to Blu-Ray's startlingly narrow gap between the lens and the disc). A valid concern.
I still believe the next standard will first have to see hardware acceptance on the level of the lowly PC, not TVs. Mostly pushed as a need to have a higher capacity backup standard than the single layer 4.7GB DVD-R to save data on and possibly more capacity to deliver PC games on (though they can always stream the extra data over the internet....).
I don't think the adopters are there in quantity to push either standard into common acceptance beyond a laserdisc level.
Either that, or perhaps movies will be downloaded for the next revolution. Afterall, they haven't been able to supplant the music CD as the prefered hardcopy method yet.
They add CODECs and features routinely. Hackers add more.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Through the endless marketing speak about the "technologies" involved in HDTV and HD_DVD and blueray... I find myself just wanting to ignore the whole thing.
/hdmi connectors (and god damn price of the cable.. lol what a joke).
They have managed to so utterly confuse the average consumer, that people actually flock to best buy and ask the advice of the A/V *cough* "experts" over there.
HD-DVD / Bluray isn't about **ing movies, its just a high density dvd player (hopefully with more data / computer applications than the dinky junk they are going to cram onto the next hollywood trash movie).
Then we come to HDTV.... even more confusing video format that means:
A friggin resolution of 1920x1080 (I think)
some DRM
DVI
The industry seems to think if they can thouroughly confuse the consumer... they can probably also convince him/her to change his/her entire Home Theatre setup.
I bet in less than a year's time, there is going to be some new HDTV surround sound requirement that will force everyone to replace their current dolby digital sound / speakers in order to truely enjoy hdtv sound.
I also have a question... this thing about 32bit vista not being able to produce true HD resolution with movies.... is that some kind of joke? My computer can already play that resolution, what gives? Is the encoding of the movie that cpu hungry?
I'm sorry.. obviously I'll be marked as a troll... but I find this so frustrating. The arsenal of buzzwords is starting to get to me. For gods sake.. can't I just use bluray to back-up my files? I don't care about movies.
I'm not buying into any High Definition products until the content providers and electronics companies get their heads out of their asses and actually produce (and stick to) a standard. The fact is that over the past couple of decades when we've been promised a High Definition standard and what we've gotten is dozens of incompatible set-ups that confuse users and create incompatability; we have 480p, EDTV, 540p, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p using Component, DVI, and HDMI to display either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movies. How hard would it have been to stick with one resolution (say 720p), using one type of input (DVI) and just produce one movie format? How do I know that it 2 years (after I buy a TV) we won't have a solid state video format, that has a resolution of 2248x1280, that uses a brand new cable connection?
Is there on the market any format that supports and actually uses more than 24 FPS? Any movies that don't blur, don't show "ghosts" or such on rapid movement? AFAIK all the source tapes of the movies are in 24 frames per second, so no matter how much you improve resolution, the framerate will suck.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Although that might not please you if you have a 16:9 TV...
VC-1 is Microsoft's WMV codec. H.264 is considered the standard successor to MPEG-2 and is expected to be the dominant Blu-Ray/HD-DVD codec given its superior quality to both MPEG-2 and VC-1. Why is Warner going with VC-1? Some deal with Microsoft?
"Sufferin' succotash."
DRM? Is it even (legally) possible to take a screenshot of a full-res HD DVD or Blu-Ray movie? I think it needs an encrypted channel to the monitor or it refuses to display in full-res
Blazing Saddles? I mean give me a fucking break. I love the movie, don't get me wrong, I just see nothing it would gain in HD. The DVD version is rather grainy, so to get any worthwhile rez gain they'd have to spend some cash cleaning things up. Even if they did, what's the point? The movie doesn't need to look good to be funny. For that matter, it's mixed in mono, as in 1-channel sound! No 5.1 surround sound, nothing. Does it matter? Not one bit, it's still damn hilarious. But I certainly wouldn't spend money rebuying it in HD.
The future is hard disk and broadband. Besides, my mpeg4s look just fine on my widescreen. This will be the biggest digital video flop since the first Divx!
Blue Ray and HD-DVD are both just data discs. Any difference between them is NOT due to the disc or the technology or anything like that, but the mastering process the studio takes. Picture quality and audio quality isnt affected by the Blue Ray or HD-DVD disc any more than the sound quality of your MP3s is affected by your having a Seagate hard drive vs a Maxtor hard drive.
I hate printers.
I think it's very telling that a community of early adopters and the one's that love it (for the most part) when innovative technologies come out are (for the most part) completely uninterested in the new standards. The problem with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD is that there's no real "Killer App" to drive people in to the stores and replace their current collections. The switch from VHS to DVD was not only about quality, it was about extras, easy chapter location, easier fast forwarding, and longevity. The only think the new formats really are bringing at this point is better picture quality and that's just not enough of a driver to get people in to the stores buying this stuff.
