PlayStation 3: Audio & Video Discussion

[FutureCTO]

Hey,
I'm into technology and want to help clarify some points about the audio limits of the PS3.
A random comment about something I expect from a coming chipset revision set off a chain of replies.

If possible could you move those replies to this thread.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47038&page=2

Then we will resume discussion audio solutions in regards to Sony and the PS3.
I spent a weekend in January email Onkyo about the TX-SR605 advising them to announce/make a simpler bundle version of HT-SP908 system, without the DVD player and Ipod dock. Pointing out that the audio codec solution they provide would require an HD video optical media player that would already support DVD as well. So their DVD player doesn't add value since the pre-requist has already fullfilled that credit in order to need the other part of their solution.

Long story short.
Little over a month later Sony is announcing lower priced audio receivers that support both audio formats.

http://www.news.com/8300-10784_3-7.html?keyword=DTS-HD+Master+Audio

They also included a Blu-ray player that did the same.

Something I also predicted last year was that Blu-ray would win because HD-DVD was created when the Video argument was 720p vs 1080i, so HD-DVD didn't target enough bandwidth support for 1080p @ 60Hz & Uncompressed 7.1 audio. Seems like no one else noticed that Blu-ray offers about 65% more data per layer and 55% more bandwidth to deal with 1080p@60hz media. Specifically supported by the fact that Sony has been selling 1080p@60hz camcorders for

Then in January when Blu-ray looked to be taking the crown I revisited these points with a dedicated thread. And wrote the following.

I will prove HD-DVD was not designed with 1080p@60Hz HDTV in mind.
First we need a measure to compare with, so I looked for 1080i Broadcasts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television

"Each Digital TV channel is permitted to be broadcast at a data rate up to 19 megabits per second, or 2.375 megabytes per second."

What will fit that is 1080i + Lite 5 Channel audio + Subtitles is 19Mbits.
Double it for 1080p + 7ch HD Dolby/DTS audio + Subtitles = About 38Mbits.

Audio+Video+Subtitles: Comparison
Blu-ray (48.0 Mbit/sec) > 38Mbits/sec
HD-DVD (30.24 Mbit/sec) < 38Mbits/sec

HD-DVD can not do 1080p @ 60Hz without lossy quality or lower detail.
It might be possible for HD-DVD using Lossless-Stereo and No Subtitle audio channels.

Let us revisit 1080p as a Raw image.
The display is 1920 × 1080 or about 2.07 million pixels.
If we look at pixels (picture elements) we have three colors each pixel.
Assign 8bits (1 Byte) per color for 24bit Color OR (18bit + 6bit Lumen).
That is 3 Bytes per pixel OR 6.21MBytes per frame = 49.68MBits

Yes. I already stated most movies are indeed 24fps with few exceptions.
And that it is smarter to store movies at 24FPS and DownScale or Interlace.
My point is that the 24fps is not the only 1080p format in existence.

You watch Sports, X-Games, Nature films, Documentaries. 60FPS rocks!
Try watching fast action at 24FPS and you miss a lot of details.
A Professional boxer throws a punch in 1/30th of a second.
Watching a fight @ 24FPS you literally miss the man extending his arm.
What kind of sports fan wants to miss the Winning Knock Out Punch?
Or miss the winning Super Bowl catch? The NASCAR spinning through the air?
How much more intense is action when it happens both Quickly and Crisply??

If 24FPS were cream why would we struggle with 720p vs 1080i?
We could just broadcast at 1080p and 24FPS and live that way, right?
Instead broadcaster in the UK and elsewhere are looking at AVC 1080p@60.

Plus, 1080p HDTV is moving towards refresh rates of up to 120fps.
Wouldn't it be nice to watch action run at least 48fps, 60fps, or 72fps?

As for the compression. Yes you can fit whatever you need to fit.
Compress it to whatever the level you want and it is totally possible.
I have a 1080p Blu-ray copy of 'Peprika' H.264 and AC3 5.1ch = < 3GB file.

But if you want lossless 1080p video compression with multiple HD audio tracks that changes everything! If it were always so small why is every single HD-DVD movie released two layers? When according to you it could so easily fit one 15GB layer??

