Bigus Dickus
Regular
Geez, there's just no end to the rationalization. So now HD-DVD is using a better codec because it has to?
Microsoft announces external HD-DVD drive for Xbox 360
- Thread starter BlueTsunami
- Start date
randycat99
Veteran
The future of high performance video lies squarely with higher bitrates, not adapting newer, "better" ways to squeeze it down further still. The media format that has the capacity to spare will ultimately be the more desirable format, regardless of the codec (because both have support for mpeg4, anyway).
randycat99 said:
I agree with this but i think you get to a point where you reach 'more than enough'. In their current forms i think you can get like 5 hours of video (i'm referring to another post so please correct me if im wrong) on HD-DVD so i dont think the capacity is going to be the deal breaker here. Price, software, adoption rate, are still 90% of the equation imo.
aaronspink
Veteran
ihamoitc2005 said:
FIRST... BR DOES NOT support 1080P at 60fps. It only supports 1080P at 24fps. It does support 1080i at 60fps.
And less compression != good. They landscape is littered with codecs that provided less compression and less quality.
Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.
randycat99
Veteran
You can be assured that more compression is definitely not "good", either. Pick any codec- the results for that codec will most certainly improve with less compression, higher bitrate. Hence, my earlier comment that the road to video nirvana will be paved in the direction of higher bitrates (and media that can support that agenda), not finding a better way to squeeze things down further still. There is no argument that mpeg4 is a better codec than mpeg2. Mpeg4 can undoubtedly push compression where mpeg2 cannot go. However, that direction is not the direction for better video, ultimately. The direction is less compression/higher bitrates. Once you hit the range of sub-100 Mb/s, it's going to be better video than any fancier, future codec will be able to do at, say 10 Mb/s. In that range [sub 100], mpeg2 does the job just fine and any differences between mpeg2 and mpeg4 will be splitting hairs. Mpeg2 may be "old" by today's standards, but does a helluva job right where it is. Give it some bitrate to "breath", and it will only do its job better. I'm not saying BR v.1 will give us that sub 100 range, but it has the room to grow for any standards to come.
Does 100/200/300 Mb/s sound too "gratuitous"? From what we are used to, perhaps, but one needs to also take into account where the unity reference lies. Consider that what we are saddled with in the consumer arena is a meager 4:2:0 color space to achieve the compressions we are achieving. Consider that aggressive compression makes 24-bit video look like cheap 16-bit video (ever wonder where all those gradient contours come from?). We are neck deep in compromises, where we are now (the way digital video is implemented). Consider that the reference state of uncompressed HD is well into the Gb/s range. So you compare 100 Mb/s to 1000 Mb/s, and you see we would still be getting quite the bang for that Mb buck. You see that logic dictates that we can stand to benefit from opening up that "data spigot" that is dribbling a "mere" 20 Mb/s, currently, for something that "tries" to resemble a 1000 Mb/s signal. Now throw in 4:2:2 (maybe even 4:4:4, if you really want to get computer grade level of performance), and 100 Mb/s looks right about on target just to be conservative. Run with 200-250 Mb/s to ensure artifacts are truly beyond perception, regardless of the screen size or display technology involved or any relative lack of skill of the telecine operator. So I hope that puts into perspective that we really should be pushing for ways to get to that 100 Mb/s as far as a longterm goal, rather than figuring out how to make 10 Mb/s look "better". When you realize that the source material is coming from the land of Gb/s, we should understand that being able to throw 100 Mb/s or so at the process is really not asking for too much.
Does 100/200/300 Mb/s sound too "gratuitous"? From what we are used to, perhaps, but one needs to also take into account where the unity reference lies. Consider that what we are saddled with in the consumer arena is a meager 4:2:0 color space to achieve the compressions we are achieving. Consider that aggressive compression makes 24-bit video look like cheap 16-bit video (ever wonder where all those gradient contours come from?). We are neck deep in compromises, where we are now (the way digital video is implemented). Consider that the reference state of uncompressed HD is well into the Gb/s range. So you compare 100 Mb/s to 1000 Mb/s, and you see we would still be getting quite the bang for that Mb buck. You see that logic dictates that we can stand to benefit from opening up that "data spigot" that is dribbling a "mere" 20 Mb/s, currently, for something that "tries" to resemble a 1000 Mb/s signal. Now throw in 4:2:2 (maybe even 4:4:4, if you really want to get computer grade level of performance), and 100 Mb/s looks right about on target just to be conservative. Run with 200-250 Mb/s to ensure artifacts are truly beyond perception, regardless of the screen size or display technology involved or any relative lack of skill of the telecine operator. So I hope that puts into perspective that we really should be pushing for ways to get to that 100 Mb/s as far as a longterm goal, rather than figuring out how to make 10 Mb/s look "better". When you realize that the source material is coming from the land of Gb/s, we should understand that being able to throw 100 Mb/s or so at the process is really not asking for too much.
Last edited by a moderator:
aaronspink
Veteran
randycat99 said:
The problem is that neither BR nor HDDVD have enough storage to give me the quality that I want, which included a minimum of 4:4:4 and not some eigth ass 4:2:0.
As a minimum I was ~40GB of VC1 encoded video. Anything less just isn't worse the cost of upgrading.
Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.
We can agree that *no* compression is the ideal in any situation.
