Will Warner support Blu-ray?

[iknowall]

Fixed bitrate is under normal circumstances considered a Constant Bitrate. What you are talking about is something completely different, your talking about the maximum defined bitrate.

I guess your english is 50% of the reason why people disagree with you, the other 50% is because your plain wrong.

I did not say "the bitrate is fixed"

I said :
"a fixed bit rate limit " , a fixed limit of 10.08 Mbps

 

[DemoCoder]

If you are bitrate limited is better to use a VBR to decide where use an higer bitrate and where you can use a lower bitrare.

This is the whole point of "tweak where needed" and it has nothing to do with GOP. It has to do with the fact that automated workflows produce suboptimal quality. An engineer's job is to find scenes with suboptimal quality and adjust the bitrate or other parameters to fix the problem.

"No one encoder can encode in mpeg2 with a 1mbps bitrate without having a video full of artifact.

So, who was claiming that you could? You're arguing with yourself.

Mpeg2 codec look like shit at 1mbps where mpeg4 codec at the same bit rate work better,
and this is a limitation for mpeg2

H.264 can produce better quality than MPEG-2 at both high bit rates and low bit rates. It is better across the board. Objective PSNR studies show it. Subjective perceptual tests show it. Both the SMPTE and ISO/ITU accept this.

Bullshit , the fact that you have a minimim bitrate limit is due to the fact that if you use a lower bitrate the video look like shit.

It still hasn't stopped people from encoding video with MPEG-2 at 1Mbps or less. There are plenty of PVRs out there that consumers buy in droves which record at <2Mbps with horrible artifacts.

So this is correct for you : "When the compressors are done, they then review the actual result and tweak where needed."
You can't tweak where needed with mpeg2 gop compression scheme.

Yes, it is correct. GOP is irrelevent. If an engineer finds that a particular transistion or scene is causing problems, he can either increase VBR bitrate for that section, or apply pre-filters to the video before compression to try and alleviate the problem.

This is pure Bullshit , you can't tweak anything with an alredy compressed mpeg2 video.

Again, you run off arguing a strawman. No one claimed you'd tweak an "already compressed mpeg-2 video". What's being claimed is that in the process of encoding the master to MPEG-2, many steps are taken. It is not "click and go". The output of a given encoding run is typically reviewed, and then recompressed using the tweaks.

If you do every recompression make a loss of quality.

This dont make sense at all.

Only because you continue to not slow down, read, and use your brain. You keep making blanket assumptions, like the assumption I am arguing that mpeg-2 artifacts will be fixed by constantly recompressing mpeg-2 recusively instead of going back to the master each time? I mean, how the hell do you come up with such drivel?

Not in a big therater screen, where you can easly see every effect of the compression.

So? The fact that you can see artifacts doesn't mean that video artifacts are worse than audio artifacts. Audio artifacts are in fact, far more psychologically unnerving.

Video artifact make the video spixellated and blockiness , you easly see this type of artifact.

Compare this to loss of sound, pops and squeaks, and frequency shifts in audio.

If you project the video in a theater you can easly see the artifact that you can see iwith a small screen.

I can't live with mpeg-2 artifacts whether it's small screen or large screen. You practically have to put it on a 9" TV to hide it. Perhaps you mean *POOR QUALITY SMALL SCREEN*. On a 15" LCD screen, viewed at THX recommended distances, the artifacts are still visible.

Bullshit. I am talking about projecting the video in a digital theater.
You did not projected an hd master in a dcinema theater.

Don't try to change the discussion because you were proven wrong. Digibeta is irrelevent to the discussion. The discussion is MPEG-2 vs H.264. I compared MPEG-2 to H.264 on a large screen using a large venue digital projector that I own, that outclasses the projectors in many dcinemas, and the result is that H.264 delivers less artifacts than MPEG-2 at the same bitrate. Period.

I did so i know with such a big screen how much better look mpeg2 hd with the dcinema encoding.

Irrelevent. No one is going to ship dcinema encoded optical formats. They won't even ship 4:2:2 encoded lossy video. You are not very clear about what your point is. First you're arguing about how superior MPEG-2 is for Sony in BluRay, but Sony is shipping bog-standard MPEG-2/4:2:0 at a slightly higher bitrate than ATSC broadcasts. It's not compelling.

