I already gave the link. It's being released in the Americas early 2006. Around the same time HD DVD is released. The PS3 will be released in NA (speculation time) late 06. Mind you the battle will be heaviest in Japan as the PS3 will be released sometime spring 06, so HD DVD will have to compete with a PS3 release in Japan.
Will Warner support Blu-ray?
- Thread starter one
- Start date
- Status
I already gave the link. It's being released in the Americas early 2006. Around the same time HD DVD is released. The PS3 will be released in NA (speculation time) late 06. Mind you the battle will be heaviest in Japan as the PS3 will be released sometime spring 06, so HD DVD will have to compete with a PS3 release in Japan.
We still do not know when the HD movies will be available even though we know when the hardware will.
And the plot thickens:
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=15593
And the plot thickens:
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=15593
mckmas8808
Legend
I don't see the problem here. How does the plot thicken?
MechanizedDeath
Regular
Oh please. There's one camp that's been losing support consistently, and one that's been gaining it. Pretty much over and done with at this point. I will say that I hope LiteOn presses on, though. They make great, cheap drives. The 12x CD burner I got from them many years ago was one of the first non-Plextor drives with burn-proof, and it never failed me. Great drive, still kicking today. I hope they make some next-gen drives too. PEACE.
PC-Engine said:
Sounds like they are gearing up...
Check it!
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Completes First Full-Length Blu-ray Disc
CULVER CITY, Calif., Nov. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Sony Pictures Home
Entertainment (SPHE) president Benjamin S. Feingold today announced that
authoring has been completed on the first Blu-ray Disc (BD) to contain a
full-length, high-definition feature film. Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
was compressed and authored in MPEG 2 full high-definition (1920 x 1080) by
Sony Pictures' Digital Authoring Center (DAC) and is now being shipped to BD
hardware companies for player testing.
Utilizing Blu-ray's unprecedented storage capacity, the Charlie's Angels:
Full Throttle disc features dynamic menus with full resolution graphics and
animation, superior audio and unparalleled picture quality. "We are confident
this achievement will help everyone understand that Blu-ray is real and poised
to enter the marketplace," said Mr. Feingold. "Blu-ray will bring the highest
quality HD experience possible to the home."
"We are extremely proud to deliver on the promise of Blu-ray. This is an
important step for our industry in order to begin mass production of
high-definition movies in the Blu-ray format in the near future," said Don
Eklund, Senior Vice President, Advanced Technologies, Sony Pictures Home
Entertainment.
Mpeg 2, along side of Mpeg 4 AVC/H.264 and VC-1 are all supported by the BRD format. That, you must already know.nAo said:
But, I guess, what you meant is why did they choose Mpeg 2 over H.264 in this particular case, well I guess it's because of the quality of the Mpeg 2 encoder.
I remember the test made a few months ago, where most people did prefer the quality of the Mpeg 2 high res videos over the Mpeg 4 based ones.
mckmas8808
Legend
nAo said:
What did you expect?
mckmas8808
Legend
iknowall said:that's because less compression = better image quality, this is the main rule of video editing
Yeah that's what I was thinking. With all that space might as well use it.
MPEG4 is better than MPEG2 in every situation I've seen it. If they don't have encoders worth a darn, then they should get on it yesterday.
And the "less compression = better image quality" thing really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. JPEG2000 compresses more than JPEG but can have better image quality at the same file size. I would be pretty shocked if the same is not true of MPEG2 and MPEG4. It's not about more vs. less compression. It's about better vs. worse compression.
And the "less compression = better image quality" thing really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. JPEG2000 compresses more than JPEG but can have better image quality at the same file size. I would be pretty shocked if the same is not true of MPEG2 and MPEG4. It's not about more vs. less compression. It's about better vs. worse compression.
Inane_Dork said:
In what professional situation in the movie industry have you worked ? Have you ever dealed with a digital master ?