Why are all of the most recently Blu-ray movies 50GB instead of 25GB??
http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php?OrderBy=Date

Why did Michael Bay throw a fit over not being on Blu-ray?
Could it be that Directors love having space to spoil their work?
Isn't his 2002 four-disc Director's Cut of 'Pearl Harbor' evidence of why?
The Matrix's 10 DVD9 set?? The Lord of The Rings 12 DVD9 Trilogy Set??
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/dvd/2007-10-22-transformers-bay_N.htm

Sure if you need to obey limits HD-DVD has more than enough space.
But what about the absolute purist who spends on premium quality audio?
If a Director wants to go over the top and spoil you, "Why-Limit-Them?"

During this time in January I was feeling very certain of my claims & emailed HorizonSemi.com marketing staff.

I saw these links:
http://jdj.sys-con.com/read/436931.htm
http://www.horizonsemi.com/dvd_7220.html
http://www.horizonsemi.com/contact.html

It seems like an excellent product.
Especially impressed if it can achieve 1080p 60Hz with the VC-1 codec.
I had recently written on how 1080p@60Hz was the future spec to be added to HD players.
In sports such as boxing, a professional fighter throws a punch in 1/30 of a second.
With the current 1080p@24 spec movies or sports documentaries will miss important moments.
Can you imagine literally missing the winning punch of a title bout?

When they first created the video spec’s we were debating 720p vs 1080i.
Now it is financially possible for the general public to purchase 1080p TVs.
Blu-ray allowed roughly 60% more space and bandwidth than HD-DVD to do this.
And in another year or so after the Oct 2.0 spec likely add a 1080p@60hz option.

But the reason I write to you now is about cost.
Once someone has paid for and is using your support and tools,
How much will the required chipsets or Hz7220 on its own cost?
How many units are in a lot or tray?
And in what quantity are they being sold?
Say in a lot of 10,000 units for Hz7220, what is the individual processor cost to buyers?

Again I am merely writing about this and not an actual buyer.
I understand that will time the price might lower as volume reduces costs.

Now the predictions and arguments I made about Blu-ray are 45 Days later manifesting.
Sony is announcing players supporting the 1080p @ 60Hz specification for the first time ever.
And has, "+ Bitstream output for Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio"

Sony HD Solutions http://www.news.com/8300-10784_3-7.html?keyword=DTS-HD+Master+Audio
Blu-ray 2.0 http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9808376-1.html#profile2.0

For the record what I was predicting/hoping for was in the other thread was an upgrade to PS3 firmware allowing DTS-HD Master Audio to be decoded and output as 7.1 Linear PCM audio. Not bitstream output, which is typically limited by the audio chipset including codec support. But I am now also hopeful about a chipset revision allowing native pass through of the 7.1 DTS and 7.1 DD audio codecs.

To be honest Linear Pulse Code Modulation should sound near perfect in translation and lower the cost to Audio owners who's Receivers don't support the latest HD audio specifications.

I hope Onkyo is taking note.
As Sony's latest receiver offering costs about half what the TX-SR605 did.

Until the Blu-ray 2.0 Specification is finalized in hopefully October 2008,
The PS3 is a very good solution in regards to excellent price and its upgradeable design.
A new smaller/lower power/less expensive Blu-Ray laser is also in the pipeline for April 2008.
So the prices of dedicated Blu-ray players should drop sometime after that point.

I still prefer my 4.1 audio setup (not a typo.)
But should I go big, the system would have to support seven point one.
The audio positioning of 5.1 never really made me feel immersed.
I was always actively aware of the positioning, instead of surrounded by sound.
It's like I hate when stereo completely lacks and audio track in the other ear.
Sound should be present in both, just balanced (blended) differently, not completely seperated.
Yes that has more to do with studio mastering than the positioning limits,
but somehow 5.1 never really satisfied my desire to be in the sound stage.
It is a ring of sound, not spots for sound.

 

[FutureCTO]

Here are the current specification for all Blu-Ray ROM media types.

http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11397#iif

Another point of discussion is Super-Audio CD.
This format was supported on 20GB and 60GB PS3 models.
The reason it was dropped is unknown to me. But I suspect it had to do with the disc tracking.
The laser beam wavelength or size was slightly larger than DVD and much smaller than CD.
Where DVD could fit 4.7GB per layer, I believe SACD was about 4.0GB.
This meant alternative gearing for rotation to expanding travel.
As well as additional fuzzy logic focusing algorithm.
Plus the format has nothing in common with CD.
Just that they had hoped SA to replace CD.

