Sony Pictures announces its Blu-ray titles will now downscale resolution over analog
- Thread starter Titanio
- Start date
- Status
randycat99
Veteran
...and this pretty much ends your credibility on this subject, as you seem to be unaware or willfully deceptive of the difference between cbr and vbr. Thank you. Come again!
NOW STOP DERAILING THIS TOPIC WITH AN IMPROMPTU CODEC DEBATE.
NOW STOP DERAILING THIS TOPIC WITH AN IMPROMPTU CODEC DEBATE.
randycat99 said:
Actually it doesn't end my credibility at all. D-VHS uses CBR but it goes all the way up to 28Mbps and to date the highest bitrate encoded D Theater movie is 25Mbps. SONY plans on using MPEG2 at a measely 16Mbps VBR so they can fit movies onto 25GB BRDs. So far the consensus is SONY's showings look worse than D-VHS. And no WI didn't derail this thread. You did. I simply mentioned HD MPEG2 has been available through analog component via D-VHS for years so this news about SONY allowing crappy MPEG2 over analog has little to do with what the rest of the studios will do. It means nothing in the overall scheme of things...
randycat99
Veteran
If quality ends up being a problem in the real product, people will complain and movie releases will address this.
(Note people, how pc engine indiscriminately continues to compare cbr and vbr bitrates w/o an inkling of an idea that they aren't directly comparable. I rest my case... Funny how that logic doesn't lead him to also consider VC-1 @ 16 Mb/s as "measily", by the same notion.)
Considering how difficult it is to discuss PQ issues with your average hd viewer on existing digital HD cable/satellite/ota broadcasts w/o screams of "blasphemy", I doubt they will have an inkling complaint over D5 master losses on a consumer disc format.
(Note people, how pc engine indiscriminately continues to compare cbr and vbr bitrates w/o an inkling of an idea that they aren't directly comparable. I rest my case... Funny how that logic doesn't lead him to also consider VC-1 @ 16 Mb/s as "measily", by the same notion.)
Considering how difficult it is to discuss PQ issues with your average hd viewer on existing digital HD cable/satellite/ota broadcasts w/o screams of "blasphemy", I doubt they will have an inkling complaint over D5 master losses on a consumer disc format.
Last edited by a moderator:
What's funny is how you think 16Mbps MPEG2 VBR somehow magically equals 16Mbps VC-1. Must be the number 16!!
Get back to me when people at AVS Forums say 16Mbps MPEG2 VBR looks better than 25Mbps MPEG2 CBR let alone VC-1. I guess you didn't get the memo where it was shown that VC-1 at 16Mbps beats 25Mbps MPEG2 CBR. Guess where that leaves 16Mbps MPEG2 VBR on the food chain? 16Mbps VC-1>25Mbps MPEG2 CBR>16Mbps MPEG2 VBR.
Last edited by a moderator:
randycat99
Veteran
No where did I say that. The point that alludes you is that bitrates are not directly comparable across cbr/vbr/mpeg-n/whatever. You seem content to apply this when it suits your argument and ignore it when it doesn't. That's all I was illustrating to the kind people of B3D.
You act like AVS is the paragon of video authority, when the reality is it is like any other place on the internet. There is no end of people with their own alliances and agendas to push. There will always be spin thrown at 2 sides of a dichotomy. Amongst all of that, there are a few experts that really do know what is going on. In all likelihood they are never the most vocal because they already realize it is pointless to argue with the flotsom and jetsom of the internet masses. AVS will be no exception. You'll also find topics about whose digital cable/satellite hd service is better, how the other one looks like $hit, and the incidental 1 or 2 who have the balls to say it all looks like $hit who are ignored or shouted down, anyways. It's all the same show, over and over again, no matter where you go.
