[PS3] Blu ray playback tested

I will leave with this AGAIN, I am well aware of how good HD can look in its many different forms MPEG2/.ts, VC1, AVC HP. I have already stipulated that the number of Blu-Ray Disc studios is greater than that of HD DVD studios, my question, however, was what is the number of cataloged movies between the two competing formats. I would also stipulate that "in the long run" anything can happen, but that seems to be a consistent theme regarding Blu-ray...wait/delay/in the long run. I'm an early adopter, get your shit together now, at least partially so...so I may part with some of my money to enjoy your wares.

-tkf- do you own any hd material? I'd like to know if I am arguing with someone with hands-on experience or someone that is just, well read.

I would also like to point out my stance which can be seen in my post history, that I am MORE THAN ready to kill off ALL physical media. I sit firmly on the digital distribution side of the fence so the discs themselves, to me, are completely irrelevant. Thanks for watching, I now return you to your regularly scheduled routines.

Most humble apologies for derailing the thread.

 

I hate this argument. I thought the whole point of BR was so we could have more content on one disc, not so we could waste all that space by using a 10 year old codec. It's bass ackwards, lets spend all this extra money creating hardware that gives us an extra 80% more space, and then toss it out the window by using antiquated codecs...

 

Why is that a concern ? Blu-ray can be used for archival purposes as well. At the rate our hard disks are filling up, it's only natural that storage media should be as large as possible. 50Gb will likely be the mainstream format anyway to counter dual-layer HD-DVD.

Once BR provides that advantage. Whether it's AVC, VC-1 or MPEG 2, I don't really care as long as the picture looks great ! There should be ample space left for special features too... or even some Blu-ray Java games.

 

The whole point of BRD was to provide HD movies and other large format sotrage (remember it was conceived as a writeable format, with 50 GB writeable discs for any data, not just movies). I imagine given the option, studios will publish those HD movies in the easiest way possible. If they can sell HD movies using quick and easy production tools without having to create extra content to fill up a disk, wouldn't they choose that? I'm sure when BRD was being created, discussions with the film publishers didn't involve much of them saying 'we want to put loads and loads of extra content in there, so make the disk capacity huge'! I'm sure there was more along the lines of 'we've already got HD movies for films using MPeg2. Can't we just use that?'

And for those studios that do want to produce discs with loads of content, there's AVC and VC-1 available as options. The BRD standard is just for a 50 GB disk and a number of media formats. It's down to the studios to use them how they choose (as long as the tools are there of course). the BRD spec certainly isn't not forcing studios to use the quick and easy (as I understand it) MPEG 2 methods, so any complaints consumers have should be levied at the studios. Personally I'd rather have the best quality movie experience over relatively moderate movie quality and lots of extras.

 

I know there is a breakdown of the top 100 titles, afaik it was a BluRay victory as well. And the pure number of titles is also a Blu-Ray victory. I read this from various sources, but it was all on the net so

The consistent theme about BluRay is not delivering on time, but the PS3 is here now and the good looking titles is out for everyone to see. From now on it should be building momentum and after XMAS 2007 i think we have a strong indication of who wins..

Sadly the region i´m in requires me to say no since it´s impossible to buy any HiDef stuff, i have of course samples and some inside knowledge as well.

I´m uncertain about digital distribution, i want to own the movies, not rent them. Of course my GF might argue that the 700 dvd´s take to much space that could be used for stuff like... books!

 

The whole point of BRD was for Sony to provide a new format using Mpeg2, get everyone on board and make tons off royalties: both codec and each disc and player produced. It was the "perfect" scenario. The sole use of Mpeg2 also made BD50 necessary. Then the DVDforum shoot out occured and VC-1 won out over Mpeg2 and AVC, in that order. After that, HDi was heavily picked over Java for the interactivity layer. Afraid that MS would have full software control over Blu Ray, BR camp did everything imaginable to keep VC-1 out, even though MS submitted VC-1 to SMTPE and let them decide how to manage the codec.

Fast forward and the BR camp broke off the DVD forum and created the BR Working Group. At this point AVC took some of the VC-1 features, added it to the spec and "AVC HP (high profile)" was born. They conducted independent testing of AVC HP in the BR Working group and MS was not even invited Same for Java. At this point they decided to drop VC-1 from the BR spec but Warner and Paramount were going to pull their support. It was a huge mess. Panasonic were so convinced that their AVC HP encoder would be King and VC-1 would be dropped that they built their first BR player without VC-1 support. Warner and Paramount held their ground and MS had to promise equal VC-1 support to both formats. VC-1 was reluctantly added again.