I am very sad to see a lack of support for this excellent audio format.
It seems to me like the esoteric nature of the custom physical medium is at fault.
Other than that the studio mastering quality seemed to always be exceptional.
I hope all those great musical works will be transferred to Blu-Ray as 192kHz (or 96kHz) LPCM.
When Best Buy said they were dropping SACD, the news was a knife in my heart.

It only got worse recently when I visited the official site last year.
http://www.sonymusic.com/sacd/
Sony hasn't been updating their site since the Best Buy news landed back in 2006.
That was utterly disappointing to discover. Until that point I was going to buy a 60GB PS3 anyways.
No Dual Shock, No SACD playback, No HDMI cables.....No Deal.

Despite this SACD compilation are still being released.
It's just not cool to see Sony's lack of advertising to support the media lasting until a better replacement is created.
For now the uncommon SACD format is still the best audio format short of live performances.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

What I want to know is when are the 1080P (true 16x9, none of this elitist super-wide b.s.) 60Hz disks going to come out? Give me the effect of a 120Hz display without having to buy one!

 

[The Seventh Taylor]

Another point of discussion is Super-Audio CD.
This format was supported on 20GB and 60GB PS3 models.

Plus the more recent 80GB model.

The reason it was dropped is unknown to me. But I suspect it had to do with the disc tracking.
The laser beam wavelength or size was slightly larger than DVD and much smaller than CD.
Where DVD could fit 4.7GB per layer, I believe SACD was about 4.0GB.
This meant alternative gearing for rotation to expanding travel.
As well as additional fuzzy logic focusing algorithm.

No on all accounts. The reason is probably a cost saving in the unit's front end for dealing with SACD's proprietary copy protection, PSP (Pit Signal Processing). See the PS3 SACD FAQ.
The disc capacity is 4.7 GB for the high-density layer. It's basically identical to a DVD layer, except for the special copy protection. The laser used is also simply a DVD laser (same wavelength), plus a CD laser for the CD layer (and CD-R compatibility).

Plus the format has nothing in common with CD.

I could say "wrong again" but it just depends how you look at it. SACD was developed as an extension of CD (hence the format's name 'Scarlet Book') and the hybrid disc option basically provides a standard CD layer -- as opposed to DVD-Audio which has little in common with CD apart from the use of PCM.

Just that they had hoped SA to replace CD.

I am very sad to see a lack of support for this excellent audio format.
It seems to me like the esoteric nature of the custom physical medium is at fault.
Other than that the studio mastering quality seemed to always be exceptional.
I hope all those great musical works will be transferred to Blu-Ray as 192kHz (or 96kHz) LPCM.
When Best Buy said they were dropping SACD, the news was a knife in my heart.

Did they? They may have but I've never heard it. Do you have any links?

It only got worse recently when I visited the official site last year.
http://www.sonymusic.com/sacd/
Sony hasn't been updating their site since the Best Buy news landed back in 2006.
That was utterly disappointing to discover. Until that point I was going to buy a 60GB PS3 anyways.
No Dual Shock, No SACD playback, No HDMI cables.....No Deal.

Despite this SACD compilation are still being released.
It's just not cool to see Sony's lack of advertising to support the media lasting until a better replacement is created.
For now the uncommon SACD format is still the best audio format short of live performances.[/QUOTE]

Fully agree here. Let's hope the next PS3 model will continue to provide SACD, and record companies start recognizing the potential of the strongly grown installed base.

 

[FutureCTO]

I was not aware the 80GB PS3 maintained SACD support!!!
Visited: http://www.us.playstation.com/ps3/about/specs
When Sony used to have just the 60GB and 20GB models they listed SACD.
For their public technical specification SACD is no longer listed.
People are spending $999 on eBay for the 60GB version of PS3 in order to get SACD playback!!

The disc capacity is 4.7 GB for the high-density layer. It's basically identical to a DVD layer, except for the special copy protection. The laser used is also simply a DVD laser (same wavelength), plus a CD laser for the CD layer (and CD-R compatibility).

I am eager to say I seem to have been totally wrong about this !!!
I messed up by having learned technical details from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
I can't find the revision with microscope imagea and paragraph listing the dot size to have been different than DVD.
But the page still lists up to 7.95 GB next to the picture of SACD in every revision.
Shame on me for using wikipedia in my research!

