PlayStation 3 to feature Blu-Ray disc - Official!
- Thread starter j^aws
- Start date
Hey what a fruitful thread 
While HD-DVD already approved MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) and VC-9, Blu-ray will adopt MPEG-4 AVC High Profile aka "MPEG-4 AVC FRExt" as an advanced codec, and may adopt VC-9 for Microsoft's favor.
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/
VC-9 was seen as a more efficient and better quality codec than MPEG-4 AVC, but the newest MPEG-4 AVC High Profile is seen as good as or better than VC-9. Even when VC-9 is supported on Blu-ray I doubt how many contents are actually to be encoded with VC-9. To reduce patent license fee not supporting VC-9 is better, but anyway the patent holders of MPEG4 and VC-9 are almost the same corporations.
As for games, bigger storage space has an advantage other than packing more game contents such as FMV. Intentional padding in Blu-ray DL 50GB will help to prevent piracy even more than DVD DL.
While HD-DVD already approved MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) and VC-9, Blu-ray will adopt MPEG-4 AVC High Profile aka "MPEG-4 AVC FRExt" as an advanced codec, and may adopt VC-9 for Microsoft's favor.
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/
VC-9 was seen as a more efficient and better quality codec than MPEG-4 AVC, but the newest MPEG-4 AVC High Profile is seen as good as or better than VC-9. Even when VC-9 is supported on Blu-ray I doubt how many contents are actually to be encoded with VC-9. To reduce patent license fee not supporting VC-9 is better, but anyway the patent holders of MPEG4 and VC-9 are almost the same corporations.
As for games, bigger storage space has an advantage other than packing more game contents such as FMV. Intentional padding in Blu-ray DL 50GB will help to prevent piracy even more than DVD DL.
-tkf- said:
Yes it would be around 10Mbit, but movies are around 3 hours max not 7 so why would you use 10Mbit? Unless you also want 4 hours of additional bonus material on the same disc in HD, you wouldn't use 10Mbit. My guess is that HD-DVD movies will come on the 1 and 2 disc form factors like current DVDs therefore in the end Blu-ray's only claim to fame is in recording capacity for recordable discs.
-tkf- said:
Sure but you're not factoring in VC-9. At 18Mbps HD-DVD's VC-9 would destroy MPEG2 at the same bitrate therefore in order to compete with the higher image quality, BR would need to up the bitrate to maybe 30Mbps which will require a DL disc. Heh you didn't think it was that simple did you?
I'm confused here, so according PC-Engine since disc's labeling themselves like SuperBit and the like are hacks because they don't have extras???
That must mean a lot of early DVD's lacking menus and extras must have been hacks as well.
Where does the DVD format specify you need to have extras not to be a hack.
BTW confused about all you who say DVD's are mainly not dual layered now a days. I find that strange considering most of mine are. On the otherhand I've got issues with a lot of them only seem to put like 6GB's on them.
That must mean a lot of early DVD's lacking menus and extras must have been hacks as well.
Where does the DVD format specify you need to have extras not to be a hack.
BTW confused about all you who say DVD's are mainly not dual layered now a days. I find that strange considering most of mine are. On the otherhand I've got issues with a lot of them only seem to put like 6GB's on them.
Cryect said:
Allow me to clarify. Hacks are not DVDs that don't have extras. Early DVDs didn't have extras because there was no extras to include. They didn't remove them to make room for higher bitrates. As a matter of fact early DVDs had lower bitrates than the ones we have today. Finally, when you're forced to removed them to increase space to allow for better image quality like SB, is when it becomes a hack.
Ah, good--completely ignore the question, my entire previous post, and anything useful. That descriptor says nothing about the product and has nothing to do with the rest of your claims and complaint--but hey, why let that stop you? You're still sticking to this one point, applying it broadscale with no thought, and so even movies which had no commentary when initially released (which is many--adding them later on in their own special editions) and have all their extras on a 2nd disk are still "hacks" and objectionable.PC-Engine said:
Technology jumps happen at long stretches of years, and take a number MORE years to be affordable and desirable to most consumers--as well as to catch up to all the content that has been released previously. And yet for some reason products that aim in different directions are objectionable on the grounds that even just one detail differs between it and another verion (any other version--even a different special edition)?
