Good news for Sony : Digigami MPEG-2 Encoder destroy h.264
- Thread starter supervegeta
- Start date
MPEG2 doesn't HAVE to be as good as 2 generations ahead encoders tho - it has 50 gigs of room to play around in. It's not an issue, and not worth discussing. Who cares?
Guden Oden said:
Heh, remember where you are. The place where people discuss whose opinions are right and whose are wrong.
I don't know that this alone can be cited as proof of superiority. Some while back an Edwardian (or Victorian - fuzzy on the details) Everest climber's body was found, preserved with Edwardian clothing. His clothing was silk, wool, and natural fibres, many tech generations behind the high-tech synthetic fibres modern explorers and mountain climbers have available. Yet experiments and use a reproduction clothing from the same manufacturer found that the old, last-generation clothing actually performed better then the modern stuff in comfort and warmth and maneouverability.Bohdy said:
New != Better
I'm not arguing for or aginst MPEG 2 and h.264, only the premise that later generation must lead to improvements and new is always better than old. Another technical example is JPEG2000 - a more modern format than JPEG. Though it outperforms JPEG in some if not most areas, it still performs worse in other(s), most noticeable blurring artefacts. (though I'm sure raising this point will see some heated discussion over JPEG2000 versus JPEG...)
wireframe said:
I think you meant the MSFT demo at CES where they used the Toshiba to demonstrate its sharing capabilities. BTW, I am not ignoring anything, my statement was in the context of this thread and dealing with codecs. My statement, if you extrapoloate it, was that saying you can take HD and fit it on a DVD, could also be used by the HD-DVD group as ammo against the BD-ROMs greater capacity.
Also, as far as exciting, the only exciting thing is its sharing capabilities, the internet connectivity has been done, bonuses have been done (might I add that most people watch the bonuses or deleted scenes at most twice). Quality, there is no doubt that HD is better for newer movies, but as an owner of a D-VHS player (which is MPEG-2) I can tell you that not every movie being remastered benefits from the resolution and I imagine that 5.1 will still be the dominant surround for years to come. X-men in D-VHS looks really good, but X-men2 looks great, and I, Robot even better, then compare that to Gosford Park which looks like DVD (slightly crisper).
I'm all for better quality, and I do think the jump from DVD to HD is warranted and for those that have the capabilities they will see a difference when everything is shot in HD from beginning to end, but we aren't there yet. Even my best D-VHS movies don't come close to the Discovery Channel HD nature stuff, and that is being sent out by Comcast at a crappy bit rate, imagine if they used the full bitrate.
I would, if I were interested in a Blu-Ray player. There's always the chance that, if they could've saved a bit more space, they could've put another feature on the disc. Even with 50 GB of space that is true. It's maybe hard to imagine right now, but this too will pass.Guden Oden said:
It's not a showstopping issue, by any means.
I just hope the title screens on the new format get rid of that irritating looping behavior that current DVD movies have. It's a small request, but very irritating everytime the DVD title screen has a short pause while looping the soundtrack and any screen animation sequence and locks out the controls momentarily. It just screams of a poor implementation issue that penalizes the GUI experience. If it is going to pause at the end of every loop, I'd rather they simply ditch the fancy menu screen animations for something static, that just sits there and responds promptly to user input at any given moment.
mckmas8808
Legend
Mr. Hanky said:
It's funny but you have a good point. I too hate that little pause. It's not very important or anything, but it is a little annoying.
AFAIAA, the menu screen is just playing another movie so it could just be that ifmckmas8808 said:
- the DVD player could seek back to the start of the menu movie quickly,
- had more buffering (in RAM) to hide the seek time,
- and could read the DVD data faster (in order to catch up and fill the refill the buffer)
The codec being used is very important.
Just think of the compression schemes used by Divx/XVid, you can basically rip a 7GB movie with 5.1 channel DD into Xvid and it will only take up 1.4-1.8GB. Thats almost a 500% difference. Imagine where we would be if DVD's were Divx DVD's instead of standard MPEG2.
