BR/HD-DVD Thread

I'm assuming you got "a bit more than 2x" from 1080/480=2.25. That's not the area. That's the height.

(1920*1080)/(720*480)=6 (times greater than NTSC DVD)
(1920*1080)/(720*576)=5 (times greater than PAL DVD)

Or you could just look at the storage sizes of DVDs compared to Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD, which doesn't hold as much). Blu-Ray is at 25 GB per layer and HD-DVD is at 15 GB per layer. A single layer DVD is 4.38 GB.

 

Yes, you could look at it as an aggregate area number, but I don't believe that translates to what the eye picks up on when you notice a lack of resolution. You are either short on vertical divisions or horizontal divisions. You don't really "see" the product of pixel divisions.

 

Let me try an example. You can fit four 800x600 images in 1600x1200 pixels (one in each quadrant). Similarly, you can run four full-resolution 480p video streams simultaneously in one 1080p video stream. Can your eyes see only two? You would have to ignore half the screen for it to be only twice the resolution (for example, by covering the top half of the screen). That's quite a difference.

I've seen a lot of 1080i material and DVDs on the same HDTV, and I think 1080i is obviously better than twice as good. I've never seen 1080p. I've seen only a little 720p material (in stores). It looks great too.

 

Ah, fun with numbers... Let's say you have an odd 1280x240 image. You notice that on big screens, the vertical resolution seems pretty coarse. So you increase to 5120x240. Still not much improvement in the most deficient dimension. It's still 4x more pixels, right? Should be a mucho improvement, but alas, the area rule does not seem to be working. That's why the gross product can be misleading. It just gives you a single value to evaluate in lieu of the 2 dimensions it comes from. It's great for marketing literature, imo, because it is easier for a layman to catch (the, "Wow, the number is bigger, hence it must be better" effect). However, if you really want to get down to what's going on, you go to the 2 numbers directly. They are 2 numbers instead of 1 for a reason.

Also consider, if you increase the area 4x, does the picture then seem 4/5/6x larger? I don't think so (subjective impressions aside).

 

it depends, if you are watching on a small 28 inch screen then it may matter less. But if you watch on a 110 Inch screen (with a PJ that supports the res of course) it could a world of a difference. Resolution is very important when it comes to how close to the screen you can sit.

 

Thanks it is to know in a console implementation what is pricier ( I had assumed that in hardware BR is more ) but for games if it is worst put a game in 2 HD-DVDs or in 1 BR.
Thanks.

 

If you are talking about being able to make out the little rectangular blocks, then you are obviously waaaaay too close to the monitor, regardless of the size (or the monitor is waaaay too big for the particular image...or you are watching digital satellite ). Having enough horizontal and vertical resolution to make smooth, high contrast edges would be the least of your worries.

However, your example further illustrates my point. If you are blowing up an HD signal to 110 inch screen size, then the relative detail quality won't be much better than watching a standard DVD on a 55 inch screen. It is just a bigger overall presentation while maintaining the detail quality. In that particular scenario, HD is only keeping pace with the growth of screen size to deliver an image that is reasonably smooth (essentially the "NTSC look" we have spent so much time with so far). It isn't delivering an increase in detail, as in moving closer to how a computer monitor resolves detail in comparison to a TV. Now if you were viewing the HD on the 55 in screen, then you could argue that the relative detail had increased. However, it is still only a meager improvement over a 35 in TV showing standard DVD. You see the trend seems to only keep pace with the growth of screen sizes, not give us computer monitor-like detail on the screen sizes most people would consider "HD".

It's all a rant, but imo, "high-definition" should entail greater detail on a given screen size, not just show the same relative detail at larger screen sizes.

 

Ehmm so you are saying that because DVD was typical played on Small Screens HD isn't enough? It's not like Big Screens is something new, maybe for you?

DVD is played on big screens today, and when i get HD on my 110 inch screen (i already have som test samples it will look a hell of alot better.

I don't think that people buy a DVD and say.. gimme a 32 inch screen, no reason to have a bigger one because of the resolution

 

That's a nice, theoretical example that has nothing to do with the television resolutions we are talking about. 1080p and 480p have similar horizontal/vertical ratios (1.777 and 1.5, a difference of less than 0.3). Your resolutions have ridiculously different ratios (5.333 and 21.333, a difference of 16).

Of course width and height are more accurate than area alone. I never said otherwise. Your original statement used ONLY height to compare the resolution, completely ignoring the width (and the total area). You've proven that comparing area CAN be misleading, but comparing height is plain wrong. I only corrected you because you were mistaken about TV resolutions. I didn't want to have a heartfelt discussion about the subjective quality of theoretical screen resolutions.