As for Java over HDi, we can clearly see that the number of Java authored titles is even LESS than the number of BD50 titles out there! Even more interesting is that Sony proprietary "Blu Wizard" does not use Java either! Infact, it was quiet clear that Java was no where ready to be used that they had to have 2 specs of Java, one being BD-J which is very basic and mandatory now and one being BD-Live which includes PiP and Online interactivity. BD-Live is not mandatory until June 2007 thus you don't see any BR player (aside PS3) with even an ethernet port. This is also why HD DVD titles have PiP commentary where as none of the BR titles do.

You can ask "CJPlay" on AVSForum about VC-1. He's a Warner compressionist and he'll be first to tell you, that it's software support adn tools, not the overall spec that is important and MS' support of VC-1 is out of this world and tools continue to improve at a rapid rate.

FWIW, had the BR Camp listened to their own Technical working group and picked HDi over Java, MS would be 100% neutral in this war.

 

I hate this argument you are using because you get a better quality from mpeg2 on a 50gb disc because mpeg2 on a 50gb disc have better quality then vc1 , Black Hawk Down look better than any hd-dvd movie i have seen.

 

You would own them as much as you do music, you own the license to play it. When I say digital distribution I don't mean Xbox Live in terms of rentals or iTunes in terms of gouging.

So...my wifes birthday present came Wednesday and today, no small bills for the delivery guys for tips, so what does she do, gives away two motorized DVD towers w/ DVDs on Wed., today they bring the mattress, so I give the guys (same two) another tower. We have now gone from 700+ to 200. My reasoning, because the new HD DVD cases won't fit as they are smaller, her reason, to free up some space, in the end it all worked itself out, as I suspect the two competing formats will as well. To bring this back around completely to the Topic, I am glad the PS3 is as good as it is, all the more reason for someone such as me to buy one, and when we finally move back into a house, I plan on either getting a 60-72" set or just going with a projector. By that time, I will have to get ready for UHDTV...

 

This argument is old as hell, hd-dvd video quality is worst compared to Dvhs and 50gb blu ray disc offer similar quality to dvhs...

 

Dus ya speaka de engrish?

I'm sure a VC1/AVC on 50gb would be the best no? Then you wouldn't be pissing 20gb down the toilet...

 

You are very much the minority in your thinking. But hey it's your opinion and so have fun with it!

I'm sure your eyes are much better than the people who do it for a living......

 

It wont look any better and we gotta industrial people all over the place saying that on the forum...not sure why yer missed that.

 

In that case I would prefer they use HD-DVD as it is less expensive for me as an end user and made it to market faster.

If I'm expected to pay a premium for marginally higher storage, 80% more, then they better damn well make effective use of that space. Otherwise, why didn't we just go with 30GB HD-DVD which is cheaper to make (and buy) and faster to market.

It's seriously one of the stupidest arguments Ive ever heard (not you but the pro-MPG2 fud from Sony) and I can't believe so many people buy into it...

 

Of course it would look the same , that's the entire point. It would look the same and allow for twice as much content on disc.

Why would you support wasting disc space on an antiquated codec, when the SAME results can be had using much less disc space? Anyone?

Because you care so much about encoding costs for Movie Studios? Like they don't make enough profit? At what point did production costs for Movie Studios become a concern for consumers?? Oh right...when Sony started telling you it was.

 

However you can love that Vc1 codec, it can't do the magic, and it can't look better than mpeg2 at hi bitrate...

 

It might not look better, but wouldn't it be better because they could save space (given that the cost of encoding in VC-1 isn't more than MPEG-2).

 

Maybe you havent got to school but yer have to tell me how can it use half space using the same bitrate ?

Because if they both use, lets say, 40mbps , they gotta have the same file size ob the disc , and u got no extra space.

Cuz it does not, as prooved by Black Hawk Down that look better than any hd-dvd movie.

Cuz i want the best quality i can get, and Balck Hawk Down beat any hd-dvd in video quality.

 

Do you even understand what the point of a codec is?

 

yer also havent got to school too cuz at the same bitrate , lets say 40mbps, Vc1 have the same size of mpeg2 as bitrate is the quantity of data per second, it does not matter the codec, the file size at the same bitrate is the same.

 

Man, you need to learn what the hell you're talking about...VC1 would use a lower bitrate to achieve the same quality as MPEG 2, that's the entire point of using a better codec. So you can use lower bitrates! I know, it's crazy eh!?

Obviously he has absolutely no clue.