Saving the World: One Drink at a Time
Although that might not please you if you have a 16:9 TV...
Maybe it's just elitist of me, but I can't stand a picture being out of aspect ratio. I would rather see black bars than see people with oblong heads.
I don't care whitch movies are released by MPAA supporters on either Blu-ray or GD-DVD. All I care about is data storage. And right now the cost of Blu-ray is more than 50cent/gig compared with less than 10 cents per gig on DVD. Not to mancion you need to spend upfront 800$ for a writer. What the heck the price per gig on hardrive is less than 25 cents per gig with no upfront costs.
0 693
----
http://world4.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=4701
http://ebgp.net/ccc/
Whichever one will work in windows xp and linux and allow you to view the content at the full resolution without any encumbering DRM will be the market winner
IMAX can use 48 fps. Apparently the first two movies shot with the 70 mm Todd-AO format were done with 30 fps (Around the World in Eighty Days, and Oklahoma!), but after that they switched to the more conventional 24 fps.
One new proposed film format with 48 fps is MaxiVision48. Showscan is done at 60 fps. I'm pretty doubtful that a new film-based format can take off, because of the high cost of switching projection equipment, and because there will be increasing pressure to switch to digital to lower distribution costs. The last few times that I've gone to theaters, I've been appalled at the crappy image quality--I think we've actually gone backwards since the era of 70 mm movies like Laurence of Arabia (I saw a new print of that screened a few years ago, and it was amazing!), and I think the future, unfortunately, will be medium-quality digital, full of banding and compression artifacts.
I think movies with lots of rapid camera movements and hyperkinetic fight scenes would definitely benefit from switching to 48 fps or higher. While most people can't tell the difference between 24, 30, and 60 fps, I think they can subconsciously feel it. On the other hand, there are many people who feel that such "high motion" filming actually interferes with audience's suspension of disbelief, or that acting and directing would have to change to work in that format. (see this article).
Yeah, what a joke.
From the "info" you posted, it's clear you are successfully ignoring HDTV. Posting incorrect info isn't helping either. Please add "posting info about HDTV" to your list of things not to do.
And yes, the video encodings can be very CPU intensive.
I have a dual-core Intel Core Duo Mac Mini that cannot play full-screen 1920x1080 H.264 video, even at 24fps. So yes, the encodings are very CPU intensive.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
While I'd love it too (I use DVD's to backup our various boxen as well), what you are asking for already exists. It's called a 'tape backup'.
Studios are still learning how to optimize the discs. Take a look at early DVD's. They look terrible. Same for HD discs. They know the first X number of releases will be poor, so they are selling non-blockbuster movies first. Soon as they are confident, better titles will be released.
An unencrypted encryption key? Uh...
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
I'm not going to buy HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies until I can watch them under Linux. If I'm going to splurge on electronics, it's going to be for my computer, not some specific-purpose device.
Yes, I know that means I'll be waiting a while.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Digital Audio Tape was better than cassette, but didn't "take". Why? DRM.
Again, Sony is going for a "standard" where they control everything. Others, especially those that compete with Sony, are understandablly a bit put off by this.
I do not purchase Sony music, I do not purchase Sony movies, nor do I go to see Sony movies, nor do I purchase Sony electrionics given a choice. (Some chips are made and sold by Sony, and I can't always take something apart to make sure there aren't Sony chips in them. The sales critter seems to object to that.)
I'm sure that my small amount of purchasing power doesn't upset Sony to lose. I just tell my employer, all my consulting gigs, friends, relatives, and people browsing in the shop that I won't buy anything Sony. I seem to recall an old sales maxim... one bad response to a company costs ten sales, but ten good responses generate only one sale.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Sorry guys but when you only have less than 50k units sold so far combined AND one of the competitors is about to have 6 million out by March of 2006... Well the war is over.
Now add the fact that you will be able to get one of these units with a game console for the cheaper than the competion to boot, well this "war" is starting to look like a small third world country against EVERY world super power combined.
Now add that almost all the content providers also like this same format and only one major content provider likes the other and well the war continues to be over.
So now you have a somewhat better comparison between the two formats and suddenly the "quality" issues aren't there.
So lets see now.
One content has a much higher capacity. Less compression is a good thing.
One content will cost the same as the other but provide a game console with it. Nice...
One content has all the content providers lined up.
One content provides 1080P out of the gate.
The only other advantage I see for the other format is that it "can" have both the old standard DVD on one side and the new HD on the other.... Ahhh but then you loose yet another layer on an already limited disc.
Oh yeah and Microsoft hates JAVA and thus hates Blu-Ray. If only they could figure out a way to leverage Windows to keep Blu-Ray out of the living room...