And of course even though the Superbit moniker and format has been around since 2001--with no next generation anythings remotely in sight--it is simply "hack" and "stopgap solution" because now we actually have the beginnings of the next generation in sight? (And still a number of years from common availibility or desired mass consumer pick-up?)
Good. Logical. Completely unassaible. Yeah, silly me.
cybamerc said:
It would be suprising if BluRay didn't feature some form of lowbitrate codec.
But having actual experience with producing DVDs i'm excited and to some extent worried how the work flow is going to be impacted by BR&HDDVD.
As it is right now, several of our applications support HD, some more than others, but even now when producing a DVD the encoding takes time and having experimented with WM9 (which is slow!) i'm wondering how that is going to work with real life deadlines. My guess is that we will see plenty of MPEG2 releases on both BR and HDDVD since MPEG2 will be much easier and cheaper to produce.
-tkf-:
> It would be suprising if BluRay didn't feature some form of lowbitrate codec.
It wasn't until recently it even became an option. I agree it seems likely that BRD will include support for MPEG4-AVC but nothing is given. HD-DVD OTOH will support MPEG4-AVC and VC9 as well I believe.
> It would be suprising if BluRay didn't feature some form of lowbitrate codec.
It wasn't until recently it even became an option. I agree it seems likely that BRD will include support for MPEG4-AVC but nothing is given. HD-DVD OTOH will support MPEG4-AVC and VC9 as well I believe.
Sure and we all know why they want to include it now. They know MPEG2 is barely enough to compete so they're including a more efficient CODEC "just in case".
Oh and don't tell me that they planned a caddiless design all along just like they planned to use a more advanced CODEC all along. Simply put, they saw limitations to their original plan that needed fixing so one could say they finally saw the blue light.
BTW that site is not the official BR site. If someone can provide a link to statements made from a BRD spokesperson, it would be nice.
Edit: Ok it seems Doherty works for Panasonic, but I still can't find the relevent quote.
Original non-SB DVDs that didn't have bonus material didn't use up all the space on a DL disc so when the bonus stuff was added later in Special Editions etc. they didn't have to resort to lowering the bitrate to fit them on the same disc. As I already said, most older original DVD releases had lower bitrates than current DVDs so your analogy makes no sense at all. 99% of DVDs with bonus material have it on the same disc. Any additional material like for computer internet use is put on a 2nd disc. Oh and guess what? Some DVDs have interactive bonus material that needs to be on the same disc in additon to the commentary track. How do you keep the high bitrate of SB for those DVDs?
PC-Engine said:
Herein lies the root of your blind spot. When you say "there was no extras to include" let's be honest and forthright about what this means: they hadn't decided on how to fully capitalize on the bitrates and storage capacities that DVD offered, which is all that any of these extras - whether SuperBit, added scenes or commentary tracks - amount to. Also, early in the life of the DVD format there was probably the question in the minds of most content providers as to whether it was even worth bothering until the format proved itself. They could have certainly, from day one, offered any of these extras if they had the will to.
What we're seeing here is simply the natural diversification of entertainment medium once it has established its successfulness. As alluded to, all that any of these extras amount to are different approaches to capitalize on the max bitrate and storage capacity that DVD offers to create the perception of added value to lure customers in. You arbitrarily choose to classify one such extra as a hack because it precludes the inclusion of certain other extras, but you don't call those other extras hacks for doing the same. Absolute best image quality is sacrificed in order to include a commentary track and vice versa. You can't have both and there's nothing about one or the other that makes it the more correct approach.
The only relevent information is that they didn't use the maximum disc space. Conjecture or fact? Why they didn't add bonus features is irrelevent and anything not fact is pure conjecture.
Why are you stating possible reasons why bonus material wasn't included in older non-SB DVDs? What does it have to do with anything? If they decided to include the bonus material in the older non-SB DVDs it still wouldn't change the bitrate because the bitrate didn't max out the disc capacity anyway. Not only that but back then television sets weren't that great anyway.
Er wrong. The bitrate of a non-SB DVD with or without commentary tracks does not change. It only changed when SB was introduced because SB is advertised as using the maximum disc capacity for improved image quality. When you add a commentary track you're using up space that SB cannot use for higher bitrates therefore the bitrate of SB is forced to change to a lower rate to allow for this additional commentary track. Regular non-SB DVDs were never advertised to take advantage of the maximum disc space so when they added commentary tracks later on the bitrate didn't have to be changed to a lower rate like SB. The facts are plainly laid out, one only needs to embrace them...