Dude, the awesome part is what had to be learned because of your post.
MUST READ -->: http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.6.1 & http://www.sa-cd.net/faq
I had randomly been wondering what the heck DTS stood for?
Yet, no matter who did the interview the question was never found or answered.
Even when checking www.DTS.com
The only reason I found out was because of you. Thank You!

FutureCTO: Just that they had hoped SA to replace CD.

TheSevenrhTaylor: Did they? They may have but I've never heard it. Do you have any links?

You are asking for PR from 1999. But I seem to have found something appropriate.
http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/dsd/dsd.pdf

R e q u i rements for the next generation.
To be successful, any new digital audio system must satisfy needs at every link in the audio chain, from recording artists in the studios, to music companies, retailers and consumers. Before proposing the Super Audio CD, Sony and Philips considered the broadest range of industry and consumer needs:

• A rc h i v i n g . Music companies count as their assets the musical heritage of over 100 years of recording. These include fragile, ancient acetates and lacquers plus hundreds of thousands of reels of audio tape. All these media have a finite archival life. For example, tape manufacturers typically specify 30 years life. This suggests that the master tapes from the 50’s and 60’s require immediate transfer onto some newer, more durable medium. Because these precious masters may not be able to tolerate more than a single playback, today’s archival copy must capture “all” of the original recording, down to the merest hint of harmonics, buried in noise. The technology behind the Super A u d i o Compact Disc must support such ultra-high-quality archiving.

• P ro d u c t i o n . Musicians want the greatest possible “artist’s palette” for their creativity. Producers have a constant desire for higher and higher sound quality.

• D i s t r i b u t i o n . The Super Audio CD must spare music retailers the issue of “dual inventory,” the need to maintain separate stocks of conventional Compact Discs and Super Audio Compact Discs for each available title.

• Consumers. Audiophiles have clearly expressed their demand for better sound quality. But modern formats must also be capable of enhanced benefits like multichannel sound, text, graphics, and video. In addition, the market for a new generation of music software would be extremely narrow if it didn’t offer backward compatibility with the Compact Disc. As readers already know, Compact Disc is the most successful digital format of all time. Nearly 500 million players — and over 10 billion Compact Discs — testify to consumer acceptance on a massive scale. Consumer research shows that for many, CD represents the height of convenience, home/portable versatility and sound quality. For all these reasons, the new discs must play on existing consumers’ CD players. And consumers’ vast libraries of CDs must play on the new generation of machines.

As proposed by Sony and Philips, the Super Audio Compact Disc satisfies these demands. It has the potential to make every constituency — recording artists, producers, engineers, music companies, retailers, audiophiles and general music lovers — extremely happy.

They don’t blatantly say we want to replace the CD standard.
But they do say they created it to replace CD without complicating shelf space.

but it just depends how you look at it. SACD was developed as an extension of CD (hence the format's name 'Scarlet Book') and the hybrid disc option basically provides a standard CD layer -- as opposed to DVD-Audio which has little in common with CD apart from the use of PCM.

When I said nothing in common, though excessive, I was referring to the physical requirements being more in common with DVD than CD.
SACD is to CD, as Blu-ray is to DVD.
Both formats approach with Hybrid discs as an avenue of transition to a new standard.
SACD supports a more detailed PCM specification as well as author audio details.
Blu-ray supports MPEG2 as well as other video specifications.
The “scarlet book” name is a play on the idea that SACD is the future of CD.
Just as HD-DVD is a play on the name of DVD, where it was originally Advanced Optical Disc, just as Super Audio Compact Disc is not the same as Compact Disc.

Again the saddest thing about SACD is a lack of across the board support from Sony BMG & Phillips.
They could completely stop making normal CD’s and start making only Hybrid SACD without interrupting consumers with normal CD players.
If they want Blu-ray to replace DVD they need to do the same. All Blu-ray forum DVD releases need a single Blu-ray layer.
Even as recently as 2007 Sony announced Car Audio support of SACD without even advertising or updating on their SACD website!
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=10972765

Open questions,
If you had to look at all the technology available and imagine a solution to satisfy your ears, could you describe it?
What are your Audio/Video preferences and what do you like or not like about the PS3 Audio and Video experience?
What do you think of Blu-ray and what it has to offer as a fringe benefit to PS3 owners?
Where is a good place to buy SACD’s since I will probably buy the MGS 80GB bundle?
(It might have the 45nm Cell in it and consume less power while allowing PS3 gaming, Blu-ray, Yellow Dog Linux 6, and SACD!)