You act like AVS is the paragon of video authority, when the reality is it is like any other place on the internet. There is no end of people with their own alliances and agendas to push. There will always be spin thrown at 2 sides of a dichotomy. Amongst all of that, there are a few experts that really do know what is going on. In all likelihood they are never the most vocal because they already realize it is pointless to argue with the flotsom and jetsom of the internet masses. AVS will be no exception. You'll also find topics about whose digital cable/satellite hd service is better, how the other one looks like $hit, and the incidental 1 or 2 who have the balls to say it all looks like $hit who are ignored or shouted down, anyways. It's all the same show, over and over again, no matter where you go.
Last edited by a moderator:
And the point is irrelevant when the final output that people see on the screen confirm that 16Mbps VBR MPEG2 is the worst of them all. You can keep your meaningless numbers and theoretical comparisons. The nonbiased members at AVS concede that SONY's showings pale in comparison to even D-VHS/D Theater. Even biased pro BR people are reluctantly admitting it. Sure one or two fanb*ys with no credibility may say otherwise, but that's a sad fact of life.
Last edited by a moderator:
randycat99
Veteran
Precedence has shown that if you are the one to claim any group of sorts to be "unbiased", we know the complete opposite is then the truth. I'm sure AVS thanks you for representing them.
randycat99
Veteran
You are pathetic to use the "tin foil hat" remark on me, when it was placed upon YOU for citing a wacko product website as evidence for your argument in another topic. GIVE IT A FUCKING BREAK.
randycat99
Veteran
For those who aren't clued in on nanotec's joke website, they were marketing a product using "rare earth salts" powdered inside a ping pong ball sized bulb which when stuck to the front of your monitor creates a "bioshield" that blocks "dangerous radiation" from reaching the viewer. I submit to the rest of you, does that sound like a website to be citing "international papers" as evidence for anything? 
Would you even let them remotely near your credit card to purchase their product? Now consider that nanotec wholeheartedly believes in their presentation...I rest my case. Perhaps you would care to run that website by your bros over at AVS? See what they say...
Would you even let them remotely near your credit card to purchase their product? Now consider that nanotec wholeheartedly believes in their presentation...I rest my case. Perhaps you would care to run that website by your bros over at AVS? See what they say...
Last edited by a moderator:
randycat99 said:For those who aren't clued in on nanotec's joke website, they were marketing a product using "rare earth salts" powdered inside a ping pong ball sized bulb which when stuck to the front of your monitor creates a "bioshield" that blocks "dangerous radiation" from reaching the viewer. I submit to the rest of you, does that sound like a website to be citing "international papers" as evidence for anything?
Finally the good old last resort---->
I was beginning to wonder why it was taking you so long. You're so predictable.Now you shouldn't be twisting what was said in that thread to make yourself seem more credible. Fact is I never said I believed in the product. I only said the evidence they provided in the form of IEEE papers gives good support to their claims. You on the other hand have ZERO credibility and nothing nada zilch to offer to refute their claims other than this---->
Not suprised really and actually expected it from you.Anyway I'll take that as a quiet admission that you've never in your life presented any IEEE papers on the subject nor will you ever...thank you for your contribution and god bless.
You never had one to begin with...oh btw it's funny how you're derailing this thread into a completely unrelated topic...
Like I said before: Why should anyone care what YOU think? Where is your credibility? What is your expertise in the matter? I rest MY case.
Last edited by a moderator:
randycat99
Veteran
The IEEE papers were presented for a specific scenario which does not fit well at all with the point you were trying to pose. Similarly, their use in that website which you seem highly attached to for "evidence" is also not a good fit for what the IEEE papers were addressing. Chicken embryos and sperm quality have about zilch to do with a fully developed human staring into a CRT screen. Hence the "tinfoil" moniker was placed at your feet for even attempting to make such an association w/o even a smirk on your face. Now you are using the "tinfoil" moniker on others, which only points attention back to your own connection with that word. It's a ridiculous "insult" for you to wield upon others.
Now get back on topic, already. This isn't about codecs or silly tinfoil websites.
Now get back on topic, already. This isn't about codecs or silly tinfoil websites.
- Status