What you mean by the process is not automatic ?

It requires human supervision.

If i want to make a blur ray disk movie, and i have an hd-d5 master i just send the tape
to the post production studio that make all the ecoding operation.

It is not a complicated process.

Yea, outsourcing your work never is.

Yes aaronspink claimed here that :

"Most studios have done a significant amount of work to move back library and current libraries over to digital medium using MPEG2"

you wont use mpeg2 to get you library over to the digital medium.

He did not claim that Sony was going to ARCHIVE their video libraries to MPEG-2 masters. He was talking about the fact that studios have a huge amount of experience starting with analog film material and generating DVDs from them.

"When the compressors are done, they then review the actual result and tweak where needed."

You dont tweak anything, once the compression is done if where is something wrong you have to redone all the work again.

Well, that's your poor English ability unable to grasp the nuances of the language. When I wrote computer programs, if I find a bug or issue, I can go back and "tweak it". That means recompilation. It doesn't mean hex-editing binary EXEs.

Wrong, Dysney want the 50hb blu ray disk :

"Disney is unhappy with 50GB Blu-ray Disc delay"

Not wrong. Disney's desire to for larger media is separate from the codec they to use (Disney wants to put lots of extras and interactive media on the disc), which is going to be based on ECONOMIC considerations, like production costs and availability, not to mention POLITICS. In case you missed it. Disney until recently was firmly in Microsoft's camp, a big supporter of HD-DVD and VC-1 codec. Even though Disney claims they will now support both BluRay and HD-DVD, Disney's IP stake in iHD with Microsoft, and their interest in getting content on Windows Vista and XBox360, virtually assures VC-1.

At a Blu-ray Disc press demo held on November 29th, Andy Parsons, senior VP advanced product development for Pioneer announced the delayed readiness of the 50GB disc but downplayed it saying that it was something the industry would grow into over time. However, Buena Vista Home Entertainment president Bob Chapek said Disney was expecting the 50GB disc "from the get-go." The 25GB standard single layer Blu-Ray discs will be launched in the first half of 2006.

50GB is a pipe dream for launch. Studios haven't even be able to be assured that scratch resistant spin-coated single layer discs can be mass manufactured at affordable prices.

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7099.cfm

Sony want to use mpeg2

Of course, because Sony doesn't want to pay patent fees for H.264 of VC-1, whereas Sony owns IP stakes in MPEG-2. It's also cheaper to produce MPEG-2 at the moment.

 

[DemoCoder]

the DCI standar (Digital Cinema Initiatives, a joint venture of Disney, Fox, MGM, Paramount, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal and Warner Bros. Studios) set a support of a bitrate video to 250Mbps in Jpeg2000

http://www.dcimovies.com/

Yeah, but it requires a storage medium that can deliver a sustained throughput of 32megabytes/s, and a 3hr movie will consume 340gigabytes. That pretty much means a RAID solution, as well as expensive decoding hardware. You're not likely to see this in the home anytime soon, and the costs of the system mean slow theater uptake at a time when movie theaters are hurting and people are going to the theater less.

Unlike IMAX or Maxivision, DCI won't really offer a noticable improvement over people with high-end home systems except for videophiles.

 

[seismologist]

So will Blu Ray quality be anything like what I see in over the air HDTV broadcasts?

Because I think broadcast HDTV is a pretty big leap over DVD. It makes me not want to watch my DVDs anymore because the picture doesn't jump out at you like it does with HD.

 

[Shogmaster]

So will Blu Ray quality be anything like what I see in over the air HDTV broadcasts?

Because I think broadcast HDTV is a pretty big leap over DVD. It makes me not want to watch my DVDs anymore because the picture doesn't jump out at you like it does with HD.

BR should provide better resolution (1080p vs 720p and 1080i) and better bitrate ( IIRC most broadcast stuff is 20mb/s ish and less affair) than broadcast HD in every situation in theory.

In practice, I expect the quality of the BR releases to be all over the place, and in some cases, less than broadcast HD quality.

 

[Bobbler]

BR should provide better resolution (1080p vs 720p and 1080i) and better bitrate ( IIRC most broadcast stuff is 20mb/s ish and less affair) than broadcast HD in every situation in theory.