Hum , no. If you have ever dealed with an hi definition digital master, you know that every time you are going to compress the video, you will lose quality.
In fact, you always work with uncompressed video and compress only for delivery the product.
No matter what tipe of compression you use, everty time you compress the video, you lose quality.
Inane_Dork said:
Every compression scheme employ raster downsampling to reduce bandwidth and downsampling make the video look softer, reduces the high frequency detail in the image, and can generate unwanted artifacts.
Mpeg2 is already now the industry standard used for devivering hd material .
a few examples :
Hd broadcasters use an mpeg2hd signal to troabcast hd .
Digital theaters projection use mpeg2hd files.
I'm sure there are studies that show the opposite of what I've seen. I'm not questioning that. Don't you think it a bit goofy that the MPEG group would come out with something poorer later? They should have MPEG4 encoders that at least compare to their MPEG2 counterparts.Vysez said:
If you're asking if I'm an expert in the field, the answer is obviously "no." If you're trying to say I can't be right because I'm not an expert, the answer is obviously "maybe." Out of curiosity, are you an expert?iknowall said:
And I said literally nothing against that. I'm not talking about recompressing. I'm talking about compressing.
Fine, but not really relevant.iknowall said:
So industry standards are necessarily the best quality solutions? I think that's the implied point here, but it's not necessarily right.
c0_re said:
??? dude please talk if you have a clue.
Movie theatres equipped with digital cinema projection store the movies on a server , the most used is the avica filmstore server, witch have not unlimited space, even if it have a very large hd space. You have to fit several movie on this server.
The movie is encoded into an mpeg2hd file.
If i remember correctly the 1080p version of costantine is about 60 Gb of file size.
Some movie projected digitally are costantine, star wars, the new Harry potter.
If you have seen a movie projected an digital equipped cinema, the quality is outstanding
compared to the old 35mm projection.
Inane_Dork said:
I have dealed with my this post production things with some of my works. So im talking about my experience not about Theory. You can say mpeg4hd is just as good or better, but when you have to deal for real with this, reality turn out that an mpeg2hd compressed movie look 100 times better.
Problem is you have to see how look the uncompressed material to have a clue of how much detail you lose when you compress your work.
A movie compressed in mpeg4hd have a fraction of the sharpness and detail of the original master.
An Mpeg2 hd at hig bitrate can keep almost intact the image quality.
I said that because compressing is what you want to avoid.
Yeah so make an example i have the hd master , it is 480 gb of size and i can choise if compress to mpeg2hd or to mpeg4hd.
Mpeg4 use an higer compression , and this means that on default compress a lot more the image whan mpeg2.
So if for example i encode a movie with mpeg4 the image get a compression ratio of 40:1
If i encode in mpeg2 i get a compression ratio of 6:1
Yes, you are right the mpeg4 stream have abetter compression, because can make the video 40 times smaller, and mpeg2 can only make the video 6 times smaller.
Make for example that the original hd master have a 100mbps bitrate, and we want to use the same bitrate for the compressed video.
We will have two video :
Mpeg2hd encoded video = 480/6 = 80Gb
Mpeg4 compressed video = 480/40 = 12gb
Well, i can assure you that where is no way in the hell the 12bg one will look better, or even near the quality of the 80gb one.
Just when you start encoding the video in mpeg4, you are going to lose with the compression a lot of data that in the mpeg2hd one stay intact.
Is is not like that . These industry standard are standard because some people tryed a lot of solutions and find out wich give the better result.
Where is a reason the the most part of the dh delivering is made using mpeg2hd ts.
And where is not that . More compressed is a movie, more power you have need to decompress it, so for example you have need a more powerfull ,chip to decompress an mpeg4hd or a Wm9 hd .
This means that a chip that can decode an mpeg4hd and a Wm9hd movie would cost a lot more that the one for the mpeg2hd decoding , and this means a more expansive player.
- Status
Similar threads
