Will Warner support Blu-ray part 2 ?

You're missing the point. You're still arguing like it's 2004. We're well past the point where technical arguments and advantages and disadvantages matter so much. Blu-ray's key advantages now are in its strategic position, it's industry support, its presence in certain key product(s). These things engender confidence in consumers to buy into the platform, and Blu-ray has these things now, far more than any other format.

On capacity, though - you still look at this solely through the lens of traditional home movie requirements. This is also a format for games, personal high definition recording (where more capacity certainly matters), storage and so forth. On movie content, though, studios absolutely will put boxsets and the like on one disc, and charge as much as they did previously - get used to it. The value is NOT in the number of discs - in fact from a consumer convenience point of view, the fewer the better.

 

You forgot these golden examples of what not to post on this forum:

Obviously this guy stepped over the line more than one time, and he is plain wrong

 

"Good encode" as in the software that does the encode, the post proccessing on the video before it's encoded, the encoding bit budget, the encoding "technician" that goes through the "bit usage profile" and assigns more bit to problematic places.

The discussion (what i think was the discussion anyway) was: does MPEG2 vs H.264/VC-1 at high bitrate look just as good.,

I think it was pointed out from several thrustworthy sides and on a technical level as well that this is not the case, VC-1 and H.264 is superior in both low and very high bitrates.

Will we be able to see any difference between the codecs at 40mbit ? Well that depends on what we are using to display the picture, size, resolution etc.

 

those comments were casual comments, in layman's terms. why the hell do you cling to them like it's some sort of undiniable statement of fact.

he doesn't even qualify what "sufficiently high" is! For al lyou know he could be referring to a 80mbps bit-rate, which means nothing in a discussion about which looks better at 40mbps. Point is you are taking his comments out of context, and twisting them to support your point. It's weak, it's paper thin, and everyone can see right through it.

Quit making a fool of yourself, part of being able to debate like an adult is ADMIT when you are wrong, stubbornly refusing to accept the facts just makes you look childish.

 

I'd like to 2nd DemoCoders request for locking this thread. It's going to go nowhere, all the necessary evidence was presented in the first thread if anyone wants to learn about the differences in the codecs. This thread will serve no useful purpose.

 

Just posting news, don't know if it means anything.

HP Enters HD DVD Promotions Group,

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storage/display/20051218235604.html

 

I'm surprised nobody posted this earlier -- I saw it last night but didn't have the time to post it (and I couldn't get the link at work today).

It seems like its a bit late to be pulling this kind of stunt -- but HP just says it will offer both drives depending on users needs. They probably just to want piss off the BR consortium a bit.

 

Hmm, I think I've heard this before...

We have been civil and intelligent. I'm not sure you, on the other hand, actually understand what you are quoting.

because it is a pointless thread, arguing with you, who has no idea what you are actually talking about and quoting the same BS you did in the other thread which you really don't understand.

be my guest.

Um, by high bit rate he is effectivelly talking about the point that MPEG2 and MPEG4/AVC/VC-1 degenerate into MJPEG. Yes at those bit rates (which are around 250Mb/s for full frame HD content), MPEG2 and MPEG4/AVC/VC-1 are approximately the same. But then why use MPEG2/MPEG4/AVC/VC-1 at those bit rates?

At any reasonable distrobution level bit rates MPEG2 is both less efficient and has lower quality than MPEG4/AVC/VC-1.

Oh, he's not really wrong, you just don't understand what he is saying. Which isn't so supprising.

This is either the second or third time you've said this, I'm sure everyone else will agree with me, we would be happy if you stopped debating this since you are wrong.

It will allow square to not actually coding a game engine and instead just have 4+ hours of video segments that the user will negotiate. This will allow them to stop dealling with those little things like actual gameplay.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

Such a commonly voiced argument for one that is ringing increasingly hollow. A number of devs, not just RPG makers, have now either voiced concern about fitting everything on a DVD or alternately, enthusiasm for Blu-ray.

 

I think a lot of this is overblown. Currently we are running at about 4GB per game with a reasonable portion of the textures uncompressed. Looking at what is actually needed to fill 8GB in a game, I really don't see people filling up a DVD9 let alone a BR disk without a lot of FMV.

 

Well devs are already disagreeing. For example, Mark Rein was talking a little while ago about using most of the space on a BR disc (!), and pondered how exactly they were going to fit everying on one DVD for GoW. His engine is going into a lot of next-gen games, too..

 

Well, that's Mark Rein for ya. Looking at the space actually required for say UT2004, they would roughly have to quadruple their data storage needs to fill a DVD9 disk. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I'm fairly sceptical about it.

The textures aren't going to change significantly from what is already on the PC, so the only areas that could really expand are model details and video. Model details will increase somewhat, but don't eat up a significant portion of the storage size currently. So that leaves FMV as the primary fill, which will be undergoing a roughly 4-5 increase in size for HD.

But personally, I'm under the belief that if the format limits the amount of FMV, then all the better.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself.

 

If you left everything would improve..

And:

So how much is less important?

If h.264 is better, no matter what margin, it's better..

Imagine 200 inch screens with 1080p projectors, if i wanted to keep the same "unperfect" quality as i have on a DVD that would in MPEG2 terms equal 35mbit* just to keep the DVD quality, which i might add, isn't perfect (by far)..

I hope they use h.264 @ 35mbit so i actually get an improved picture as well, not just the same...

* 1920*1080 = 5 times the pixel compared to 720*576.
DVD Average bitrate = 7 mbit (superbit) * 5 = 35mbit

 

Well he talked about "Unreal Tournament" occupying 6GB, compressed (though my DVD says UT2004 occupies 3.64GB - although I don't know if the lack of a HDD would affect that figure and how much would need to be on the disc). More generally he said he sees next-gen games being 20GB+. I guessing given his proximity to Epic's development, he knows where things are headed with them in terms of capacity requirements with their upcoming games, more than you or I would..

There was a time when UT would have come on 1 CD..but then UT2004 came along and it was 6. Your argument sounds like one heard many a time through history

 

after you, brutus.

Um, no, the text to which he replied was, he was making a more general comment. and immediately after the comment enforced that it didn't apply to BR/HD-DVD because neither will support data rates that are high enough. GAFC.

The reply was not. At the bitrates available in next gen formats MPEG4/AVC/VC-1 provide better quality. But you are apparently too pig headed to realize it.

The first step on the road to recovery is admitting your faults. Now that you have done this, you might start by actually reading relavent technical papers and getting a better general understanding of the actual processes and algorithims used in video compression technologies. I can only assume you'll have to stop posting for quite a while to catch up. During that time, since you won't be posting nonsense here, it will seems like i've left.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.