In practice, I expect the quality of the BR releases to be all over the place, and in some cases, less than broadcast HD quality.

On average it should be much better. But, just like DVD of today, there is a pretty large difference in quality (a lot of that has to do with old movies being of "low quality") between titles (especially new and old).

 

[iknowall]

This is the whole point of "tweak where needed" and it has nothing to do with GOP.

Not if you are doing a multiple generation rendering.

If you encode a video in mpeg2 and after that you take themovie and recompress it again to "tweak it " the Long GOP format make you lose a lot of quality.

The mpeg2 codec is not made for multiple rendering, every time you render again the same movie, you have a quality loss, and this have all to do with the gop .

It has to do with the fact that automated workflows produce suboptimal quality. An engineer's job is to find scenes with suboptimal quality and adjust the bitrate or other parameters to fix the problem.

Not true.

More comprerssion = more artifact = more work

When you use less compression you have less artifac, and you wont need to find scenes with suboptimal quality and adjust the bitrate or other parameters to fix the problem if there are no problem to fix.

Using an enough hi bitrate like 80mbit sec, you wont have any artifact at all .

So, who was claiming that you could? You're arguing with yourself.

You quoted this from another post putting it total out of his original context.

H.264 can produce better quality than MPEG-2 at both high bit rates and low bit rates. It is better across the board. Objective PSNR studies show it. Subjective perceptual tests show it. Both the SMPTE and ISO/ITU accept this.

If you talk about hi bitrate condition, this is a professional realm and you have alredy professional codec used in those condition.

Dvcpro hd , hdcam sr , avid hd , all of those professional codecs blow h.264 out of the water in temr of quality, and of course blow mpeg2 also.

So why waste time trying to adapt h.264 to do what you can alredy do with those codecs and with a better result ?

It still hasn't stopped people from encoding video with MPEG-2 at 1Mbps or less. There are plenty of PVRs out there that consumers buy in droves which record at <2Mbps with horrible artifacts.

This dont change the fact that it is an mpeg2 limitation , it can't have enough quality with this
bitrate, this is what i stated.

Yes, it is correct. GOP is irrelevent. If an engineer finds that a particular transistion or scene is causing problems, he can either increase VBR bitrate for that section, or apply pre-filters to the video before compression to try and alleviate the problem.

Before the compression, not after. He never stated before the compression, he said
after the compression is alredy done.

here what aaronspink said " When the compressors are done, they then review the actual result and tweak where needed."


If you recompress again the alredy compressed mpeg2 movie you lose a lot of quality
because of the GOP compression so it is relevant

Again, you run off arguing a strawman. No one claimed you'd tweak an "already compressed mpeg-2 video". What's being claimed is that in the process of encoding the master to MPEG-2, many steps are taken. It is not "click and go". The output of a given encoding run is typically reviewed, and then recompressed using the tweaks.

Hum , no , aaronspink stated clearly he was talking about an alredy done compression :

When the compressors are done , they then review the actual result and tweak where needed."

Only because you continue to not slow down, read, and use your brain. You keep making blanket assumptions, like the assumption I am arguing that mpeg-2 artifacts will be fixed by constantly recompressing mpeg-2 recusively instead of going back to the master each time? I mean, how the hell do you come up with such drivel?

If you say "When the compressors are done " to me means when the work is done.

So? The fact that you can see artifacts doesn't mean that video artifacts are worse than audio artifacts. Audio artifacts are in fact, far more psychologically unnerving.

It mean that is pretty easy to see a video artifact when the video became all pixellated,
and with the same compression ratio you may not hear any difference in the audio but you
can tell the difference for the video.

And not only that : if you compress an audio file 10 times with the same bit rate , it will still sound good,
but if you recompress the same video with the mpeg2 codec 10 times it will look like shit, and it will be a lot more easy tell that the video have a visible artifacts and not easy to tell that the audio file was compressed 10 times.


With a multiple rendering video lose a lot more quality than audio.

Compare this to loss of sound, pops and squeaks, and frequency shifts in audio.

This is due to a poor source it is not an effect of the compresssion.
audio shifts are due to a poor mixing, is not an effect of the compression.

Is like if i say compare this to the fact that the video became all green...if the video became green because i made a bad recording this is not a compression defect.