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Yes. However, H.264 is also known to be more expensive per publisher, per title, and/or per copy.
The first four years of high-definition releases from most of the MPAA studios will not use the Image Constraint Token. This will allow software players to make screen shots.
There is no graphics acclerator currently on the Mac that accelerates H.264 playback. The top tier are capable, but it doesn't seem to be used, perhaps in Leopard.
Your Macbook not only doesn't have a 1920x1080 display, but it also has a more CPU than a Mac Mini Core Duo. Additionally, if your Macbook is really a Macbook (and not a Pro), it has the same graphics chip I have.
I had some other joker call me out on this before. Most movie trailers are 24fps and 2.35:1. My Mac Mini will play those fine. At 2.35:1, the trailers are no larger than 1920x818. A 1.85:1 trailer is 25% larger, and my machine cannot play those without losing frames. It would fall a long way short of playing true 1080P content, which would be 1920x1080x60fps. Your machine would too.
MPEG-4 playback is a lot less CPU intensive and MPEG-2 is near-trivial now.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Why isn't Star Wars on either of the next-gen formats? I bet Lucas is waiting to do the re-re-re-release on HD DVD 2.0 though, but that's Lucas.
So then why not Star Trek or the Matrix trilogy? Why not sell movies that cater to geeks whom I'd be willing to bet would spend hard currency on? I'm thinking ST Nemesis or ST Voyager...something recently filmed with film capable of superseeding high def.
I find the current selection appalling and find it ludicrous that they think a movie three decades old is going to really benefit from high def.
Maybe even Battlestar Galactica 2003 mini-series and on?
If you want to sell your latest widget they why use mediocre stock? From what I've seen, I see no reason to dump a couple pay checks on a new player and TV. I'm not going to dump a couple grand to watch Hitch and 50 First Dates in super-mega-awesome format.
Coming soon: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington on HD DVD; Citizen Kane on Blu Ray; and Casablanca Extendend Edition on HD DVD with 84 hours of unseen footage. OH PLEASE, gimme a break from your marketers!
:wq
First of all, what kind of machine? Pro? Perhaps you noticed it has more than a 1.66GHz Core Duo in it, unlike my Mac Mini?
Second of all, can I get some of your 1080p demo material? I've never seen an H.264 Quicktime movie that was 1920x1080x60fps, and I'd love to have it to benchmark the equipment I have access to.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
It's not Microsoft that says that Vista 32 can't play HD movies, it's Hollywood's copy protection consortium. Vista 64 requires all drivers to be signed, so all that needs to happen is to disallow software decoding unless your operating system is Vista 64, which they have said is what will happen.
XP users can use hardware decoding, but that requires a copy protection-compliant video card and monitor.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Also, Microsoft is one of the patent holders of H.264.
I've got lots of it.
There is a 1080P in ATSC that is only 1920x1080x30fps. But HDTV encompasses more than just ATSC, and there are plenty of HDTVs out there now that do 1920x1080x60fps. I'd like demo material for that. Sounds like you can't help me there.
I did Google for h.264 1080p and didn't find any useful content. I did find discussion of how MacBooks (I didn't even have MacBook in the search) can only play 1920x1080 content at about 24fps. Only the faster MacBooks (2.0GHz?) can play 30fps. None can play 60fps.
So, if you have a standard MacBook, why did you crap on the video chip in my Mini, knowing you have the same one?
Kinda interesting how sure you are that I must be able to play 1920x1080x24fps at full frame rate, despite seemingly not having any experience with 1.66GHz Core Duos. Sure enough to make "bullshit" in the first sentence of your reply.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Stanley Kubrick (the directory) preferred the 4:3 aspect ratio, and shot most of his movies in that format.
Not quite so. Most of them were shot to negative at 1.37:1 (which is 4.11:3) on 35mm, typically with an Arriflex camera. This was a fairly popular format (and camera). The negative image was then cropped to print at 1.66:1 (5:3), wider than 4:3 but not quite "wide screen". The relatively light weight of the Arriflex made it easier to get some of the unique shots that Kubrick was known for.
At least two of his biggest productions -- "Spartacus" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- were shot at 2.20:1 on 70mm film (and in Cinerama for "2001"). The 35mm prints of Spartacus were cropped to 2.35:1.
-- Alastair
Maybe it's just elitist of me,
;-)
Not at all. I don't see how admitting that your personal optic wetware can't handle processing an anamorphic image could be considered "elitist". Mine adjusts pretty quickly, actually.
-- Alastair
Is it just me, or did the guy recycle large amounts of text between each of the reviews?
It's like he used a template, and just filled-in the blank spots with the name of the movie.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
I am led to believe that the possible numbers of layers these things can do is "infinite". At least allot greater than we think. Who is to say that a 50 layer DVD is only a firmware upgrade away?