 

[FutureCTO]

What I want to know is when are the 1080P (true 16x9, none of this elitist super-wide b.s.) 60Hz disks going to come out? Give me the effect of a 120Hz display without having to buy one!

Great Question!

The answer is that they will not come out until after the Blu-ray 2.0 specification is finalized.
The current 1.1 specification does not include any guidelines for 1080p at 60Hz.

The 120Hz HDTV's have that specification to allow 4/4 play of 24Fps movies and 2/2 play of 60Hz content.
Instead of the 3/2 pulldown typically used for DVD and HD video content.

The firmware in 120Hz sets automatically recognizes HDMI video as either 24Hz or 60Hz and then produces the correct image cycling.
Seriously awesome would be if the HDMI port could recognize PC input at 120Hz and play that natively...mmm Fantasies.

Here are some quick personal HDTV recommendations:
Sony 60" LCoS http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productDetail.do?oid=190632#CustomerRatings
Mitsubishi 73" DLPhttp://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productDetail.do?oid=186038#CustomerRatings
Toshiba 65" DLP http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productDetail.do?oid=177533#CustomerRatings

Liquid Crystal on Silicon in general looks very good. DLP seems to be hit and miss product ever since they started cheating by not using native resolution on the DMD chips. It allowed costs to drop for manufacturers but the bright crispness seems to have been reduced by shorter exposure of each frame. I recommend both above Plasma and above LCD when the price for RearProjection is a few hundred dollars cheaper. My stongest piece of advice is that from 24" and up try to always buy a 1080p display. The market is still full of LCD and Plasma displays targeted at 720p specifications.

1080p LCD quickly becomes expensive in larger than 40" sizes.
As you can see here much larger very good quality screen can be found for less than LCD.

Either way I generally expect documentaries and sports content in 1080p@60Hz by this years end.
I am also very hopeful that the PS3 can be updated via firmware to support this.

I will buy a PS3 once Dual Shock 3, and the newest 45nm Cell are in place. (Hopefully the MGS 80GB pack will be this and SACD.)
Just need to start putting pressure on Sony to include at Least S-Video!
My brain hurts every time I imagine an HD video device with a yellow RCA plug as the only included video cable?
Come on Sony, are you serious? Forget about movies. Even games look like crap without at least S-Video!

 

[-tkf-]

Great Question!

The answer is that they will not come out until after the Blu-ray 2.0 specification is finalized.

1080p @ 60hz surely is a dream, and like that supermodel in bikini it will be a rare thing to actually get your hands on anything 1080p @ 60hz.

And regarding your walls of text, Blu-Ray did not "win" because it´s the best format, it was chosen by Warner for pure strategic reasons and that tipped the iceberg.

Hollywood doest not give a shit about Quality, they are in it for money and nothing else. I hope we some day will see actual movies in 1080p 60hz but it´s way out in the future and i would not be surprised if it never happens.

DTS-MA decoding is purely a software issue, it doesn´t require a new SKU just software. DTS-MA streaming is still up in the air, i have seen no evidence that the PS3 doesn´t support it, not evidence that it does, so unless it some day is a reality we don´t know. However both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray has features that makes it less viable and important than it used to be.

 

[The Seventh Taylor]

@FutureCTO:

My question "Did they? They may have but I've never heard it. Do you have any links?" was in response to your statement "When Best Buy said they were dropping SACD, the news was a knife in my heart."!

Thanks anyway for the extensive answer.

As for Philips: they don't make CDs at all (the company sold PolyGram some 10 years ago) not even CD players -- just DVD and BD players. Agreed, these should support SACD but I think it's difficult to blame them for concluding SACD is a niche product.

 

[FutureCTO]

No more "i's" = 720p@60Hz OR 1080p@60Hz is the future of HDTV Action Entetainment

1080p @ 60hz surely is a dream, and like that supermodel in bikini it will be a rare thing to actually get your hands on anything 1080p @ 60hz.

And regarding your walls of text, Blu-Ray did not "win" because it´s the best format, it was chosen by Warner for pure strategic reasons and that tipped the iceberg.

Hollywood doest not give a shit about Quality, they are in it for money and nothing else. I hope we some day will see actual movies in 1080p 60hz but it´s way out in the future and i would not be surprised if it never happens.