I can't live with mpeg-2 artifacts whether it's small screen or large screen. You practically have to put it on a 9" TV to hide it. Perhaps you mean *POOR QUALITY SMALL SCREEN*. On a 15" LCD screen, viewed at THX recommended distances, the artifacts are still visible.

You dont have any video artifact with mpeg2 at 80Mbit/sec. I had seen by myself a lot of Dcinema movie and i never seen any type of artifact.

You have artifact only at low bitrate with mpeg2.

Don't try to change the discussion because you were proven wrong. Digibeta is irrelevent to the discussion. The discussion is MPEG-2 vs H.264. I compared MPEG-2 to H.264 on a large screen using a large venue digital projector that I own, that outclasses the projectors in many dcinemas,

Sorry but what projectior di you have that outclass the $80,000 D-Cine Premiere DP100 ?
http://www.barco.com/digitalcinema/en/products/product.asp?element=1721

and the result is that H.264 delivers less artifacts than MPEG-2 at the same bitrate. Period.

It will never have less artifact at 80Mbit/sec, period, any dcinema movie i seen never had a single video artifact.

Star wars Episode 3 , I robot, costantine, no one had any visual artifact.

If you say that the Dcinema movies have video artifact what you are saying is pure bullshit.

Irrelevent. No one is going to ship dcinema encoded optical formats.

Very revelant, it is the same codec and a dcinema movie can fit on a 100bg blu ray disk.

Star wars episode 3 is encoded in an 2048x1080 mpeg2hd file with 80mbit/sec, and it take 80 gigabyte.

So with a 100gb blu ray disk you can have a Dcinema movie quality.

Very revelant

They won't even ship 4:2:2 encoded lossy video.

You absolutly have enough space to allow this since star wars episode 3 take about 80 gigabite.

Wuth a 100bg blu ray disk you can fit the same dcinema movie, and if you use half the bitrare to 40mbit/sec, you can store the movie on a 50gb disk.

You are not very clear about what your point is. First you're arguing about how superior MPEG-2 is for Sony in BluRay,

No i argued about how the less compressed mpeg2 give you a better quality at an hi bitrate.

I argued about how a more compressed codec dont give you more picture quality


Sony Pictures’ senior vice president of advanced technology Don Eklund apparently said:

"Advanced (formats) don’t necessarily improve picture quality"

but Sony is shipping bog-standard MPEG-2/4:2:0 at a slightly higher bitrate than ATSC broadcasts. It's not compelling.

Hum no, not in the long period with a 50 and a 100gb blu ray disk availbe in the market.

Yea, outsourcing your work never is.

My work ? what do you think post production studios exist for ?

He did not claim that Sony was going to ARCHIVE their video libraries to MPEG-2 masters. He was talking about the fact that studios have a huge amount of experience starting with analog film material and generating DVDs from them.

But is is absolutly not clear. If you say you move "to digital medium" since most of the library is on 35 film stock, to me means that you move your analog librady to the digital medium, and you digitalize it compressing it to mpeg2.

I am not saying you are wrong, but he was not clear on this point, and add to this the fact that he also said you tewak the video after that compressor have done all the work,
it is even less clear.

Well, that's your poor English ability unable to grasp the nuances of the language. When I wrote computer programs, if I find a bug or issue, I can go back and "tweak it". That means recompilation. It doesn't mean hex-editing binary EXEs.

If you say "When the compressors are done"

Once the compression is done is done.

Not wrong. Disney's desire to for larger media is separate from the codec they to use (Disney wants to put lots of extras and interactive media on the disc), which is going to be based on ECONOMIC considerations, like production costs and availability, not to mention POLITICS. In case you missed it. Disney until recently was firmly in Microsoft's camp, a big supporter of HD-DVD and VC-1 codec. Even though Disney claims they will now support both BluRay and HD-DVD, Disney's IP stake in iHD with Microsoft, and their interest in getting content on Windows Vista and XBox360, virtually assures VC-1.

Nice theory. If you want ot use Vc-1 you wont need a 50bg blu ray disk.

And not only they want that, they stated that they want starting release video only to the the 50bg .

50GB is a pipe dream for launch. Studios haven't even be able to be assured that scratch resistant spin-coated single layer discs can be mass manufactured at affordable prices.