Oh, yeah, the world was crying out for a high-def release of those movies.
No sig today...
Which rock have you been sleeping under? The whole point of these formats is to prevent any kind of copying, even if it's just a screenshot.
No sig today...
The Treks and Matrices are being prepped for HD-DVD (probably Blu-Ray too, but I've heard no rumours on that front yet). In time for Christmas hopefully, but they may slip to March if that fails.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
And now we announce the 3rd round...
"The HD DVD/Blu-ray combo drive"
John Ford's The Searchers (1958) is in HD-DVD release. $20 at Amazon.com. This is as close as you ever likely to get to seeing this magnificient film in pristine theatrical-quality projection.
Why isn't Star Wars on either of the next-gen formats? .... and find it ludicrous that they think a movie three decades old is going to really benefit from high def.
Like Star Wars (1977) ?
Citizen Kane on Blu Ray
Let's hope so. 35mm film has more resolution than 1080p HD. So it would be a big improvement (given a good restoration).
New and shiny digital HD has still not caught up to the quality of 35mm film, let alone exceeded it, and 70mm quality is decades away.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
MPEG LA are the administrators of the standard and its licensing, and it's still in development. Yes, it will be done soon (probably before the end of 2006), but that still doesn't change the fact that H.264 began as an open MPEG standard (regardless of whether or not Microsoft or any other company made a patent claim during the patent pool process) and has been open for some time, and VC-1 came entirely from Microsoft and represents literally WMV3 and WMA. The standardization of VC-1 was Microsoft's response to concerns that Windows Media wasn't open, so they threw out their olive branch to SMPTE, and now they can tell managers and executives, "Hey, we're open, too," giving Windows Media and Microsoft a distinct advantage every time VC-1 is chosen.
I just registered hddvdtech.com and put a forum up on it if anyone's interested. :)
- Steve
Which one's DRM will get cracked first? Knowing that I'll always be able to play them, is what made DVDs a safe investment, so I finally started spending money on them after CSS got cracked.
So the question is: Which format's backers are in the "having customers" business, and which is in the "fuck you and fuck our stockholders, I don't want your stinking money" business?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I'm pretty sure BSG (and other recent "hi def" productions) were actually filmed digitally, meaning the resolution can't exceed HD by definition. (High definition by definition? I should add that to my sig). Note also that film isn't unlimited resolution, although I'm not sure what the equivelant resolution of modern film stock would be in pixels.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
ATSC 1080P only goes up to 30FPS. I'm not talking about ATSC. ATSC is how you receive HDTV over the air, not how you put it into your TV. I'm talking about HDTV in general. There are plenty of 1920x1080x60fps displays out there. I'm writing this on a Dell 24" I got for $600 that does 1920x1200x60fps.
As few "true" 1080P (meaning 1920x1080x60fps) displays there are on the market, I have 4 friends that have dedicated HDTVs that do this. More (like me) have computer monitors that fit the bill. My own personal HDTV though is only 1368x768x60fps though, so no 1080p for me (or really full-rez 1080i).
The problem with showing real 1080p isn't processor requirements, it's bandwidth. Just getting the data in is a bear. 1920x1080x60fps has 12x the data of a DVD. That's a lot.
Honestly, if you ask me, the reason TVs didn't take real 1080p up until now is because they wanted to sell you one now that didn't do it so they could sell you one that did do it later.
Roll call:
One of my friends has a Westinghouse 42" (3 input!) 1080P direct-view LCD. He paid $1500.
One of my friends has ordered a Westinghouse 42" (3 input!) 1080P direct-view LCD. She ordered it for $1550, but it is so backordered she may never receive it.
Two of my friends have Sharp 44" 1080P direct-view LCDs. Each paid about $3200 a year ago.
One of my friends has a Sony 60A2000 (3 input!) 1080P rear-projection SXRD (LCoS) HDTV. He paid about $3400. It's down to $3100 already some places.
I have a Sony 55" (I forget model number) 2 digital input 768p (accepts 1080i) rear-projection LCD HDTV. I paid $3200 almost two years ago now.
I also have a Dell 2405FPW 24" 1900x1200x60fps (1200P?) direct-view LCD. It accepts 1200P on DVI and VGA and 1080i on component. I paid $614 a few months back.
Many other friends have HDTVs capable of accepting less than 1080P.
In short, a couple months ago if you said there were very few real 1080P HDTVs, you'd have been right. But no longer. Now there are lots on the market and given how the HDTV market is growing, it won't be long before half of all HDTVs in place accept real 1080P.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Sure you can. Just find a camcorder that can exceed 1920x1080 progressive (1080p) and you've surpassed what HDTV can currently do at the top end.
I have yet to hear anything near definitive about this (mostly in the context of photography though). I've seen comparisons and rationalizations but....meh.
:wq