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."
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.
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.
Nothing like seeing tenticle rape in 1080p.
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.
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.
Afterall, they haven't been able to supplant the music CD as the prefered hardcopy method yet.
Music CDs aren't a good comparison. First, CD quality encoding is high enough that I've only met one, maybe two people who can tell the difference between it and any higher quality of music. Both of the two I know had very good hearing above 20khz. That's why the wav format it uses hasn't been replaced yet. As to the medium of the CD itself. For music at that quality, you don't need anything more for 99.99% of the market. The standard album length is 45 minutes. A music CD will hold 70 standard. Until they start putting other stuff on the disks, the CD will remain.
The one thing I could see hapening is taking one of the newer methods, DVD,HD, Blueray, making a disk that stores about a gig (at most), but has a much smaller diameter, and turning that into the new music format. Basically, think of music CDs that are only two inches in diameter, tops.
Video is much different in that as you scale up the screen size, artifacts and distortion appears. The solution is to up the pixel count (like HD did) which ups the bitrate. The goal, as I understand it, is to eventually have a 2160 line movie at 120fps. At that point, a few TV engineers I've met believe that humans won't be able to tell the difference between TV and seeing with their own eyes.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I can agree with you to a point.
TV has not really been all that great about progress until this decade. Before that, it seems to me the only MAJOR upgrade from the original TV in terms of picture was mainly from b/w->color, and then perhaps digital cable/satellite. I welcome more rapid progress.
But yeah, they should clarify resolution with the same numbers used in computer monitor displays, such as 1280x960. 480p, EDTV, 540p, etcetera does not tell me much and isn't intuitive. But anyone can see 1280x960 is better than 640x480 which is better than 320x240.
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.
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
anyone can see that 1680x1050 is better than any HD format,
That is pretty hard to see from my viewpoint. HD formats include 1080p which in fact is 1920 x 1080.
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).
Console gaming is all about the social gaming experience. You aren't hunched over a monitor. You are on the couch with your buddies showing off that 60" plasma TV. That is what sells HD to the gamer.
But yeah, they should clarify resolution with the same numbers used in computer monitor displays, such as 1280x960. 480p, EDTV, 540p, etcetera does not tell me much and isn't intuitive. But anyone can see 1280x960 is better than 640x480 which is better than 320x240.
480i = 640x480, 704x480, or, in the case of DVD, 720x480, interlaced
480p = 640x480, 704x480, or, in the case of DVD, 720x480, progressive.
540p = 960x540, progressive (1/4 of 1080p)
720p = 1280x720, progressive.
1080i = 1920x1080, interlaced.
1080p = 1920x1080, progressive.
1080p at 60 frames/sec is outside of the ATSC spec, but I think the HDDVD and BD formats support it.... don't quote me. 540p is also outside of the ATSC spec.
Within the ATSC spec, all of the interlaced modes are 30 frames/sec. The progressive modes (except 1080p) can be 24, 30 or 60 frames/sec. 1080p can be 24 or 30 frames/sec.
The thing to note is that except for the 480 modes, the pixels are square. For this reason, you can use the Y value (540, 720, 1080) and multiply it by 16/9 (the aspect ratio of the screen) to get the X value.
Now, my challenge to you: Which is higher resolution, 1920x1080 or 1600x1200? You may not use a calculator.
By comparison, which is higher resolution, 1080p or 720p? You won't need a calculator.
www.wavefront-av.com
Not only that, but H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10, MPEG AVC) is already an open international standard (and, for those who don't know, one of the three mandatory supported codecs for all Blu-ray Disc (BD) and HD-DVD disc players - MPEG-2 and VC-1 are the other two).
While VC-1 (formerly known as VC-9, the Windows Media 9 (WMV3) codec) has been submitted to SMPTE, VC-1 is still not open, and must still go through the patent pool process, which itself is being administered by MPEG LA.
While WMV3 is an arguably good codec, Microsoft worked hard to get it into things like Blu-ray and HD-DVD, so that it could be in a position to get people to use it as the codec for HD content. Since VC-1 is nothing more than Windows Media Video 9, I guess I don't blame them for wanting it to be everywhere. Then all of a sudden, the same content can easily be repurposed for other things, and work extremely well with other Microsoft- and Windows Media-based products. Genius, on their part.
For what it's worth, H.264 is generally seen as similar in quality and functionality (and better in some ways) than VC-1; it's the official next-generation successor to the MPEG family of video codecs.
And no, to reiterate what's been said elsewhere, H.264 is NOT "Apple's codec". Apple uses and promotes it, but it's hardly "Apple's codec". It's an open international standard that is already heavily used in DTV/HDTV and satellite TV, and is being deployed in more industrial and commercial video equipment every day. Why? Because it's open, and didn't stem from one company. (If anything, Apple's involvement was to pressure MPEG LA to actually have reasonable licensing, so that it would also be able to actually be useful to individual users instead of just commercial users and equipment OEMs, which was positive for everyone involved.)
If people are switching to VC-1 instead of H.264, given that it's not open and came 100% out of Microsoft (and indeed is nothing more than WMV3 plus Windows Media Audio (WMA), you can believe Microsoft has likely had involvement. Every VC-1 user is a huge win for Microsoft and a blow to already-open MPEG standards.
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
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.
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
Not only that, but H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10, MPEG AVC) is already an open international standard (and, for those who don't know, one of the three mandatory supported codecs for all Blu-ray Disc (BD) and HD-DVD disc players - MPEG-2 and VC-1 are the other two).
While VC-1 (formerly known as VC-9, the Windows Media 9 (WMV3) codec) has been submitted to SMPTE, VC-1 is still not open, and must still go through the patent pool process, which itself is being administered by MPEG LA.
VC-1 is a SMPTE standard. VC-1 is equally open, in that anyone can create a VC-1 compliant codec pursuant to the standard and the terms of the licenses. You've also conveniently forgotten to mention that the authors of H.264 compliant codecs must obtain licenses from two patent pools, including MPEG LA and Via Licensing.
"Open" is not a magic word, and H.264 is not "free" in any sense of the term. The two codecs are legally equal from a 30,000 ft view, except for the existence of the open-source and quite probably patent infringing H.264 encoder X264.
Neither is HDTV. All other HD resoulutions support 24,25,30,50 and 60 FPS, but 1080p only goes as far as 30 fps. I would be surprised if your laptop doesn't use more than 30 fps.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
"One content has a much higher capacity. Less compression is a good thing."
It's a pity that 50Gb Blu-Ray discs aren't working, then.
"One content will cost the same as the other but provide a game console with it. Nice..."
Microsoft are bundling a 360 and the add-on HD-DVD drive in November, for less than the PS3.
"One content has all the content providers lined up."
All the major ones, anyway (most of the minor guys have been seduced by the vastly lower production costs on HD-DVD). For now. All bar Sony (well, duh) have either already gone dual-format, or told their shareholders that they're watching the situation closely, ready to jump ship in the new year if PS3 doesn't blow everyone away.
"One content provides 1080P out of the gate."
Both formats store 1080p on the disc. Toshiba's 2nd-gen models (out before the PS3, or any Blu-Ray player other than the horrid Samsung) will send it to the screen. And it's all completely irrelevant, unless your TV is really quite phenomenally shite at deinterlacing.
If I had to call a winner, I'd say it's probably Blu-Ray. But I very much expect us to see the same situation as DVD-R, DVD+R; i.e. eventually drives will read both.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"