Will Warner support Blu-ray part 2 ?

[iknowall]

If you left everything would improve..

Ok but if you don't want to post or comment on blu ray discs that's the sense of posting in this thread ?

So how much is less important?

Go here you will find your answare :
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...e=556&pp=30&highlight=WM9+codec+at+hi+bitrare

 

[-tkf-]

Ok now if you don't want to post or comment on blu ray discs news leave.

Whats with the old news? Shouldn't you be flamming me for showing that H.264 is needed on Blu-Ray, even at high bitrates?

 

[aaronspink]

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

from my installation:
Maps: 1.49 GB (this includes a lot of custom maps)
Music: 129 MB
Sounds: 358 MB
Static Meshes: 429 MB
System: 55 MB
Textures: 2.89 GB (this includes the textures at multiple resolutions.

Total: 5.3 GB.

So realistically it looks like the maps and the textures are taking the majority of the space. I'm pretty sure that no compression is used on the maps, and considering loading times, you should be able to get a performance increase by compressing the maps. Don't really see the textures expanding much from UT2004 to the future considering the textures in UT2004 are sized to cover up to full HD rez already.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[iknowall]

after you, brutus.

If you want to contribute to the thread than fine don't leave.

if you don't want to post or comment on blu ray discs that's the sense of posting in this thread ?

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.

NO, he was replying to the "Grubert" post, here is the Grubert post :

I have just read this on another forum, which goes completely against what I thought of a lot of things.

All of you enlightened on codecs, please tell me: BS or not?

The CD, the CD-ROM, the VHS tape, DVD, mini-dv, dv-cam, PAL, NTSC, MPEG1, MPEG2, MPEG2 layer 3 (the famous MP3), Betacam, and countless connections such as for example firewire, DVI, HDMI, all the classical analog connections, and countless technologies are free for any manufacturer that builds them into its machines and only competition between brands for best performance is legitimate.

Think that a future HD-DVD with a movie encoded in MPEG4 will necessarily be more expensive only because the codec owners can charge the studio wanting to use it, for the minute.

The economic interests involved in compression codecs are unbelievably large and rather unknown.

Regarding technological differences between both codecs, it is a well-known fact that MPEG4 is more efficient than MPEG2 when using very low bit rates (which is why TV over ADSL will have no choice but use it ). However, if we use very high bit rates, which will be used by future formats, the difference is much less important.

Here is the quote of amirm :

Grubert, what he says is a mix of true things and not. Ask him if MPEG-2 is public domain, what is MPEGLA doing collecting fees for it: http://www.mpegla.com/m2/? I believe the MPEG-2 patent pools are worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year. If MPEG-2 is public domain, there are a lot of stupid decision makers in this world!


As to the last comment, it is true that if the bit rate is sufficient high, then any compression technology works just as well as the other. However, we can not afford sufficient bitrate for some of the things we want to do. 1080p has 6 times the resolution of SD Video. So all else being the same, we need 30 to 36 Mbit/sec to encode with the same fidelity that a good DVD is encoded at: 5 to 6 Mbit/sec (I am simplifying things a bit here – there is more correlation in the pixels at 1080p so we probably can get away with a bit less than this). Broadcasters are even in worse shape since they are stuck with constant bitrate…

Amir

Is clear he was replying to him .

He was clearly replying to Gubert. And he was replying talking about an hi bitrate availbe in the text generation discs

He also say that you need 30 to 36 Mbit/sec to encode with the same fidelity that a good DVD is encoded at: 5 to 6 Mbit/sec , so he is clearly talking about a situation you have with an blu ray disc.

36 Mbit/sec is an bitrate avaible for blue ray and you can have up to 54 mbps with a dual layer disc.

You could debate only that he also say where some things that you can't do, i think you are debating this , but i agree, expecially if we are talking about a single layer blu ray disc, where are some things that you can't do if you use an hi bitrate.

The first step on the road to recovery is admitting your faults.

Dude you are debating even the evidence that amirm is replying to Gubert about what he posted , how can i debate with you ?

 

[Bobbler]

Heh, that xbitlabs article makes it sound like only iHD can offer that, and the java thingy that BR has won't allow the same things iHD does.

iHD, which allows content providers to offer greater interactivity on next-generation DVDs and helps ensure a more compelling user experience when recording HDTV programs or moving digital content throughout the home, was not approved for launch.

...

Also, iknowall, that link to this article didn't answer -tkf-'s question about how much is "less important."



On another note... I'm still wondering what the big deal is between the java solution and iHD? I've seen little Apple movie maker title screens (made in minutes) just as well done as consumer DVDs... are BR/HD-DVD really going to offer that much more in terms of senseless user activity? It seems to me that either solution would work plenty well, and that the java solution being more "too complicated" is moot because it isn't something that tons of time needs to be spent on -- if that silly apple movie maker thing makes it that easy then I imagine there are professional tools that can do the same (with iHD and java). It seems like one of those pointless things to argue over because the actual time spent with either is going to be peanuts compared to getting the video edited and mastered in the format and quality that is deemed suitable for purchase. Maybe I'm missing something though.

 

[Titanio]

Don't really see the textures expanding much from UT2004 to the future considering the textures in UT2004 are sized to cover up to full HD rez already..

If you look at the UE tech site, the content guidelines:

UE2 Characters:

2000-3000 triangles
1 512x512 or 1024x1024 compressed texture

UE3 Environments:
150-300 objects in view

UE3 characters:
3000-12000 triangles (up to 4x the difference)
1 or 2 2048x2048 normal maps, 1 2048x2048 texture map (if normal maps are 32-bit, that could be up to 12x the difference - but next-gen consoles may apparently use half this resolution, so up to 6x the difference. Are normal maps 32-bit?)

UE3 Environments
300-1000 objects in view (up to over 3x the difference, similar texturing difference as with characters)

That's before we even think about having MORE different types of texture/object, which I'm sure is also the case.

 

[DemoCoder]

oh no, not an iHD/BDJ discussion. There about 500 posts on this in AVSFORUM HDTV Software Media board. Please go there to read pros/cons.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Just to point out, that Mark Rein interview is from CVG, it's totally unsubstanciated and I've never heard Rein say anything of the sort before.

So maybe it's true, but don't forget CVG is the same site that posted a completely fake press conference with Hideo Kojima a few years ago.

It seems funny to me that he says next gen games will be 20GB, when their last xbox game was like 2.1. It also seems funny to me, that he says UT uses 6GB when everyone know's it's more like 3-4.

There haven't been alot of dev's who've complained about disc space, the ones who have are manily japanese and that's understandable, 720p FMV would eat up space like crazy. But really, we haven't heard a ton of complaints, you could probably count them on one hand.

The fact that we've reached the point where in-engine cut-scenes should almost be CG quality, and the fact that there is more texture compression availiable makes it very hard to believe that 8GB will not be enough for next gen games. The majority of space last gen was audio & video, audio will stay the same, and video should not really as important, I just don't see where the problem is (unless your a japanese dev wanting to do tons of CG)

 

[Titanio]

Just to point out, that Mark Rein interview is from CVG, it's totally unsubstanciated and I've never heard Rein say anything of the sort before.

If they faked an interview with Mark Rein, it'd have been off their site in an instance. The interview is legit.

Looking at the numbers on the UE tech site it seems very plausible that UE3 games could double/triple/quadruple their capacity requirements.

 

[scooby_dooby]

we'll see when GOW comes out I guess! I'm predicting 5-7GB.

Remeber UT2007 is a PC-Game, are they going to be shipping 2 install DVD's? Are they going to be asking customers to have 10-20GB of space available? I HIGHLY doubt it.

 

[Titanio]

we'll see when GOW comes out I guess! I'm predicting 5-7GB.

Remeber UT2007 is a PC-Game, are they going to be shipping 2 install DVD's? Are they going to be asking customers to have 10-20GB of space available? I HIGHLY doubt it.

I don't doubt it for a moment. UT2004 is nearly 6GB on my hard disk, I can certainly see UT2007 being twice or three times that.

If GoW is on one DVD, they're either using exceptional compression (and trading off CPU time for that), or they've made sacrifices. Personally I'm hoping they DON'T make sacrifices, and ship the thing on multiple dvds.

 

[aaronspink]

If you want to contribute to the thread than fine don't leave.

if you don't want to post or comment on blu ray discs that's the sense of posting in this thread ?

to both piss you off, and correct your incorrect information of course.

NO, he was replying to the "Grubert" post, here is the Grubert post :
Here is the quote of amirm :
Is clear he was replying to him .

He was replying to him, but he wasn't answering the question you think he was.

A) He did state that at sufficiently high bitrate they are pretty much a wash
B) he did not state what a sufficiently high bitrate was
C) its in the range of 200+ Mb/s
D) it can be infered that 30-36 Mb/s is insufficient because DVD at 5-6 Mb/s has significant issues.
E) so you are wrong once again because your reading comprehension is insufficient.

He was clearly replying to Gubert. And he was replying talking about an hi bitrate availbe in the text generation discs:

Yes, and the bit rates as he states are insufficient.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I don't doubt it for a moment. UT2004 is nearly 6GB on my hard disk, I can certainly see UT2007 being twice or three times that.

If GoW is on one DVD, they're either using exceptional compression (and trading off CPU time for that), or they've made sacrifices. Personally I'm hoping they DON'T make sacrifices, and ship the thing on multiple dvds.

And Unreal Championship is a 2.1 GB game on XBOX(IIRC). It's newer than UT2004, and probably has better GFX.

There's a 3rd option, that they use realtime cut-scenes, and decent compression techniques and have absolutely no problem fitting everything they want to do within the 8GB limit.

I fail to see how increased texture sizes are going to rocket the disc space above 8GB. 1st of all, currently textures take up like 1/5 of the disc space, a fairly insignifigant amount. In addition to that, they can compress them more heavily than they did last gen. Add that up, and how the hell do you come up with 6 or 7 GB worth of textures!?