TKF, you are on my biddies list for that brilliant cartoon you shared.
So forgive me, but I strongly disagree with your first three paragraphs.

HDCAM_Artsy_White_Papers Triump @ 24p.com

Table 1 below shows some of the more common examples of contemporary digital video formats in our new world of (1080) DTV.

Camera Picture Picture Frame Transport System
Capture Rate Structure Nomenclature
(Exposures/Sec) (Full-Frame Pictures/Sec)
60 Hz 60 Hz Progressive Progressive 60P
60 Hz 30 Hz Interlace Interlace 60i
50 Hz 25 Hz Interlace Interlace 50i
24 Hz 24 Hz Progressive Segmented Frame 24PsF
24 Hz 24 Hz Progressive Progressive 24P

©2001 Sony Corporation. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. Features and specifications are subject to change without notice. Sony, CineAlta, HDCAM, and Vialta are trademarks of Sony. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

http://24p.com/PDF/24p_age_one.pdf

Anytime a director is doing fast action 24p comes up a little short.
In the Lethal Weapon with Jet Lee, the movie greatly suffered from Mr. Lee speed not being followable.
He may as well have been waving his arms into empty air and cut the sequence to a result.
Directors and artists very must do care about what they create. Your words would offend many people.
I am sure you are referring to the companies, more than the people, cause it hurt me to read it.

(We don't need HD porn, people are already self conscious enough about their bodies.)
When it comes to high speed action, you absolutely need a higher frame rate.
Directors of the Matrix used 120frames per second cameras to slow down the action by stretching it into 24 or fewer frames per second. Otherwise you budget for action and explosions is lost in missed content. We can't have EVERY documentary or sporting moment drop into slow motion by using more than one speed of camera for every scene. It would be easier.more affordable for documetaries to be 60Hz recorded and 60Hz released. If something happens to fast you use the slow motion arrow on you Blu-ray player for the best detailed action.

A example of this would be that I chose to watch Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children (2005) in slow motion.
I saw the entire movie and found the action too fast when compressed to 24p to truly enjoy.
So I had to slow it down, so that my mind had time to blend the frame transition better.
Ultimately I watched the movie from start to finish in slow motion and enjoyed it more.
Had this action been recorded/trasnmitted at 60FPS I wouldn't have had such a hard time following the action.
Same as how it is nearly impossible to see Jet Lee's movements in many movies.
I have already provided the example of a professional boxer winning the match on a punch the camera never saw.
When Will Smith did "Ali" the director complained of the same limits in filming.
Ultimately the best action shots came from miniature VHS camera's recording at 60i, that was later touched up in post production.

The 24p standard is a movie standard because the mind has more time to admire each image.
So it feels a lot more like a really glamorous high budget movie, since it feel like a series of high color portraits.
When the goal is reality OR speed a higher frame rate makes a lot of sense.
Maybe what we need from movies is Variable Frame Rates, similar to Variable Bit Rate audio?

Long story short. Since 2001 Sony & Others have been placing digital HD camera's in directors hands.
And have been working towards supporting 60Hz at 1080p across all media.
As recently as 2007 the cost of such camera's has dramatically dropped due to System-on-Chip designs that combine multiple chips from a chipset into just one chip.
What was once $100,000 for an 1080p@60Hz camera in 2005, is now $25,000.

Additionally 60" inch 1080p@60Hz Television displays can now be bought for less than $2,000.
And the Blu-ray consortium is adding 1080p@60Hz to their required player support guidelines.
Such players are coming out right now: http://www.news.com/8300-10784_3-7.h...D+Master+Audio
When you have standards that enforce support across the board and content sitting on director/studio shelves, that content will get shown.

DTS-MA decoding is purely a software issue, it doesn´t require a new SKU just software. DTS-MA streaming is still up in the air, i have seen no evidence that the PS3 doesn´t support it, not evidence that it does, so unless it some day is a reality we don´t know. However both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray has features that makes it less viable and important than it used to be.

For decode and conversion to LPCM output you are correct that is just software.
For people who invest in Audio Receivers that natively process Lossless HD Audio a different I/O to HDMI chip is needed.
All Fox Blu-ray movies have a DTS-HDMA audio track. What is less viable and important about that?

Viable - adj. - Capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are...
We do have hardware receivers, DTS-HDMA bitstreaming Blu-ray players, and a console that might decode it in software.

