AOD vs Blu-ray revisited...

[cthellis42]

Actually, I wouldn't care if we had two standards either! Just so long as publishers were willing to stamp 'em both out. They're just unlikely to do that in the long run is all.

Meanwhile, DVD itself is only going to get bigger (minimizing equipment conversion savings, as the amount of DVD's produced now are going to increase, meaning picking up Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will likely amount in entirely new equipment purchases to produce either) and the others will get a small, slow roll-out as HDTV's themselves finally progress, people even more slowly realize they need an HD media format to really enjoy it, and even more slowly start actually replacing the library they already own.

 

[Psychogenics]

Some mo' info on HD-DVD. Prolly not much more than people already knew, but at least it's formatted nicely.

HD-DVD isn't really made for HD content.....its just DVD modified to use a Blue laser with some add data storage and not much at that.

Um what are you talking about??? So 1080p isn't HD? Did you even read any of the posts in this thread??? If HD-DVD is not for HD content than what is it for then??? Are you saying HD-DVD will contain standard definition films and have 10-20GB left over for extras just so it can be contained on a single disc???

What I meant to say is that HD-DVD is a quick fix but it will still have the same problems as DVD...Skipping and sensitivity...Not a true upgrade to DVD as DVD can do progessive scan.I like Blu-ray better.

 

[cybamerc]

Psychogenics:

> it will still have the same problems as DVD...Skipping and sensitivity

And BRD won't? Please keep in mind that caddies have been dumped for BRD ROM and they're working on naked rewritable discs as well.

> Not a true upgrade to DVD as DVD can do progessive scan.

WTF?

HD-DVD supports the same resolutions as BRD.

 

[Psychogenics]

Psychogenics:

> it will still have the same problems as DVD...Skipping and sensitivity

And BRD won't? Please keep in mind that caddies have been dumped for BRD ROM and they're working on naked rewritable discs as well.

> Not a true upgrade to DVD as DVD can do progessive scan.
WTF?

HD-DVD supports the same resolutions as BRD.

BD's will have a hard coat when they dump the Caddy.....But Blu-ray is Better IMO.

DVD do progressive scan NOW....Might not be HD but its not a world apart.....HD-DVD is not made for Mpeg-2 it most likely will use Mpeg-4 as a Standard to fit HDTV Content Not Making it an Ideal Nextgen successor to DVD.

 

[randycat99]

Just my 2 cts, but I think the successor to the MPEG2 format should not just be another format that just reduces data even further (essentially what MPEG4 is). It should be something that strives for improved quality over MPEG2 (i.e., less artifacts). It doesn't really matter if the resolution is to be greater if the basics such as dissolves, fade-ins/outs, dark scene gradations, and detail under fast motion continue to be the achilles heal of digital video.

 

[PC-Engine]

Yes ideally we would have film quality video in our own homes, but until then there's a place called the movie theater.

 

[randycat99]

With a remark like that, I can tell you just don't "get it". This isn't about achieving some uber video standard or having the latest MPEG n+1 format. This is about regaining what was possible with plain analog from the mid-90's.

Speaking of movie theaters- yeah, it's a big screen and all, plus the latest in multichannel sound. However, the premise fails again when considering the basic quality of the sound. It's a rare screening room that has the high-quality sound equipment. When you do find one, it's truly great. Most screening rooms feature only very mediocre sound reproduction. It's loud, but not particularly accurate or fullrange. Even that movie theater that has that one or two main rooms with the really good equipment will cheap out on the other eight rooms. So it's a gamble when you buy your ticket. You don't know which room you're gonna get. That said, even a moderate home theater sound system will run circles around the "mediocre movie theater sound" experience in basic sound quality. It may not be as loud or have as many surround channels, but all of that is pointless once sound quality has been compromised.

Moral is- got to stick with the basics first, then build from there. Otherwise, all of this new-fangled, fancy-shmancy stuff is just false progress. Aw well, I'm ranting, of course. Proceed with your normally scheduled topic.

 

[PC-Engine]

Well it's obvious you didn't "get" my post either as it's strictly talking about video not audio. IIRC you brought up MPEG artifacts, so like I said a film projector (analog) doesn't have MPEG artifacts

Maybe the electronics companies are interested in a new Laserdisc format until then there's a an adjustment on televison sets called sharpness/detail to tone down said artifacts

I've been told it works wonders and makes DVDs look analog while keeping the digital benefits.

IMO MPEGx isn't the problem, because when I play a DVD movie on my PC connected to my analog CRT monitor, it looks fantastic and better than any television set.

 

[randycat99]

I had already explained video artifacts in the prior post. Additionally, I pointed out that you don't need/shouldn't need a movie theater screen to enjoy the benefits of good video reproduction devoid of said artifacts. The problems of MPEG compression are at odds with that, however.

Since you mentioned movie theaters, I went on to explain that not even that is such a full quality experience as you imply. Arguably the downside there is the audio, not the video. Just a point of information...

The sharpness setting is hardly a "fix" for MPEG artifacts. If the idea is to blur any and all detail to oblivion (not even thinking about using the fanciest S-video or component interconnects along with the super sharp video monitors, yet) to mask artifacts, then what was the point of going to a "high-resolution" digital format in the first place?

 

[PC-Engine]

Well some televisons have edge enhancement so even though you could turn down the detail/shaprness control, the edges can still be fairly sharp. It only looks blurry if you turn it down too much. The trick is to turn it down just enough to smooth out the artifacts.

 

[randycat99]

Yeah, just slap one band-aid over another... Maybe it will work, maybe not, but what you get in the end is pretty far removed from the pristine setup devised on paper.