"Panasonic kicks off 50GB Blu-ray production"

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000293071193/


It wont take a log time to see the 50gb begin used.

Of course, because Sony doesn't want to pay patent fees for H.264 of VC-1, whereas Sony owns IP stakes in MPEG-2. It's also cheaper to produce MPEG-2 at the moment.

Cheaper because it is less compressed, it show less artifact and it dont have need a long encoding wher you have to fight aganist the codecs problmes.

Higer is the bit rate, less artifact can appear , more fast cheaper the encoding

 

[aaronspink]

No , every dvd authoring software for example have a fixed bit rate limit you can't use the bitrate you want

This is because the standard take in account the codec limitation and dont allow you to use compression where mpeg2 would give a bad result.

No one encoder can encode in mpeg2 with a 1mbps bitrate without having a video full of artifact.

This is a limitation so don't make sense to say that you can use every type of compression if the codec was not made for that.

there is a limitation, and this limitation is not an hardware limitation, it is a software limitation .

Apparently you've never heard of DVD-SHRINK. So obviously, you can't really be taken for someone with knowledge in this area if you are so incorrect on such a basic thing.

But the compression artifact are much more evident in video than audio.

As they were with early audio compression codecs, things change, technologies change.

This is correct. Mpeg2 was at the start a tv broadcast standard , and after , when the tecnology become cheaper with the dvd it was started to be used in the mass market.

Actually, both MPEG1 and MPEG2 started out as compression research projects. MPEG2 was later picked as the best codec for broadcast at the time.

Dvd video are encoded starting from digibeta tapes.

maybe some, but certainly not all. I know of at least several companies that start from raw uncompressed.

So because you say that " If you can't distinguish it, it doesn't have better quality " this mean that the digibeta master dont have a better quality.

This is pure bullshit.

Quite frankly, if you can't distinguish it, it has the same damn quality. End Stop.

what movie industry real word experience ?

Did you work with film or hd video ?

What hd master have you dealed with ?

Hd d5 ? hdcam ? dvcprohd ? explain

Who needs movie industry experience. This side of the house is all hardware and software. Technologists aren't directors, they aren't actors, they aren't cinematographers. They are just software and hardware people. They try to push things, they sometimes fail, they sometimes take the wrong path, and if they actually speak in PR blurbs, then one of their primary responsabilities is as a PR person.

Mpeg2 is the worst digital medium you can use for move your film stock to a digital format.

Tell my which studious because all the studios i know that work with film make an hd telecine and store the hd uncompressed video in a hd-d5 tape.

This is common practice.

Who said anything about Mpeg2 being their digital archive format? The comment was related to work that has been ongoing at various studios to get their catalog converted into datasets for distrobution via HD-DVD and BR.

If you have need to make a blu ray movie you just take the master and with an mpeg2 encoder you are done

The process to go from digital master to HD-DVD/DVD/BR distrobution formats is much more involved that just grabbing an mpeg2 encoder and being done. There is a significant amount of time spent tweaking the settings, reviewing the output, retweaking the settings, reviewing the output, retweaking action sequences, reviewing the output, tweaking color values, reviewing the output, etc.

I used the post production service to encode my hd-d5 master to mpeg2hd for the dcinema projection.

well woopy doo for you.

Are you serious ?

And you had real work experinece ?

Yes, apparently with much more insight into the consumer distrobution pipeline than you.



Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[aaronspink]

if you econding with a bit rate of the video of 8.99mbit/sec. you dont have need use
a VBR , you can use a single CBR encoding pass.

A) no one uses CBR for any really audio/video compression work as it is absolutely wastefull.
B) even if you were going to be stupid enough to use CBR, you would always do more than 1 pass if you care about quality.

Btw Constant and variable bit have have nothing to do with the fact that the dvd can have a max bitrate of 10.08 Mbps"

And do you know how many DVDs actually have a bit rate of 10.08? ~0%.

Mpeg2 codec look like shit at 1mbps where mpeg4 codec at the same bit rate work better,
and this is a limitation for mpeg2 , so don't make sense to say that you can use every type of compression if in real word situation the codec was not made for that.

new more advanced mpeg2 codecs can look better at 1 mbps than a lot of the codecs using on initial dvd release at 8 and 9 mbps.