All that nipping at the edges of my argument and you didn't even address the core point being made. If you want to argue by misdirection, I'm happy to oblige but it obviously won't get us to the root of issue which you've notably sidestepped in your response. Still, I'll address the three points you chose to make in turn:
First, you said, "Why they didn't add bonus features is irrelevent and anything not fact is pure conjecture." but that didn't stop you from providing your own conjecture in your previous post as to why they didn't originally: "because there was no extras to include." So you'll have to forgive me if I'm not entirely clear which way you'd prefer to go with this. It seemed to me that you *did* want to engage in conjecture but then provided only a half-hearted, lopsided attempt at it. So I expanded upon it. Perhaps you've since reconsidered the value of conjecture in this case?
Second, you asked why I was stating possible reasons why extras weren't found on many older DVDs. Simple - setup for the argument. Not surprising that you are missing the bigger picture the way you attempted to criticize my argument piecemeal rather than addressing it as a whole.
Third, you attempt to claim I'm wrong about the bitrate of a non-SB DVD being different with and without a commentary track when I never made a specific comment about any such thing. For someone criticizing the reading comprehension of others and claiming the facts are "plainly laid out", you're struggling with both more than anyone else.
And, of course, none of these really adressed the crux of my argument, like I said. I'll wait to see if your reading comp is up to determining what that is on your own.
First, you said, "Why they didn't add bonus features is irrelevent and anything not fact is pure conjecture." but that didn't stop you from providing your own conjecture in your previous post as to why they didn't originally: "because there was no extras to include." So you'll have to forgive me if I'm not entirely clear which way you'd prefer to go with this. It seemed to me that you *did* want to engage in conjecture but then provided only a half-hearted, lopsided attempt at it. So I expanded upon it. Perhaps you've since reconsidered the value of conjecture in this case?
Second, you asked why I was stating possible reasons why extras weren't found on many older DVDs. Simple - setup for the argument. Not surprising that you are missing the bigger picture the way you attempted to criticize my argument piecemeal rather than addressing it as a whole.
Third, you attempt to claim I'm wrong about the bitrate of a non-SB DVD being different with and without a commentary track when I never made a specific comment about any such thing. For someone criticizing the reading comprehension of others and claiming the facts are "plainly laid out", you're struggling with both more than anyone else.
And, of course, none of these really adressed the crux of my argument, like I said. I'll wait to see if your reading comp is up to determining what that is on your own.
And when I said "because there was no extras to include" it was to make a point, not to say that that was the actual reason, because the actual reason is irrelevent as the end result is still the same. As a matter of fact it could be any number of reasons, I just chose one possibility to make a point, but obviously it wasn't clear enough since you read it to be some sort of attempt at conjecture. For what reasons would I need to introduce conjecture? I already have facts and the facts say most of the orginal non-SB DVDs didn't have bonus material whether it's on the same disc or not. I guess some people attempt to read between the lines a little too much for whatever reasons...
Actually I'm waiting for you to get straight to the point with facts, because conjecture has no value here.
Uh..yeh because you're trying to steer the argument away from the original statements. We all know the reasoning behind SB, it's still a hack.
And I'm not going to waste my time digging through your garbage which doesn't address how SB isn't a hack. You can sit there and masturbate with your keyboard all day, but if it doesn't address the orignal statements, it's irrelevent.
My position should be obviously clear by now. SB is a hack for reasons I've already mentioned. If you want to argue that it isn't then provide facts instead of conjecture, but don't try and go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with my original statements.
Mods?
cybamerc said:
"MPEG4-AVC" aka "H.264/AVC" (for HD-DVD) and "MPEG4-AVC High Profile" aka "H.264/AVC FRExt" (for Blu-ray) are different codecs.
MPEG4-AVC is optimized to non-HD contents, thus not as good as MPEG2 or VC-9 for HD contents representation. MPEG4-AVC High Profile, to be adopted for Blu-ray (or more specifically BD-ROM), is the newer and improved version of MPEG4-AVC with good compatibility with HD contents and other refinements.
Similar threads