There is a lot of positives. "The people that do" are moving away from 24p because 1080p@60Hz is becoming a common home theater display and Blu-ray has the space and bandwidth to store and play full-length movies with such a specification. Coincidentally the last update to http://24p.com/ was around the launch of PS3 with Blu-ray.

Notes:
Warner Brothers decision was a lot more elaborate and considered on than some oversimplified rumor of a payoff.
1080P — Q&A — August 22, 2005 http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/followup.html
1080p: A Year Later — June 22, 2006 http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/1080p_a_year_later.html

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The 24p standard is a movie standard because the mind has more time to admire each image.
So it feels a lot more like a really glamorous high budget movie, since it feel like a series of high color portraits.

I don't think so! 24 fps is the standard because it was established years ago and everyone got used to it and it's a hard thing to change, not least 'coz the public are used to being the 'cinema feel'. Time to admire the images is IMO a funny viewpoint. Truth is 24 fps looks rubbish in any action - you don't care to 'take in the view' and admire the image of blurred arms and wavy-cameras. And when the action isn't fast, framerate doesn't matter as the cinematography is on screen enough for you to appreciate it. Hero doesn't look beautiful because it's 24 fps. It won't look less impressive at 60 fps. It will look different and have a different feel, but we're not talking high-class portraits versus cheap photobooth pictures here. The image quality is a matter of lighting and image composition and all the elements other than framerate. Indeed low framerate is contrary to high quality. Would a game render gloriously detailed at 24 fps be received as more glamorous and impressive?

When the goal is reality OR speed a higher frame rate makes a lot of sense.
Maybe what we need from movies is Variable Frame Rates, similar to Variable Bit Rate audio?

No way! Changes in frame-rate are a seriously bad thing. Whatever framerate you have, even 12 fps stop-frame, the viewer gets acclimatised to and can watch comfortably. If you keep changing it they'll never get comfortable. When they're happy with low framerates, you'll suddenly go smooth and high-speed which will look somewhat artificial (I'm sure I've seen this on TVs doing some 100 Hz upscaling thingy, with TV programs suddenly jumping into a silky smooth motion, and then back to normal), and then when you've got used to the smooth framerate, suddenly everything will get choppy. Whatever you start with, you have to stick with. Variable framerate doesn't go down with games and I imagine that'll be less obtrusive than in movies.

 

[-tkf-]

24p is the standard, and it´s going to be incredible hard to kill it. Yes i want 60p as well, it would be incredible. But the main source, movies, would have to be 60p as well. In order to be so that would require many things. Most importantly, a market that needs a 60p source

What would create such a market? Maybe a dying cinema that has to reinvent in order to combat the home cinema?
But at the same time boost home cinema? Unlikely, but we can dream.


There are some things that can help us, digital cinema with projectors instead of old school movie projectors will be easier to upgrade (unless they already do, havent checked up on it). There is noway that were gonna see classic movie projectors in 60p. And most cinemas arent digital anyway and it will take a long time before they are. Plus they also has to handle 2.5 times the data they handle now.

Then there is the whole post processing thing, 2.5 times more data is like slowing things down by a factor by 2.5 and "we" are just getting to grips with shooting 24p digital.

In a perfect world it would be possible to shoot a movie in 60p, "downconvert" it to 24p for cinema and keep it at 60p for home cinema. But we already know the issues we would face then

I´m lucky i actually get to play around a bit with actual PRO HD equipment, not alot but still. I can touch some of the pro gear and as we move on i will get my hands on even more heavy stuff. One of the things i´m gonna play around with is 60p and when i get a BluRay recorder i´m gonna try and see if i can actually get them to playback

EDIT: And my whole point with the warner thing was that they like other studios didn´t really chose Blu-Ray because it´s technical better, it was purely because of money. And not in the sense they were bought of that was something that the interweb made up. They knew that if they sided with HD-DVD it would be a stalemate and HiDef would be locked down for years to come.

For people who invest in Audio Receivers that natively process Lossless HD Audio a different I/O to HDMI chip is needed.

As i understand it some of the special features (dont ask me to mention one) does not support Bitstreams. For example if you download an extra commentary track that is laid upon the original track it would aparently be impossible to stream the bits, i find it strange and would like to be proved wrong since i never found any "hard" evidence on this. Just like i never found any hard evicence on the HDMI chip in the PS3 being unable to Bitstream. Everything i have been able to dig up indicates that it´s able to handle the bandwidth and why it shouldn´t be able to stream it has never really been explained.