You really need to read better also : "When the compressors are done, they then review the actual result and tweak where needed."

You can't tweak where needed with mpeg2 gop compression scheme.

This is pure Bullshit , you can't tweak anything with an alredy compressed mpeg2 video.

If you do every recompression make a loss of quality.

This dont make sense at all.

Thats probably because while you may have used the tools, you obviously don't understand how they work or the proper professional pipeline used for consumer distrobution. As it is apparent that you'll not be enlightened, I won't try to enlighten you.

What you mean by the process is not automatic ?

If i want to make a blur ray disk movie, and i have an hd-d5 master i just send the tape
to the post production studio that make all the ecoding operation.

It is not a complicated process.

Ahh, so apparently it is true. You really know nothing of the process or flows.

Yes aaronspink claimed here that :

"Most studios have done a significant amount of work to move back library and current libraries over to digital medium using MPEG2"

you wont use mpeg2 to get you library over to the digital medium.

You use another format like hd-d5 to move your work to the digital format.

over into MPEG2 for distrobution. As with a large back catalog, the process of converting the source material to the distrobution formats takes quite some time.

Mpeg2 is only a delivery format, you wont make a "significant amount of work" to move your work to a delivery format.

you are quite wrong.


Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[iknowall]

Apparently you've never heard of DVD-SHRINK.
So obviously, you can't really be taken for someone with knowledge in this area if you are so incorrect on such a basic thing.

Apparently you've never heard of HDV, the HDV standard that use an mpeg2hd compression, and never heard about his nightmare editing problems , using DVD-SHRINK like an example for the multiple gop compression quality loss instead of HDV, a standard that everyone with a basic clue in video making know , you can't really be taken for someone with knowledge in this area.



DVD-SHRINK is only a program that let you to rip without recompress the mpeg2 movie and you have the best result , or to recompress it with different compression ratio.


I have a friend that gave me some dvd ripped with DVD-SHRINK ,some are good some look like shit.

The ones that look like shit are the ones that use more compression.

But now let me be serious, and let me use the hdv editing problems to expose the gop problems :



What is hdv and how it work ?

HDV stores 16:9 high definition video on DV tapes, supporting both 720p and 1080i (NTSC and PAL), using MPEG-2 compression for data rates of 19Mbps and 25Mbps respectively, comparable to the bitrates of ordinary DV (25Mbps). Audio is compressed by 75% using MPEG-1 Layer 3.


Too good to be true?


Is this too good to be true? Well, sort of: There is a catch. The video streams over FireWire using an MPEG-2-TS (or "Transport Stream") format. This is a compressed format, which is incompatible with most DV editing software. MPEG compresses clusters of video frames (GOP or group of pictures) together into one stream for delivery. By taking advantage of the similarities between frames (after all, if the sky is blue in frame 1, what color is it likely to be in frame 2?) and compressing them together, MPEG is able to provide significant space saving. This also means that frame-accurate editing is difficult, to say the least. The computer must decompress each group of frames and then the whole thing re-compressed, even for simple timeline previews. MPEG, remember, is also a loss-y compression algorithm, so you can't just keep compressing and decompressing it. Multiple rendering and re-rendering of the video will produce compression legacies that get worse and worse. MPEG also bundles (i.e. muxes) the audio into the compression stream. All this means is it's difficult to edit with traditional editing tools.


http://www.videomaker.com/scripts/article_print.cfm?id=10618

Why don't I want to edit the transport streams?

The Transport Streams/TS files from the camera are MPEG data, containing I, B, and P frames. The nature of the long GOP (group of pictures) format causes generational loss during the encoding/decoding, not to mention that it's very hard on the processor and very slow.


http://www.vasst.com/HDV/hdv-FAQ.htm


Editing with Mpeg2 is not a good idea at all, beleave me.

Infact everithing use an intermediary codec for the editing :

What does the intermediary codec do to the transport stream?

The Cineform Connect HD codec takes the 15 Long GOP and converts it to a proprietary 2 GOP, into a temporal wavelet format. This makes it scalable and a lot more efficient so that the NLE and CPU can process the information easier/more quickly. Read more at the Cineform technology page.

maybe some, but certainly not all. I know of at least several companies that start from raw uncompressed.

