New Ken Kutaragi interview (1) @ PC Watch

[one]

* Sony has delayed its standalone BR player until October this year due to "software issues". These issues could be related to VC-1, AVC or any other BD spec'ed details. People are complaining that Sony refuses to get help from MS regarding VC-1 implementation.

Who are complaining exactly? The standalone player will have a third party decoder chip, I have no idea why Sony have to get help from MS. What comes to my mind first as software issues is Java implementation and/or online capability including the DRM system. The first BD titles by Sony don't use Java for the interactive menu, instead they use BDMV.

As for PS3, the difficulty in VC-1 (if any) is non-issue as all are implemented in software.

 

[Sis]

As I understand it, if you've got 50 GB to use you can go with 50+ Gbps encoding, and at that high bitrate there's no quality difference between codecs. The more advanced codecs come into play at higher compression, but at low compression they're all very similar. So it won't matter whether 50 GB BRDs use MPEG2, h.264 or VC-1, but lower sized footage will benefit greatly from not using MPEG2

True, from my reading once you get into the high 20s for mpeg2 image quality is not an issue. But this obviously takes twice as much space which negates the biggest benefit to Blu-ray over HD DVD, namely the storage capacity. So it does matter, and they do need to get to a better compression tech, such as VC-1 or h.264. However, in my lurkings on the AVS Forum I have not seen a single mention of any studio looking to use h.264. This likely has to do with Microsoft jumping at every chance to push VC-1, whereas I don't know who would be pushing h.264.

 

[mckmas8808]

True, from my reading once you get into the high 20s for mpeg2 image quality is not an issue. But this obviously takes twice as much space which negates the biggest benefit to Blu-ray over HD DVD, namely the storage capacity. So it does matter, and they do need to get to a better compression tech, such as VC-1 or h.264. However, in my lurkings on the AVS Forum I have not seen a single mention of any studio looking to use h.264. This likely has to do with Microsoft jumping at every chance to push VC-1, whereas I don't know who would be pushing h.264.

What would happen if some studio used a high 20s bitrate of VC-1 or h.264 on a Dual Layer Blu-ray disc? Would a 28 Mbps bitrate VC-1 DL Blu-ray movie look better than a 15 Mbps DL HD-DVD disc?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

True, from my reading once you get into the high 20s for mpeg2 image quality is not an issue. But this obviously takes twice as much space which negates the biggest benefit to Blu-ray over HD DVD, namely the storage capacity.

Not really, because you get higher quality. 30 GB of VC-1 movie won't look as good as 50 GB of MPEG2, VC-1 or h.264 movie. That's movies anyway. For something like a TV series you'd benefit from better codecs to squeeze more on, except I'm sure studios would rather split a series over multiple disks to sell more.

 

[Sis]

What would happen if some studio used a high 20s bitrate of VC-1 or h.264 on a Dual Layer Blu-ray disc? Would a 28 Mbps bitrate VC-1 DL Blu-ray movie look better than a 15 Mbps DL HD-DVD disc?

I think it'd be like throwing water on a doused fire.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think it'd be like throwing water on a doused fire.

What does that mean?

 

[Sis]

Not really, because you get higher quality. 30 GB of VC-1 movie won't look as good as 50 GB of MPEG2, VC-1 or h.264 movie. That's movies anyway. For something like a TV series you'd benefit from better codecs to squeeze more on, except I'm sure studios would rather split a series over multiple disks to sell more.

I don't think that's true. I believe the VC-1 movies are coming close to "as good as it gets", which according to some potentially biased sources, are transparent to master. Throwing more bits at it want make it even more transparent to master.

 

[Sis]

What does that mean?

Basically this:

I don't think that's true. I believe the VC-1 movies are coming close to "as good as it gets", which according to some potentially biased sources, are transparent to master. Throwing more bits at it want make it even more transparent to master.

 

[mckmas8808]

Basically this:

So there's a finate amount of data that can make the movie look as good as it can get. Then it up to the movie studios to shoot the movies at higher quality in the future to get even better looking movies?

I get it. Thanks.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In an earlier discussion on this forum about codecs there was a post linking to research into codecs and bitrates and perceived quality, where viewers rated codecs at bitrates. I haven't been able to find it (author I'm certain was iknowall but I'm not searching every single one of his/her posts!) but IIRC the higher bitrates did rate better with the viewers. This is the only such research I've read about that investigates the codecs.

 

[scooby_dooby]

As I understand it, if you've got 50 GB to use you can go with 50+ Gbps encoding, and at that high bitrate there's no quality difference between codecs. The more advanced codecs come into play at higher compression, but at low compression they're all very similar. So it won't matter whether 50 GB BRDs use MPEG2, h.264 or VC-1, but lower sized footage will benefit greatly from not using MPEG2

I guess if you want absolutely no increase in available time over DVD, whatever happened to using the extra space to put entire box sets on 1 dvd?

50mbps = 22.5gb/h = 2.2 hours / disc. What a friggin waste of space, give me 20mbps VC1 w/ 6.5 hours per disc thankyou very much.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As I say, it'd be nice, but are TV studios going to want to do that? Dunno. But it's a moot point anyway. There's nothing stopping them using 20 Mbps VC-1 on their BRD releases, in theory. For a 2 hour movie, the quality difference between 50 Mbps MPEG2 and 20 Mbps VC-1 or h.264 should be noticeable. But as I've never really seen either, I can't add personal opinion on the matter. That's just what I got from reading around, especially that research into the codecs.