EDIT 3:
Nevermind seems to be confirmed here:

http://www.siliconimage.com/news/press/detailpressrelease.aspx?id=384

DAMN

 

[FutureCTO]

Would a game render gloriously detailed at 24 fps be received as more glamorous and impressive?

Isn't that what games like Crysis are all about? Eye Candy that runs at 24p?

Slight mis-understanding because I titled based on display technology and discussed movies.
Though I 200% support the quote you made from my post as the cause of "Cinema Feel".
The frame rate is slow enough for you to have an emotional response to each frame.
And though my view strikes you as funny, it is to me an accurate explanation for such an abstract idea as "Cinema Feel".
A slightly lower frame rate makes each physical transition, a larger change over the previous frame.
It is the coma of the previous sentence that gives pause for the mind absorb transition.
......It is also the transitional "to" that was missing from the previous sentence.
Because the thinking action was too quick for the recording action to keep pace.

Your question about preferring 24Hz is a jab at action. Which is the very point I am trying to make. When wanting to see the action and moment-2-moment transition you need a higher frame rate....When people are mostly posturing and acting, or action is mostly in slow motion for gracefulness in movies such as Hero, higher frame rates don't matter because the action was itself slow, They intensified it by the camera's zoomed in closeness to the proximity of the actions. This movie went for glamor, not low budget, driven by high action.....What I want for High Action movies is actually 36-48 frames per second. But that is unheard of.

When arguing for 60Fps I am addressing TV, Documentaries, Sporting events, Action, Action, Action. If I watch an Olympic event it had better be in 60fps.
The fact is that slow frame rate can make anything you are watching (not doing) seems cooler. Strobe lights make the simplest movements seem more awesome. My home videos seem more dramatic at 24p instead of 60p. 60p seems so day to day normal. But sometimes what a film needs is 60fps to capture those moment-2-moment exchanges and examine what is really happening. 24p blinks in the face of the action.

No way! Changes in frame-rate are a seriously bad thing. Whatever framerate you have, even 12 fps stop-frame, the viewer gets acclimatised to and can watch comfortably. If you keep changing it they'll never get comfortable. When they're happy with low framerates, you'll suddenly go smooth and high-speed which will look somewhat artificial (I'm sure I've seen this on TVs doing some 100 Hz upscaling thingy, with TV programs suddenly jumping into a silky smooth motion, and then back to normal), and then when you've got used to the smooth framerate, suddenly everything will get choppy. Whatever you start with, you have to stick with. Variable framerate doesn't go down with games and I imagine that'll be less obtrusive than in movies.

I did not mean it so literally.
Though all DVD and HiDef Movies already use both a variable Frame & Bit-rate.
That is what MPEG, VC-1, and AVC are all about, yet most of us don't realize it or can not tell the difference.
It is an adaptive algorithm that only draws what changes from frame to frame.
In effect the static frame itself may exist for multiple frame while the action within changes at a given refresh rate.

What I was really referring to is the tasteful application of speed up and slow down to convey actions and ideas.
Such as a montage being in fast forward literally, instead of frame by frame jumps.
Or a sudden burst of action breaking us out of the 24fps lull the moment before.
By no means am I referring to something so literal and autonomous as variable bitrate, which automatically chooses speed based on amount of action.
I am referring to creating a video playback standard that allows directors to change the frame rate whenever they so please within one film.

Aren't there times when it is the directors goal to the audience uncomfortable?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Far simpler is to have 60 fps and for directors to slow down the motion, either slow-mo or duplicate frames, however they want.

 

[desmond]

Far simpler is to have 60 fps and for directors to slow down the motion, either slow-mo or duplicate frames, however they want.

24fps cannot be correctly reproduced at 60fps, you need 72 or 120fps.

 

[FutureCTO]

In the Early HDTV debates I was really hoping for 720p@72Hz.
That would have been perfect in my book.
Television, Sports, PC and Video Gaming @ 72fps.
High Action movies @ 36Fps
Dramatic movies @ 24fps
That was in my email to the FCC on HDTV.

But with displays and video storage sources as they are it is 1080p or bust.
Seriously people need to stop buying 720p HDTV's and only by 1080p HD Televison sets.
Otherwise Movie Watching (Blu-ray), Gaming (X360, PS3, PC), and Television will all be shown at non-native Resolutions.