It would be nice to be able to fit a 3 hour HD movie onto a single disc with a little room for a few "Special Features".
From "Divx HD FAQ"
I'm all for larger capacity but not at the expense of laziness. Although I'm glad it looks as though Blue Ray is going to be the standard, I see no reason why HD-DVD couldn't have been more then possible just by using Divx or some other more advanced codec.
Just think of the compression schemes used by Divx/XVid, you can basically rip a 7GB movie with 5.1 channel DD into Xvid and it will only take up 1.4-1.8GB. Thats almost a 500% difference. Imagine where we would be if DVD's were Divx DVD's instead of standard MPEG2.
It would be nice to be able to fit a 3 hour HD movie onto a single disc with a little room for a few "Special Features".
From "Divx HD FAQ"
I'm all for larger capacity but not at the expense of laziness. Although I'm glad it looks as though Blue Ray is going to be the standard, I see no reason why HD-DVD couldn't have been more then possible just by using Divx or some other more advanced codec.
A 7 GB movie squeezed into <2 GB space is surely going ot look horrendous. DVDs always have some pretty severe compression artefacts in places, and films ripped for PSP to fit onto 512 MBs (given the PSP screen res is near 3x smaller than DVD res this is about fair compression) or so show much worse compression, even with the amazing, unbelievable, mind blowing quality of h.264. Personally why sacrifice quality to get smaller files? It's like naffy digital TV. They blow all the available airspace on quantity of channel instead of image quality. Joy oh jubiliation, I can watch a hundred different shopping channels with dire compression rather than a few entertainment channels in fantastic quality. Lose the compression blocking, the colour compression and crank it up to 1080 resolution. If the disc can manage that why on earth wouldn't you want that?!
I assume you're taking about DVB in the UK?Shifty Geezer said:
Two points:
1) You're watching the wrong channels. I've done some direct recording from DVB and after stripping the content from the transport stream, have found at times the channel was apparently going over max "legal" bit rate for DVDs (i.e. 9800Kb/s)!
2) The BBC seems to do a better job of encoding the data than the others.
Since DVB currently has to share the airwaves with analogue, I'm hoping that when the latter is killed off they may increase the number of multiplexes.
[UPDATE] Saw this http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds28569.html re possible use of post-switch-off bandwidth.
Last edited by a moderator:
That sounds promising. My experience of digital is rather limited, not having digital myself, but round friends there's some channels that really hurt. A few programs on analogue are recorded in compressed video too though and show some artefacts. Personally I prefer analgoue noise to clear compression blocking and contrast artefacts - it's less noticeable. But if the 5 Brit channels get high-quality HD broadcasts I'll actually regard the switch to HD as worthwhile.Simon F said:
scooby_dooby
Legend
Well a DVD quality DivX movie is ~700mb. Thats very good quality, very crisp.
So, on a 8.5GB disc, you should be able to increase detail ten-fold over the SDTV version, not sure what bit-rate that would be but I'm sure you'd be looking at a damn good picture.
That's why this whole format war is so retarded, everyone is battling over expensive hardware, while cheap easy codecs are right there to solve the problem. We really don't need more than a 15GB hd-dvd, anything else is overkill.
So, on a 8.5GB disc, you should be able to increase detail ten-fold over the SDTV version, not sure what bit-rate that would be but I'm sure you'd be looking at a damn good picture.
That's why this whole format war is so retarded, everyone is battling over expensive hardware, while cheap easy codecs are right there to solve the problem. We really don't need more than a 15GB hd-dvd, anything else is overkill.
I agree. Even with two 700MB for a two hour movie divx (and, generally, similar codecs) has issues. It may look fine but it's not perfect, even though the average 45minutes HR HDTV rips @ 700MB looks great on SDTV sets I've heard it's not perfect on real HDTV sets. Settling on one big standard (although very heavy to decode) that can be accelerated would probably be most beneficial.breez said:
