Will Warner support Blu-ray part 2 ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wco81 said:
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.
lol. great comparison! Look at that, disc sizes grew 13x's in just 5 years! YEah..not quite.

Even on PS1 many games were multiple CD's, we can both cherry pick examples all day long but it doesn't prove anything.

If you want to prove something, find us the AVERAGE disc size in 2000, and the AVERAGE disc size in 2005, otherwise you're just pickin 2 arbitrary #'s to suit the point you're trying to make. All that shows, is that the comrpession on PS2 was so terrible, that the game ended up being 9GB.

Forza is actually more detailed, with a more involved AI & Damage modelling, better backgrounds, 3d wheels etc etc, and was < 3 GB. The car and Track models do not take up alot of room, so that does not work as an excuse as to why GT4 was bigger, and I can give you exact sized on these models when I get home if you insist (hint: 3-5mb each)

Why this assumption that developers are so stupid they can't make their games fit on 8GB? We're suppsoed to believe that they will solve all teh problems of CELL, and multi-threading with ease, but these same brilliant minds can not figure out how to fit their game on an 8GB disc?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aaronspink said:
No he quotes Tom that is on the MPEG2 side of the issue and Tom states that at least 40 Mb/s is required.

amirm was replying to this post of Tom where no one talk about the bitrate :

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6654809&&#post6654809

Richard Paul quote amirm saying he was talking about that post here :

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...e=558&pp=30&highlight=WM9+codec+at+hi+bitrare

Richard Paul said:
amirm said:
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?

mir, no offense but if you think that Tom said something wrong in this post than why not point it out to us? After all his post basically refutes something that you have been telling for over a year. As such I expected an explanation Amir and not grumbling about how people believe Tom over you. A nice attempt though Amir to try to divert attention from what Tom actually said though .


Second he point out that also Tom would say that you can't get a trasparent quality with 24mbps and point out that he think you need for real 40Mbit/sec. he don't talk about 80mb/sec. , this is the quality you get with D cinema.

amirm said:
why don't you ask him if he thinks MPEG-2 at 24 Mbit/sec CBR is transparent to the source at 1080p?"

" transparent to the source "

"Even he would readily tell you that you need far higher data rate. I think he used the 40 Mbit/sec number."

And here he state that he think Tom say you need 40Mbit/sec. for a trasparent transfer.

Tell me where Tom state that you need 80Mbit/sec. for a transparent transfert ?

Quote him



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.

I am well aware that the standard is 80Mbit/sec. but this have nothing to do with the post of amirm. He say that he think you need 40Mbit/sec.

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

How can this make amimr stating that you need 250mbps to have the point where
you have no difference from Mpeg2/VC-1 ?

What, now you want to argue that DVD video doesn't display significant artifacts?

Hum, no, with spiderman 2 for example i don't see the video showing evident macroblocks.

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.

"Charlie’s Angels was encoded at an average bit rate of 18MB per second, compared to the 7MBs to 8MBs that VC-1 and MPEG-4 are designed to run at. Though the images might be the same, higher bit rates mean you have to store more bits to start with, which takes up space on the disc.

At 18MBs, Charlie’s Angels eats up the better part of a 25GB Blu-ray Disc, leaving room for no more than the ordinary compliment of extras—hardly the sort of over-the-top package many Blu-ray supporters gave as the reason to adopt the higher-capacity format.

Sony officials counter that high-quality MPEG-2 encoders have been around for years and the format is well understood, while encoding tools for the newer codecs are still being developed and the formats are less “mature.â€￾

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6288668.html

I think you are understimatin the quality you can have with a good encoding.

Charlie’s Angels don't show any video artifact at all and use only 18 mb/sec.

The point is that if you consider only the audio/video 36Mbit/sec. are enough to don't get any artifact, but you have also to fit all the special plus multi audio tracks, ecc, the space can be an no enough, this relate to when he say "However, we can not afford sufficient bitrate for some of the things we want to do".


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

significant artifacts ? Significant means you have evident big macroblocks appearing an all the screen, i don't see any macroblocks in spiderman2.

Do you know that a dvd video can take months for the encoding alone to make sure you don't have any artifact
with a 6mbps ?

Hardly any dvd video go over 8Mpbs.


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

I saw by myself a lot of Dcinema movie and i am well aware at what is the quality of the master , but it is not me saying that you can get a trasparent quality with at lest 40MBit/sec.

amirm said:
I think he used the 40 Mbit/sec number
 
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby said:
lol. great comparison! Look at that, disc sizes grew 13x's in just 5 years! YEah..not quite.

Even on PS1 many games were multiple CD's, we can both cherry pick examples all day long but it doesn't prove anything.

If you want to prove something, find us the AVERAGE disc size in 2000, and the AVERAGE disc size in 2005, otherwise you're just pickin 2 arbitrary #'s to suit the point you're trying to make. All that shows, is that the comrpession on PS2 was so terrible, that the game ended up being 9GB.

Forza is actually more detailed, with a more involved AI & Damage modelling, better backgrounds, 3d wheels etc etc, and was < 3 GB. The car and Track models do not take up alot of room, so that does not work as an excuse as to why GT4 was bigger, and I can give you exact sized on these models when I get home if you insist (hint: 3-5mb each)

Why this assumption that developers are so stupid they can't make their games fit on 8GB? We're suppsoed to believe that they will solve all teh problems of CELL, and multi-threading with ease, but these same brilliant minds can not figure out how to fit their game on an 8GB disc?


wow,your very sensitive!:D

i will take it as fact that polyphony are crap at compression(and other dev's)

if true(and continue to be true)then blu ray is needed,yes?:smile: :twisted
 
scooby_dooby said:
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.

UT games have never used anything but realtime stuff (if there are cutscenes at all), that's not going to grab you savings in the comparisons mentioned above.

scooby_dooby said:
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.

Well sticking to UT, well over half my UT2004 install is taken up by textures (2.92GB)..

Textures, maps, static meshes and animations take over 90% of the install space - and all those things will scale up.

scooby_dooby said:
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!?

Textures in UT2004 fill nearly 3GB, as mentioned above. With potential doubling or quadrupling in resolution and the addition of 1 or 2 normal maps per mesh, it's not difficult to see how texture requirements could easily exceed the figure you quote there quite handsomely.You'd actually be quite lucky if all it did was double - that'd be on the low end judging by Epics UE2 and UE3 content guidelines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mrdarko said:
wow,your very sensitive!:D

i will take it as fact that polyphony are crap at compression(and other dev's)

if true(and continue to be true)then blu ray is needed,yes?:smile: :twisted
No. Problem is PS2 was crap at compressing things.

Why do you think most ps2-ports drop 30%-50% of it's filesize after coming over to XBOX?
 
PS2 didn't have any texture compression did it?

But again, what exactly is the downside to consumers of having larger-capacity media?

Even if one game out of 1000 went beyond DVD-9, why wouldn't you want something with more capacity for around the same money? (assuming any price delta between the X360 and PS3 is $100 or less).
 
PS2 was not 'crap' at compressing things (quite the opposite) and it has got texture compression as well.
 
ooooooooooooooook.....

i was about to reply to you scooby(to apologise about not knowing about compression:oops: ) but have just read nao's post.whose right?
 
Data

scooby_dooby said:
Forza is actually more detailed, with a more involved AI & Damage modelling, better backgrounds, 3d wheels etc etc, and was < 3 GB. The car and Track models do not take up alot of room, so that does not work as an excuse as to why GT4 was bigger, and I can give you exact sized on these models when I get home if you insist (hint: 3-5mb each)

Since GT4 has many more cars (geometry, texture, audio, other data) and tracks for many different cars, maybe it has more data storage requirements.

Also, I disagree about relative detail level of cars and tracks between GT4 and Forza but I have read forums and noticed that for many this is sensitive topic and some find personal offence in such statements so I will not go into detail.
 
aaronspink said:
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.

Ever heard of redundant-blocks of data saved to optimize loads and reduce rather expensive seeks?
 
scooby_dooby said:
Forza is actually more detailed, with a more involved AI & Damage modelling, better backgrounds, 3d wheels etc etc, and was < 3 GB. The car and Track models do not take up alot of room, so that does not work as an excuse as to why GT4 was bigger, and I can give you exact sized on these models when I get home if you insist (hint: 3-5mb each)

How many cars does Forza have compared to GT4? *hint*: Not that even a third the amount. Tracks?

Also, you're comparing the car models of Forza (apple) to the car models of GT4 (orange) without knowing what kind of data the teams are saving per car.

Another reason may be because Forza saves its data differently because the Xbox comes standard with a harddrive and may be optimized to uncompess bits of data to the harddrive where as PS2 needs to fit all the data in the main memory.
 
iknowall said:
significant artifacts ? Significant means you have evident big macroblocks appearing an all the screen, i don't see any macroblocks in spiderman2.

Do you know that a dvd video can take months for the encoding alone to make sure you don't have any artifact
with a 6mbps ?

What you consider significant may not be at the same threshold as others.

I use a PJ on a 120 inch screen, i have well over 700 (well i lost count) DVD's, iv'e played HD content, both MPEG2 and VC-1 on my PJ, i know this stuff from experience (classic way of trying to establish credebility :))

I daily see SD/SDI quality stuff on high end Barco monitors, and can most certainly say there is plenty of room for improvement on the DVD encoding side.

DVD is by far not transparent, not at 6-7-8-9 or 10 mbit and this is just for shitty low res SD quality stuff. In my mind there can be NO doubt that h.264 will beat the crap out of MPEG2 on BR/HD-DVD. As my example showed 35mbit is needed just to get on par with DVD quality (yeah i know it may be tad less), and DVD quality just doesn't cut it if you can get something thats better.

Ohh and sony can take their claims and stick it right where they keep the money saved on license costs...
 
scooby_dooby said:
And Unreal Championship is a 2.1 GB game on XBOX(IIRC). It's newer than UT2004, and probably has better GFX.

Ummmm.... no

you're comparing a game that is optimised at a display of what??? 480p...

while the latter can be played at resolutions that are a lot higher than a regular tv...

some say that a DVD isn't enough because of the fact that the next gen systems will now be rendering their "glorious" graphics in high resolutions...

i am aware that compressing data could make it possible to cram 20 GBs worth of stuff in a 4.7GB or an 8.5GB DVD but then you will end up wasting some cycles trying to unpack and decompress that data...
 
-tkf- said:
What you consider significant may not be at the same threshold as others.

I use a PJ on a 120 inch screen, i have well over 700 (well i lost count) DVD's, iv'e played HD content, both MPEG2 and VC-1 on my PJ, i know this stuff from experience (classic way of trying to establish credebility :))

I know the quality is higly subjective and that's said i have seen some dvd projected with the higest end tecnology that exist today ($80.000 Barco Dp100) on the market on a theater screen so i am well aware at what is the quality.

Dvd use an Sd resolution and are made for an Sd screen in mind, if you uscale it to an hd resolution you are doing something the dvd is not made for.

But an hi end video scaler can produce awesome results even with sd resolutions.


I daily see SD/SDI quality stuff on high end Barco monitors, and can most certainly say there is plenty of room for improvement on the DVD encoding side.

Little correction, SDI is an industrial digital connection that carries only Sd signals, if you use an SDI connection with Hd material it must be an HDSDI connection ;)

Where are not that much improvement to me you can get with a so limited max bitrare , today the dvd encoding have a lot of industrial experience i don't think you can get much more than what you can get today.


DVD is by far not transparent, not at 6-7-8-9 or 10 mbit and this is just for shitty low res SD quality stuff.

Dvd is absolutly no near to be trasparent, the word "trasparent" was used by amirm saying that to have a trasparent transfer you need at least 40Mbit/sec. with mpeg2 bot by me.

I don't consider the quality of the dvd video a "shitty quality" or no one would buy dvd video today.


In my mind there can be NO doubt that h.264 will beat the crap out of MPEG2 on BR/HD-DVD. As my example showed 35mbit is needed just to get on par with DVD quality (yeah i know it may be tad less), and DVD quality just doesn't cut it if you can get something thats better.

Right now i saw myself the quality you get from the Dcinema and Br/hd-dvd will not match it , so i am well aware at what the mpeg2 is capable of and i am absolutly unimpressed at the result of the h.264 at lower bitrate compared to the 80Mbit/sec. of the dcinema, but we will see how it turn out and how much major will choise the mpeg2 and how much will choise the mpeg4 standard.




Ohh and sony can take their claims and stick it right where they keep the money saved on license costs...

Mpeg2 is no licens free :

"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!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil said:
How many cars does Forza have compared to GT4? *hint*: Not that even a third the amount. Tracks?

Also, you're comparing the car models of Forza (apple) to the car models of GT4 (orange) without knowing what kind of data the teams are saving per car.

Another reason may be because Forza saves its data differently because the Xbox comes standard with a harddrive and may be optimized to uncompess bits of data to the harddrive where as PS2 needs to fit all the data in the main memory.

Actually GT4 recycles car models much more heavily tha Forza does, sow how many more UNIQUE car models does GT4 have is the question, 20 variations of every model doesn't count.

And you missed the point entirely. The question isn't whether GT4 will fit on DVD, it's whether a game of that calibre requires 9GB of space. Forza proves it does not, simple as that.

Someone threw out 9gb for GT4 as an example of current gen disc sizes, not only is the completely non-representative of the vast majority of games out today, but we don't even have a breakdown of the disc content to make any sort of assessment where that disc space was spent.

So, all I can say to that point is, here's forza which has damage modelling, higher polygon models, better AI, online mode, technically graphically superior and takes up less than 1/3 of that space so it's obviously possible to make a game of GT4 calibre with MUCH less than 9GB. Maybe not on PS2...but that's a different issue.
 
GT4 Disc capacity

scooby_dooby said:
Actually GT4 recycles car models much more heavily tha Forza does, sow how many more UNIQUE car models does GT4 have is the question, 20 variations of every model doesn't count.

And you missed the point entirely. The question isn't whether GT4 will fit on DVD, it's whether a game of that calibre requires 9GB of space. Forza proves it does not, simple as that.

Someone threw out 9gb for GT4 as an example of current gen disc sizes, not only is the completely non-representative of the vast majority of games out today, but we don't even have a breakdown of the disc content to make any sort of assessment where that disc space was spent.

So, all I can say to that point is, here's forza which has damage modelling, higher polygon models, better AI, online mode, technically graphically superior and takes up less than 1/3 of that space so it's obviously possible to make a game of GT4 calibre with MUCH less than 9GB. Maybe not on PS2...but that's a different issue.

I have not checked but some have told me GT4 has disc use of 5.6GB/s.
 
iknowall said:
Right now i saw myself the quality you get from the Dcinema and Br/hd-dvd will not match it , so i am well aware at what the mpeg2 is capable of and i am absolutly unimpressed at the result of the h.264 at lower bitrate compared to the 80Mbit/sec. of the dcinema, but we will see how it turn out and how much major will choise the mpeg2 and how much will choise the mpeg4 standard.

I don't expect h.264 at low bitrates to be anywhere near a 80mbit mpeg2 stream, but if the bitrate is the same h.264 will always win. So rather have 25mbit h.264 than 25mbit MPEG2 on BR and HD-DVD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top