Peter Moore says that Xbox360 could possibly adopt a Blu Ray addon

[Bigus Dickus]

All HD-DVD and BR movies are (supposed to be) in 1080p already -- some of the early players may only be able to send out a 1080i signal though.

Well, compression better get a lot more efficient at higher resolutions then, because at the rates you quoted BR will provide, on a per-pixel basis, about 75% the bitrate as current DVD using mpeg2.

 

[Mr. Hanky]

Well, compression better get a lot more efficient at higher resolutions then, because at the rates you quoted BR will provide, on a per-pixel basis, about 75% the bitrate as current DVD using mpeg2.

When you refer to "DVD", are you referring to the "typical" DVD bitrate or a "superbit" DVD bitrate? Let's see your math...

 

[aaronspink]

Whatever floats your boat.

I am just telling it like it is. I know a guy who used to work for Movielink which is owned by Sony and works with all the Studios and has a huge amount of influence on the other studios. The majority is going to be MPEG 2 so good luck with the MPEG 4 on Blu-ray.

Hmm, that probably explains why the Movielink website is such a broken POS then.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

When you refer to "DVD", are you referring to the "typical" DVD bitrate or a "superbit" DVD bitrate? Let's see your math...

I'm using the ranges he cited above. 6-8, and 35-40.

You want to see me add?

 

[Mr. Hanky]

6-8 is typical for a DVD?

 

[Bigus Dickus]

dunno, I'm lazy, didn't look it up.

I was asking him the question, based on the numbers he gave. If you question them, then ask him, not me.

 

[Mr. Hanky]

You were attempting to construct an argument based on numbers even you, yourself, do not have a good feel for. So you were called on it.

If you had done your homework before launching your assertion, you would be able to clarify that the specific bitrate value for HD would lie slightly better than the specific bitrate for DVD, and just a bit short of the specific bitrate for a maximum quality superbit DVD. So comparison to a superbit DVD is not such bad company to be in.

* "specific" referring to a resolution/bitrate index, not the conventional useage of "specific"

 

[Bobbler]

Forgive my number then, it appears it was a bit on the high side.

Mr. Hanky, you have more accurate numbers?

 

[Mr. Hanky]

As with many things, there is no "standard" number, but it seems regular production movie DVD's seem to run the range of 3-5 Mb/s with a few exceptional cases hitting the 6's. The superbit level DVD's tend to inhabit the 7-9 Mb/s range.

 

[Bobbler]

As with many things, there is no "standard" number, but it seems regular production movie DVD's seem to run the range of 3-5 Mb/s with a few exceptional cases hitting the 6's. The superbit level DVD's tend to inhabit the 7-9 Mb/s range.

Ah, that sounds right then. My guess was a bit generous.

I suppose I could have done some simple math -- 5mbit (video + sound) @ 2 hours = 4.5gbytes, so a dual layer could offer ~10mbit (video + sound) @ 2 hours and no real extra features to speak of. BR can offer around ~27mbit @ 2 hours (video + sound) or ~55mbit on a dual layer @ 2 hours. Looking at this it seems Mpeg4/VC-1 will be much more used (as a single layer can get 3+ hours of suitably high quality encoded video/sound per layer).

~35mbit (40 would be pushing it) for Mpeg2 seems okay then for a lot of movies (on single layer), and if they want to pull a "superbit" they could easily go with some sort of 25-30mbit Mpeg4 on a dual layer.

Side question: Anyone know if there is a limit to the bitrate that the Mpeg4/VC-1 supports in the blu-ray spec? (As I could see a 25+mbit H.264 stream being rather power consuming to decode)

 

[Mr. Hanky]

I am concerned with this, as well.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Side question: Anyone know if there is a limit to the bitrate that the Mpeg4/VC-1 supports in the blu-ray spec? (As I could see a 25+mbit H.264 stream being rather power consuming to decode)

In focus tests in one of the other threads a while back, something like 99% of the viewers could not see a difference between the original master, and VC1@16mbps, so why would they bother going higher than 16mbps? (in the same test, a signifigant percentage DID notice a quality drop with 24mbps mpeg2)

I wish I had that link to the testing, I wonder what size display they were viewing it on...

 

[Mr. Hanky]

99% of hdtv viewers out there think digital satellite and cable hdtv broadcasts are flawless, too.

 

[scooby_dooby]

99% of hdtv viewers out there think digital satellite and cable hdtv broadcasts are flawless, too.

somehow something like 15% of those same people noticed a difference between 24mbps MPEG2 and the original master, so I fail to see your point.

 

[randycat99]

The point is "people" can see a lot of things or not see a lot of things. Bringing up a single study as if it is now proof written in stone is a bit premature. Perhaps you should wait and actually see the offerings before taking a stance? The fact that legions of hdtv viewers today have absolutely no qualms with the horrid quality of digital cable and satellite feeds (hd or otherwise) pretty much puts either hd disc format far into the clear as far as discernible differences in quality.

 

[scooby_dooby]

ya ya, spin spin spin!

A large percentage noticed a difference w/ 24mbps, those SAME people npticed no difference with 16mbps. Pretty friggin simple. If these people were so blind to image quality, they would not have noticed the lower quality in the mpg2 videos, so your argument is irrational.

I never said anything was written in stone, I asked a question: why they would use anything higher tha 16mbps when the tesing so far shows that 16mbps is nearly indistinguishable from the master copy?

Do you have an answer? Or....what?

 

[randycat99]

...because I have about zero confidence in what people "see" or "don't see". I'd like to see for myself before I have an opinion or champion an opinion on the topic. I can see how a distant study that comes to a conclusion that you favor is enough to satisfy your own curiosity, however.

Furthermore, you should be the last person on this very board to complain about "spin".

 

[Bigus Dickus]

You were attempting to construct an argument based on numbers even you, yourself, do not have a good feel for. So you were called on it.

I asked a question, and a pretty easy one to answer at that. Don't start getting all high and mighty there pee-wee... you didn't call me on anything, you answered my question. I would thank you but you attitude doesn't warrant it.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

99% of hdtv viewers out there think digital satellite and cable hdtv broadcasts are flawless, too.

Do you have any studies to cite that this is actually the case, or is this just your own impressional form of anecdotal evidence? Because my own anecdotal evidence certainly suggests otherwise.

Everyone assumes that 99% of consumers are ignorant, blind, deaf, or some combination thereof (as you just did), but the truth is that most people just have different priorities and desires. If you ask the right question, you'll get a beter picture of that truth. For example, if you asked in a poll "do you think current satellite and cable HDTV broadcasts are good (or good enough, or have a great picture, or something to that effect" you might get 99% responding yes. If you drew the conclusion you did above from such data, you would be foolish. Ask instead whether they think the current broadcasts are as good as is possible, or better yet show them (novel concept, huh?) the differences side by side and ask if they can identify them (nothing like letting a controlled experiment get in the way of anecdotal nonsense is there), and your 99% WAG is going to look like someone was pissing in the dark.

 

[randycat99]

I am obliged to believe the study simply because it exists now? I'll acknowledge the study exists, but I am not bound by cosmic law to take it as gospel.

Like I said, I'll wait and see for myself, when the time comes. When it comes to "seeing" things, I take it with a grain of salt when it comes to what somebody else says.