You should probably accept the reality that alot of this disc-space stuff is Sony FUD, and the vast majority of PS3 games will ship on DVD since 8GB is plenty.

 

[wco81]

I don't doubt it for a moment. UT2004 is nearly 6GB on my hard disk, I can certainly see UT2007 being twice or three times that.

If GoW is on one DVD, they're either using exceptional compression (and trading off CPU time for that), or they've made sacrifices. Personally I'm hoping they DON'T make sacrifices, and ship the thing on multiple dvds.

What were game sizes 5 years ago?

Now extrapolate game sizes 5 years from now.

Is DVD-9 still enough?

 

[AlphaWolf]

pc versions of games should require more disc space as they have to support more system profiles.

 

[mrdarko]

What were game sizes 5 years ago?

Now extrapolate game sizes 5 years from now.

Is DVD-9 still enough?

well,i have a copy of pro evolution soccer on the ps2 from 01 and that is on a cd.

i also gt4 and have read that it is 8+ gigs...(don't know if thats true?)

i think if mark rein said 20gigs in that interview maybe he was talking about 2-3 years time?

 

[scooby_dooby]

What were game sizes 5 years ago?

Now extrapolate game sizes 5 years from now.

Is DVD-9 still enough?

2000? About 2-3GB for the consoles.

 

[iknowall]

A) He did state that at sufficiently high bitrate they are pretty much a wash

Ok

B) he did not state what a sufficiently high bitrate was

Hum, no he state in another post what he think is the high bitrate you need to have a perfect quality, a quality "transparent to the source at 1080p" :

Since you all believe Tom on this stuff, why don't you ask him if he thinks MPEG-2 at 24 Mbit/sec CBR is transparent to the source at 1080p? Even he would readily tell you that you need far higher data rate. I think he used the 40 Mbit/sec number.

Come on people. This is supposed to be the forum for people who care about the highest audio/video quality and I am spending half my time countering people defending stuff like this. We either want to strive for the best or we are not….

Amir

C) its in the range of 200+ Mb/s

See above he state that for a quality " transparent to the source at 1080p" you need
40Mbit/sec. , a quality where you can't tell the difference from the master and the original.

Can you quote him where he say you need 200+ Mb/s ?

D) it can be infered that 30-36 Mb/s is insufficient because DVD at 5-6 Mb/s has significant issues.

Not really see above

E) so you are wrong once again because your reading comprehension is insufficient.

Ok now my english is not native but i think that the term "transparent to the source" imply
that you don't see the difference form the master so the higest quality you can get.

 

[wco81]

2000? About 2-3GB for the consoles.

A lot if not most of the PS2 titles in its first year in the US were on CD-ROMs, not DVD-ROMs.

One of the first if not the first EA DVD game was the second version of SSX. And it was only on DVD because it had a making of the game video on it. There were other PS2 titles which had similar video content on DVD-ROM as well.

So in 5 years, we went from CD-ROMs at 650 MB max to almost 9 GB for GT4. Mind you this was without higher resolutions or better audio.

Remember, there are now newer audio formats and codecs, including lossless codecs (but who knows if any developers will use them).

If developers have expressed interest in having more capacity, even if it's for FMV, why do people pooh-pooh it? Is there something wrong with having more content for your money? If the additional content is FMV that you think is filler, then don't watch it. But it's better to have it than not so you at least have the option to access or not access the content.

Really the only people saying you don't need more capacity seem to be those who want to defend their favorite platform's choice of staying on standard media. You wonder if people were defending the continued use of carts on N64 for similar reasons (as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure there were and they did so on the basis of carts helping N64 fend off the PSX -- hmm that didn't quite work out too well did it?).

Now, before long, someone is going to bring up loading times on slow Blu-Ray drives and costs as downsides. Then when we have a go around on those points, they will bring back "But but games don't need that much data."

 

[aaronspink]

Ok


Hum, no he state in another post what he think is the high bitrate you need to have a perfect quality, a quality "transparent to the source at 1080p" :

See above he state that for a quality " transparent to the source at 1080p" you need
40Mbit/sec. , a quality where you can't tell the difference from the master and the original.

No he quotes Tom that is on the MPEG2 side of the issue and Tom states that at least 40 Mb/s is required. But the industry seems to think that at least ~80 Mb/s is required for MPEG2 and even that is insufficient since they want to move to 250 Mb/s MJPEG.

Can you quote him where he say you need 200+ Mb/s ?

No need to quote him when I can refer to the industry moving to 250 Mb/s MJPEG for theatre distrobution.

Not really see above

What, now you want to argue that DVD video doesn't display significant artifacts? Well then why the hell would we ever need HD-DVD or BR? Cause, as you state, DVD at 5-6 Mb/s is just dandy.

The truth is that at 5-6 Mb/s and even at the max of ~10 Mb/s DVD shows significant artifacts.

Ok now my english is not native but i think that the term "transparent to the source" imply
that you don't see the difference form the master so the higest quality you can get.

Even 80 Mb/s MPEG2 isn't transparent to the source for 1080P res. Its pretty good but not "transparent to the source".

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.