Tweaking video settings is neither here nor there, as MPEG artifacts are hardly constrained by high frequency noise effects. The real solution is to come up with a better MPEG-like system that addresses the video artifacts directly.

 

[PC-Engine]

Post processing at the decoder level helps and there are many MPEG4 derivatives with various quality outputs currently available. It's the nature of lossy compression.

 

[archie4oz]

Just my 2 cts, but I think the successor to the MPEG2 format should not just be another format that just reduces data even further (essentially what MPEG4 is).

Actually MPEG4 is quite a bit more than just data rate reduction. The data structure and it's support for different object types goes quite a ways beyond MPEG2. Also MPEG4 has been implemented in a wider range of data rates in similar applications to MPEG2.

For instance, AFAIK I've only seen MPEG2 applied from the SVCD hack (1240Kbps), to MPEG IMX pro gear (50Mbps 4:2:2P@ML), whereas MPEG4 as been implemented anywhere from webcasts (56Kbps Simple Profile), HDCAM SR recording (4:4:4 440Mbps Cinema Profile)...

IIRC you brought up MPEG artifacts, so like I said a film projector (analog) doesn't have MPEG artifact

No, but film has it's own set of issues. Film has to deal with grain, and grain can be affected by a number of facters including the grain type itself (flat or round), exposure time, emulsion speed, processing time; and in the realm of display, distance and screen size pose problems for the projector with regards to grain, as well as the time honored scratches and dust particles... Of course you can solve some of that with digital projection and post-filtering but the same can be done for digital video (and it's more amenable to post processing).

I've been told it works wonders and makes DVDs look analog while keeping the digital benefits.

What is this analog "look" you spaek of?

HD-DVD is not made for Mpeg-2 it most likely will use Mpeg-4 as a Standard to fit HDTV Content Not Making it an Ideal Nextgen successor to DVD.

HD DVD (the rather vague spec I presume and not alternative name for AOD), isn't designed for any particular codec per se (especially at this stage). The codec specification can be a factor in determining data rates, color sampling, etc... But it's a bit premature to state that the spec is *designed* for one codec spec over the other.

Besides, despite my comments above about MPEG2 and MPEG4 application use, it's not like MPEG2 encoders have been sitting still for the past 5 years or so. MPEG specs only define the decoder and the byte stream. There's a lot more freedom granted to the encoder on how it chooses to generate a stream so long as it's compatible to the decoder. As such MPEG2 encoders today can deliver result comparable to encoders 4-5 years ago in only half the data rate...

 

[randycat99]

Post processing at the decoder level helps and there are many MPEG4 derivatives with various quality outputs currently available. It's the nature of lossy compression.

No amount of "postprocessing at the decoder" is going to fix the problems stemming from dissolves, fade in/out, dark scenes approaching black level, and detail corruption in high motion scenes. Once the damage is done, it's done. What you are essentially arguing is that you could possibly fix the sound of a bad mp3 using an equalizer (if one were to use an audio analogy). If you are going to go tweak analog settings after the fact, you will just end up sacrificing other qualities of the video at all other times.

FWIW, my impression is that the new techniques implemented in MPEG4 (tracking moving entities and such) are simply addressing additional ways to compress data. Hence, that allows the improvement in compression ratios. I am unaware of any refinements which specifically address video quality issues under demanding/extreme circumstances (specifically, conditions that give the current formats trouble).

To say "it's the nature" is simply accepting defeat for all the drawbacks that digital has brought along with it. On the contrary, one should shout out, "This is not adequate! We demand a truly superior format, not one that is simply digital and easier to implement for the producer. If there are problems, fix them. We are not interested in a system that compresses more but simply perpetuates the same problems. Fix the problems FIRST, then add the other stuff."

 

[PC-Engine]

Well getting to the root of the problem is easier said than done wouldn't you say? I mean what alternatives are there?? Laserdisc Ver. 2?

 

[randycat99]

Getting to the root of the problem is exactly what needs to be done, especially when considering a change in industry-wide format. The problem now is that the digital video paradigm has been a "race for more compression" where it should be a "race for better quality". The priorities have become unbalanced, and the result is a runaway train that is heading to a place that doesn't necessarily benefit the consumer.

No one is asking for a Laserdisc v.2.0 format as you keep implying. One is only asking that digital be called upon to fulfill its full potential in being a truly superior successor to it, not just a get some/lose some/but it is newer proposition.

 

[MfA]

It's the marketing department which determines the final quality more than the codec developers, they dont determine what bitrates to use. If Blue-Ray fails to give your desired quality your beef should be with the people who chose MPEG-2 over newer codecs ...

 

[randycat99]

I keep repeating this, but no one seems to get it. The problem isn't necessarily bit rates. You can throw as much bit rate as you like at an MPEG-based video. There will still be problems in certain basic situations. The one problem where you get pixelation under inadequate bitrates is only one of the problems. It's an easy fix, as well, but unfortunately (as you cited, MfA), the "wrong" people have the final say in the matter, anyway.

The choice of MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 is irrelevant, really (unless you are more concerned with using DVD's or pirating to CD). As an industry spec, do you honestly think they will use the extra data headroom in MPEG4 to ease back on compression? Of course not! They will just compress stuff twice as much as MPEG2, and you end up with a result not that much better in quality than what you had before MPEG4. It's a vicious cycle until people wake up and realize the "race for more compression" should not be the primary issue.

 

[MfA]

On the upside, I think you are severely underestimating what post-processing can do. Multi-frame super-resolution techniques can do some amazing stuff (of course we will need some amazing hardware and algorithm innovations to do that in realtime).

 

[randycat99]

Perhaps, but if a digital format needs to rely on such computationally extensive "postprocessing" to compensate for its inherent ills, that does not strike me as a worthy digital format to perpetuate.