Now, that being said, different codecs perform differently at different levels of compression and different bitrates. I think Sony and their studios are going MPEG-2 not because it is better, but because for them - as they already have their digital content stored as MPEG-2 - it is cheaper. Blu-ray offers *enough* space that the MPEG-2 compressed video is comparable to the same content compressed via VC-1. So for the studios, MPEG-2 gives a lower cost means of putting their content on the disc, and due to the extra space, probably requires less compression to the extent that it will probably still look the equal (or better?) to the same content put onto HD-DVD via VC-1, due to the greater levels of compression required.
(Aaron I agree, but we both know these guys are going to cut corners on cost wherever they can while remaining only as competetive as they have to)
Now, that being said, different codecs perform differently at different levels of compression and different bitrates. I think Sony and their studios are going MPEG-2 not because it is better, but because for them - as they already have their digital content stored as MPEG-2 - it is cheaper. Blu-ray offers *enough* space that the MPEG-2 compressed video is comparable to the same content compressed via VC-1. So for the studios, MPEG-2 gives a lower cost means of putting their content on the disc, and due to the extra space, probably requires less compression to the extent that it will probably still look the equal (or better?) to the same content put onto HD-DVD via VC-1, due to the greater levels of compression required.
(Aaron I agree, but we both know these guys are going to cut corners on cost wherever they can while remaining only as competetive as they have to)
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you have a link to back that claim?aaronspink said:
BTW, PS3 looks like it can output bluray media at up to 1080p@60fps.
http://internet.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/static/image/2006/01/05/cessn04.jpg
Movies being played back in 1080p@24fps is due to the hardware doing the video capture.
inefficient
Veteran
AlphaWolf said:
This Sony BD player can output "1080/60p"
Why are we expecting less of the ps3?
If so it should be 1080/60i.Ty said:
http://www.oceanfootage.com/stockfootage/Hawaii
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/wi.../UnderstandingHDFormats.aspx#tapeformatsforhd
"High quality video DAC" "Outstanding build quality" won't be in PS3, yes. But, those first-wave dedicated players don't have CELL.
We're not. According to the BRD white paper, posted elsewhere on this forum, formats supported by the BluRay standard include 1080i@60 fps and 1080p@24 fps, but NO 1080p@60 fps. It's nothing to do with the player hardware and everything to do with the content standard, which has no progressive 1080 framerate beyond 24 fps. PS3 could be capable of a million fps but if the content on the disks is capped out at 24 fps, as aaronsipnk said before everyone misconstrued it into thinking people were talking about hardware capabilities, output will always be 24 fps.inefficient said:
one said:
My bad. I saw the 60p and thought it was 60fps. We're in a bit of a semi-crunch (about to start beta and iIt was nearly 3am when I wrote that.)
one said:
Heh, funny stuff. I spent the first 30 years of my life in Hawaii.
Oh, and don't get me wrong, I expect the PS3 at $399 to be a fantastic bargain but I do expect a dedicated BR player to be better at playback.aaronspink
Veteran
BTOA said:
Go lookup the redbook (bluebook?) on Blu-Ray. The supported encoding formats, are 1080i@60,59.xx and 1080p@24,23.xx. The issue is that the hardware support for 1080p@60 fps would be too intensive from both a processor standpoint and a bandwidth standpoint and there is currently little content that is available in 1080p.
I think we'll start over the next 3-4 years see the introduction of live motion cameras recording at 48 FPS in 1080p to allow more flexability in post production. In addition, things like Pixar and the rest of the 3d animation wannabes are perfect canidates for utilizing higher frame rates. Pixar already custom renders their movies for DVD release in both widescreen and full screen. Don't know if Dreamworks Animation does as well.
Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.
aaronspink
Veteran
inefficient said:
The key word being output, the data on disk is not in 1080p@60 Hz. They are just up rating the 24 Hz frame data in a 5:2 pulldown.
aaronspink said:
Many if not all coming Blu-ray movies are 1080p (1080p/24, of course, but that's all you'd need or want for the vast majority of movies).
And about processor intensity/bandwidth - I guess on the former, here's a good application for Cell
Cell could easily handle decoding 1080p at 60fps (or even 120fps or more). On bandwidth, a dual-HDMI connection, at least, would have enough bandwidth for 1080p/60*, and PS3 does have two HDMI-outs (and I believe this is how they were demoing 1080p/60 playback for PS3 at CES). I don't know about standalones, but from a hardware point of view, PS3 is certainly capable of it. The only question is the standard, and whether it'd be updated in the future - if it were, PS3 could be "upgraded" to support it with just a software update. Of course, if most or all players couldn't similarly be upgraded via firmware, it may never happen. Or maybe you might have a reverse process to pulldown/redbook, that'd take a 60fps source and display it at 24fps, for those that can't handle it.* That's assuming the current standard. PS3 may actually adopt the next-gen HDMI standard if it arrives in time, as per Kutaragi's comments at CES, which I believe can support this on one cable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Can we be sure of that? We've seen multiple HD streams on Cell, but the moment demands are beyond a SPE's individual capabilities, can a single HD stream be decompressed across multiple SPE's? Given the seriel nature of the data I'd have thought not, and the limiting factor would be one SPE's worth of processing capabilities. So can a single SPE cpoe with 120 fps 1920x1080 compressed footage?Titanio said:And about processor intensity/bandwidth - I guess on the former, here's a good application for Cell
