AOD vs Blu-ray revisited...

[London Geezer]

Well, you'll need to have a good HDTV to really care about this anyway, so until you've got one of those why bother?

I can start digging my own grave then....

Anyway, i was thinking, Blue Ray WILL become available in one way or another since it will be in PS3 (Somehow i don't think Sony will use their competitors format on their jewel hardware, and i expect them to move on from DVD). Therefore in some way Blue Ray WILL be commercialised, even if only as a storage medium.
So in some way we already know that at least one of them is a reality...
Thing is, since i don't expect PS3 to be compatible with both (unless the sky opens and a BradPitt-looking angel comes down and asks me to spend eternity with him, in which case F**K BlueRay and PS3), there would be PS3 AND a HD-DVD player in the same house. And i think that would be a goodbye to PS3 being able to play Blue Ray movies unless they will get released in both formats, because there won't be blue-ray movie...?
God i'm confused...
Would be easier to just have Blue Ray do it all wouldn't it?

 

[PC-Engine]

I think DM was actually correct. The HD DVD letters alone speaks volumes to just about anybody. There's really no need for a fancy logo

I mean who on earth haven't heard of HD not to mention DVD? Put 2 and 2 together and you get HD DVD duh.

 

[London Geezer]

I mean who on earth haven't heard of HD not to mention DVD? Put 2 and 2 together and you get HD DVD duh.

While DVD is common standard now, and everyone has at least heard of it, HD (as a general term and what it means, not only on electronics but also in photography, for example) is not nearly as known as DVD. My mother and most of my relatives know of course the term DVD (don't ask them what it really means though, they'll throw stuff at u), but have no idea what HD means.

HD will eventually get into peoples head, just like DVD did, but it hasn't happened yet.

Of course the situation in the States is rather different i suppose.

 

[PC-Engine]

I'm pretty sure when HDTV and HD broadcasts become common place in 2005 onward, most people would know what HD represents and that's the time when HD DVD will be introducted anyway so it's perfect.

 

[London Geezer]

I'm pretty sure when HDTV and HD broadcasts become common place in 2005 onward, most people would know what HD represents and that's the time when HD DVD will be introducted anyway so it's perfect.

U missed the "in the USA" bit...

 

[cybamerc]

cthellis42:

> But from the "details" perspective, do we know just what kind of
> difference it's likely to make?

MPEG4 based codecs compress significantly better than MPEG2. A 15 gb HD-DVD disc should be able to offer better video quality than a 25 gb Blu-ray Disc.

 

[London Geezer]

cthellis42:

> But from the "details" perspective, do we know just what kind of
> difference it's likely to make?

MPEG4 based codecs compress significantly better than MPEG2. A 15 gb HD-DVD disc should be able to offer better video quality than a 25 gb Blu-ray Disc.

So i guess all those MPEG4 videos we download from the internet (errrrrrrrrrr....) are very crappy only because they are VERY compressed and low res, not because of a problem with MPEG4... This is a serious question BTW, i always assumed MPEG4 being "inferior" to MPEG2 by comparing what i was seeing (MPEG4 videos - DVD video).

 

[cybamerc]

london-boy:

> So i guess all those MPEG4 videos we download from the internet
> (errrrrrrrrrr....) are very crappy only because they are VERY
> compressed and low res

Keep in mind that it doesn't get better than the source material. The ones you get off of the internet use DVDs or worse as sources while a commercial release will use a proper master. Not only that but commercial releases are optimized in ways that aren't possible with regular encoders - and by professionals who know what they are doing. And then ones you get on the internet are usually compressed so much that they will fit a cd which offers nearly 24 times less storage than a HD-DVD. And finally MPEG2 has been around a lot longer which means MPEG2 encoders are a lot more mature. MPEG4 encoders, which can already produce some impressive results, will likely improve considerably over the next few years.

 

[London Geezer]

london-boy:

> So i guess all those MPEG4 videos we download from the internet
> (errrrrrrrrrr....) are very crappy only because they are VERY
> compressed and low res

Keep in mind that it doesn't get better than the source material. The ones you get off of the internet use DVDs or worse as sources while a commercial release will use a proper master. Not only that but commercial releases are optimized in ways that aren't possible with regular encoders - and by professionals who know what they are doing. And then ones you get on the internet are usually compressed so much that they will fit a cd which offers nearly 24 times less storage than a HD-DVD. And finally MPEG2 has been around a lot longer which means MPEG2 encoders are a lot more mature. MPEG4 encoders, which can already produce some impressive results, will likely improve considerably over the next few years.

I wasn't talking about full ripped-movies exactly, but yeah i get it...

Another thing, Why wouldn't Blue-Ray be able to store and playback MPEG4 material on standalone players? Why does Blue Ray have to stick with MPEG2?

 

[cybamerc]

london-boy:

> Why does Blue Ray have to stick with MPEG2?

It doesn't but that's a choice they've made.

 

[function]

Another thing, Why wouldn't Blue-Ray be able to store and playback MPEG4 material on standalone players? Why does Blue Ray have to stick with MPEG2?

I was wondering this. Have Sony and chums already dictated a standard for the home entertainment side of BR that they can't afford to go back on? Is there some licensing issue related to MPEG 4 that Sony are unhappy with?

 

[London Geezer]

london-boy:

> Why does Blue Ray have to stick with MPEG2?

It doesn't but that's a choice they've made.

I see... Usual mysterious corporate decisions or is there a proper reason behind it? I mean, by the sound of it, MPEG4 just seems to be "better" than MPEG2...

 

[Deadmeat]

...

Blue Ray WILL become available in one way or another since it will be in PS3

SCEI needs to make a profit off PSX3. This means no Blu Ray unless SCEI is thinking of a $2000 price tag. Beside, Blu Ray is a Sony Electronic's baby and SCEI would like to see its competitor fall flat on its face..

 

[London Geezer]

Re: ...

Blue Ray WILL become available in one way or another since it will be in PS3

SCEI needs to make a profit off PSX3. This means no Blu Ray unless SCEI is thinking of a $2000 price tag. Beside, Blu Ray is a Sony Electronic's baby and SCEI would like to see its competitor fall flat on its face..

Then what do you expect will be PS3 format? Current DVDs? I think that's a bit restricting isn't it?
Or is there a possibility PS3 will have a next gen disc format that is NOT Blue Ray?

This is getting interesting...

 

[notAFanB]

I see... Usual mysterious corporate decisions or is there a proper reason behind it? I mean, by the sound of it, MPEG4 just seems to be "better" than MPEG2...

well yes really, however if your an atifact whore then the increase resolutions for HDTV are going to mute the savings anyway *shrug*.

 

[V3]

MPEG4 just seems to be "better" than MPEG2...

It depend really. Last I heard (before MPEG4 was finalised) MPEG4 is going to be object base coding, while MPEG2 is framed base coding.

So I assume you still need MPEG2 if you want to play your old DVD and also MPEG4 for the new one.

 

[cybamerc]

london-boy:

> I see... Usual mysterious corporate decisions or is there a proper
> reason behind it?

I don't think they've ever explained their reasoning to the public but as function speculates it could be due to licensing or as notAFanB alluded to they may consider MPEG2 as proven technology which is good enough for the time being. It could be anything really.

 

[London Geezer]

So i guess we're back to square one... See you in 3-4 years time, next-gen-DVD.....

 

[V3]

I don't think they've ever explained their reasoning to the public but as function speculates it could be due to licensing or as notAFanB alluded to they may consider MPEG2 as proven technology which is good enough for the time being. It could be anything really.

MPEG2 was design for that. MPEG4 was designed for something else.

At high data rates MPEG2 would have more error resilence.

 

[London Geezer]

MPEG2 was design for that. MPEG4 was designed for something else.

What's that?

And what's something else?