To answer your question: Is 5120x240 higher resolution than 1280x240? Yes. They are both quite useless for watching TV. They might make a nice banner, or something.

 

More precisely, HD is not really so much "HD" anymore, given the growth in screen sizes.

Of course not, and it was quite clear back then that those big screens were really stretching SD beyond its capabilities w/o extra filtering and processing to mask the artifacts.

...maybe, but only because DVD was only barely adequate on the big screens you mention for comparison. By going to HD and 110 in, you are conceptually only taking 2 steps forward and then 2 steps back. Most likely the perception of it "looking better" will simply be the impact of it being a much larger presentation. There's nothing wrong with that, but the numbers suggest that it shouldn't be mistaken for much more.

Of course not, but that does not circumvent the issue that DVD is getting well beyond its intent at larger screen sizes. Arguably it is overtaxed at 32 in, as well, but this is masked somewhat in the filtering down of the material when making a "consumer-use release". All of this keeps pointing back to the idea that this whole "HD revolution" is hardly revolutionary at all, and is really only barely keeping pace with the growth in screen sizes altogether.

 

Hence, heralding the resolution of HD as 4/5/6x improvement by area as a hard fact was not clarifying the matter. At best, it is misleading. It's great for marketing (wow! 5x improvement? where do I sign up???), not so great for getting to the heart of the matter.

 

No. I said it CAN be misleading. For example, IF the aspect ratios are different. It's not that hard to understand.

 

HD-DVD will win.

Blu-ray will lose.

 

It is misleading in numerous ways even if the aspect ratios are not different. It is just plain misleading.

 

If it's misleading in numerous ways, name one. That's nonsense. Given the area and the aspect ratio, you can mathematically calculate the width and height. To solve for the width, you multiply the area by the aspect ratio, and then take the square root of your result. To solve for height, divide instead of multiply.

For example, given 480000 pixels and an aspect ratio of 4:3 (about 1.333), we multiply (and get 640000), then we take the square root to find the width (800). Finding the second dimension is easier (area/width=height): 480000/800=600.

 

Yes, it is well known how to come up with lengths of the sides of a triangle. What is misleading is the notion that an area-derived figure is a good indication of effective resolution.

 

Just go look at ANY HDTV at the store. Look at some HDTV content and compare with DVD.

Circuit City, the national chain, has HDTV demo content, at least out here in the West Coast.

Then say there's no difference.

 

Read carefully. I never said there would be no difference when comparing DVD and HD on the same set. In fact, that is the very scenario I had cited where the improvement would be most valid. The problem comes when you see DVD on a monitor of one size, and then note the improvement in detail with HD content on a much larger screen. Again, this underscores the idea that HD is barely able to keep up with screen sizes just as SD was barely clinging on with big screens of yesterday.

As a side note, yes I have indeed examined various HD displays in major electronics stores. It's an entirely separate discussion, but let it be said that for the few moments of unmistakenly enhanced detail and vivid color saturation they bring (speaking of reasonably sized sets still, not the behemoths), they are accompanied with even more visual setbacks, which make you really (at least me) wonder just how robust a format HD really is to take the consumer into the next era of video technology. IMO, it's got some serious problems, and that includes OTA samples just as well as digital satellite samples. Aside from the excitement and hype of these fancy HD sets, there really is a sense of feebleness to the whole thing. It's all the difference between shopping to buy whatever is the next big thing vs. shopping to buy the next big thing that is truly to be great.

 

Sony Eyes 200GB Blu-ray Discs

Hi All,

Didn't have a chance to go thru the entire thread, but have a read of Sony's BR ambitions if not already posted:

Will 27~54GB be the requirement to pack all the FMV, graphics texture, audio, etc... for next-gen games?

If we can use storage capacity as a rough measure (given a number of you have been discussing the cost of dev for next-gen in terms of work art, etc..) of what to expect in the games to come for next-gen, I'll be smiling ear to ear!

 

Give up the "resolution doesn't matter" argument Randy. It's bunk and a waste of time.

As for BR/HD-DVD on consoles: If MS wants to ship Xenon in 2005 they should just go with DVD and restrict games to 9GB per disc. Then they can ship later Xenon units with whichever format wins the war (if at all), when manufacturing costs go down. I'm just not convinced that BR/HD-DVD will matter next-generation, given that the cost to produce games with more than 9GB of content (or 18GB for two discs for an extra 50 cents to produce) will be prohibitively expensive and the fact that most consumers won't have HDTVs until 2008 or later.