 

[scooby_dooby]

In an earlier discussion on this forum about codecs there was a post linking to research into codecs and bitrates and perceived quality, where viewers rated codecs at bitrates. I haven't been able to find it (author I'm certain was iknowall but I'm not searching every single one of his/her posts!) but IIRC the higher bitrates did rate better with the viewers. This is the only such research I've read about that investigates the codecs.

I know the one you're discussing and it was something like 96% of people in the test could see no difference between a 20mbps VC1 and the original master.

So the higher bitrates did rate higher, but only when comparing 12, 16 and 20mbps VC1. The higher bitrate mpeg2 did badly.

 

[Sis]

In an earlier discussion on this forum about codecs there was a post linking to research into codecs and bitrates and perceived quality, where viewers rated codecs at bitrates. I haven't been able to find it (author I'm certain was iknowall but I'm not searching every single one of his/her posts!) but IIRC the higher bitrates did rate better with the viewers. This is the only such research I've read about that investigates the codecs.

I know the one you're talking about and I thought it was in reference to mpeg2. VC-1 (and probably mpeg4) are somewhere between 2-4 times as effecient, from what I've gathered.

I'd also suggest that those saying "transparent to master" are admittedly biased and cage the remark to mean "transparent to master on a typically HDTV environment." I'm thinking that if you threw these movies up onto a big theater-sized screen people would notice a difference.

EDIT: After reading Scoob's post, maybe I don't know the one you're talking about

 

[scooby_dooby]

As I say, it'd be nice, but are TV studios going to want to do that? Dunno. But it's a moot point anyway. There's nothing stopping them using 20 Mbps VC-1 on their BRD releases, in theory. For a 2 hour movie, the quality difference between 50 Mbps MPEG2 and 20 Mbps VC-1 or h.264 should be noticeable. But as I've never really seen either, I can't add personal opinion on the matter. That's just what I got from reading around, especially that research into the codecs.

It seems to be just an example of stupid company politics coming in the way of common sense. It's like Sony has invested so much time and money into MPEG2 propaganda that it behooves them to use MPEG2, even when it's clearly an ass-backwards solution to the problem, and it clearly is completely unsuitable for 25gb discs.

I like the extra space BR provides, but if they are going to completely waste it by using 10 year old, outdated codecs, what's the point?

 

[scooby_dooby]

EDIT: After reading Scoob's post, maybe I don't know the one you're talking about

Found it! My mistake, it was a h.264 comparison, not vc1.

Scores are how well the video compares to the master, scores from 1 (very poor) to 5 (same as original)

The original master = 4.03 lol
24mbps MPEG2 = 3.59
20mbps H.264 = 3.9
16mbps H.264 = 4.0
12mbps = 3.71
8mbps = 3.65
http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-site/2004_07_Redmond/JVT-L033.doc

This does point to 16-20mbps being the limit as far as perception goes, 16 actually scored a little bit higher than 20.

 

[Mmmkay]

Every time Scooby posts this, he forgets a tiny little cruical piece of information... it was a comparison against CBR D-VHS MPEG2, not VBR Blu-ray MPEG2 in case anyone asks.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Every time Scooby posts this, he forgets a tiny little cruical piece of information... it was a comparison against CBR D-VHS MPEG2, not VBR Blu-ray MPEG2 in case anyone asks.

Yes it's CBR, we don't know whether the H.264 was set at VBR or CBR though.

I don't see how that is a big deal anyways, assume that the H.264 streams are VBR, at 8mbps it still beat the 24mbps mpg2 stream, and since it's 8mbps average, that means much of the movie is running well below 8mbps to make up for the peaks. Either way, mpeg2 got trounced, and 16mbps h.264 seems to be extremely close to a transparent copy.

 

[patsu]

Who are complaining exactly? The standalone player will have a third party decoder chip, I have no idea why Sony have to get help from MS. What comes to my mind first as software issues is Java implementation and/or online capability including the DRM system. The first BD titles by Sony don't use Java for the interactive menu, instead they use BDMV.

As for PS3, the difficulty in VC-1 (if any) is non-issue as all are implemented in software.

The impression I got while reading this thread was: Many people expected Sony to get help from MS regarding VC-1. I may have overstated it.

One, which vendor today offers high quality and robust VC-1 decoder (chip/software) ? Would like to know more since we are here talking about it.

And yes. The em... Java extension. I hope simple BD title can continue to use BDMV just for interactive menu. Java is really only needed for network access and DRM right ?

And then there is an additional security layer in Blu-ray to allow for pluggable (new) security module. Am I correct ?

 

[Mmmkay]

Yes it's CBR, we don't know whether the H.264 was set at VBR or CBR though.

I don't see how that is a big deal anyways, assume that the H.264 streams are VBR, at 8mbps it still beat the 24mbps mpg2 stream, and since it's 8mbps average, that means much of the movie is running well below 8mbps to make up for the peaks. Either way, mpeg2 got trounced, and 16mbps h.264 seems to be extremely close to a transparent copy.

Yeah I know, just pointing out that it's more an acceptance test for H.264 not a comparative test between the two competing Blu-ray codec implementations. There's nothing in the test that we can use to criticise Blu-ray's MPEG2 with.