When you make a telecine you get an uncompressed video . If you want you can store it to an hard drive and send it to the post lab, but digibeta use a loseless 3:1 codec so you dont lose any quality storing the video on digibeta and it is sure more pratical send a tape than send an hard drive.

Quite frankly, if you can't distinguish it, it has the same damn quality. End Stop.

Same quality nope, the quality loss is still here even if you dont see it.

And if you have to edit it the quality loss became immediatly evident.

Who needs movie industry experience. This side of the house is all hardware and software. Technologists aren't directors, they aren't actors, they aren't cinematographers. They are just software and hardware people. They try to push things, they sometimes fail, they sometimes take the wrong path, and if they actually speak in PR blurbs, then one of their primary responsabilities is as a PR person.

Yeah but if a PR talk about something i do for work , i know if what he say is pr bullshit or not.

Who said anything about Mpeg2 being their digital archive format? The comment was related to work that has been ongoing at various studios to get their catalog converted into datasets for distrobution via HD-DVD and BR.

Well it was not clear what you said.

The process to go from digital master to HD-DVD/DVD/BR distrobution formats is much more involved that just grabbing an mpeg2 encoder and being done. There is a significant amount of time spent tweaking the settings, reviewing the output, retweaking the settings, reviewing the output, retweaking action sequences, reviewing the output, tweaking color values, reviewing the output, etc.

Yes but the most important process is the hd telecine process, this make you have an hd master, and it cost a lot.

With this hd master you can go to wharever format you want.

Yes, apparently with much more insight into the consumer distrobution pipeline than you.
Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

:smile:
But not enough to know Hdv

 

[aaronspink]

Nice theory. If you want ot use Vc-1 you wont need a 50bg blu ray disk.

And not only they want that, they stated that they want starting release video only to the the 50bg .

a 50GB BR disc encoded with VC-1 will give better quality than a 50GB MPEG2 encoded disc.

"Panasonic kicks off 50GB Blu-ray production"

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000293071193/

It wont take a log time to see the 50gb begin used.

Do you not even understand the difference between high cost recordable discs and mass produced pressed discs? Its like talking to the a kid from the short bus.


Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[iknowall]

A) no one uses CBR for any really audio/video compression work as it is absolutely wastefull.
B) even if you were going to be stupid enough to use CBR, you would always do more than 1 pass if you care about quality.

A waste of time is using a Vbr if you want to use an hi quality setting.

having a video that in some part go down to 6 mbit , in other parts go up to 9mbit and in other parts go down to 4 mbit wont give you a better quality than a video that is always at 9mbit/sec.

It all depend how much bitrate you can use, how much dd stream you want to use, ecc.

If you can use a always a bit rate of 9mbit/sec. and you fit the all the disk it dont make any sense trying to a vbr.

And do you know how many DVDs actually have a bit rate of 10.08? ~0%.

You can do by yourself a dvd with a bitrate near 10.08, just buy an hw mpeg2 encoder and the the video at 9.6mit/sec.

new more advanced mpeg2 codecs can look better at 1 mbps than a lot of the codecs using on initial dvd release at 8 and 9 mbps.

Hum, lol, not really.

Explane to me why , if the way to go for quality is to have more compression and less bitrate , the successor of the mpeg2hd 80mbit sec codec used for the Dcinema is jpeg2000 with a 250mbit/sec. bit rate.

Really, why they use a codec that use a less compression and an higer bitrate ? basing on what you say it would means that it is less advanced because it have need to use a bitrate of 250mbit/sec. instead of the 80Mbit of the mpeg2.

The truth is less compression = better quality, and this news is only another confirmation.

Thats probably because while you may have used the tools, you obviously don't understand how they work or the proper professional pipeline used for consumer distrobution. As it is apparent that you'll not be enlightened, I won't try to enlighten you.

Nice try

Sorry but changing argument and not giving me an answare dont make real your statment.

If you say that you tweak after the compression is done, you are going to lose quality.

Ahh, so apparently it is true. You really know nothing of the process or flows.

Not only i know about the floor but more importantly i know what appens before you have need to compress into mpeg2, this is only the final stage, but you have to produce something to have something to send to a post lab dont you ?

over into MPEG2 for distrobution. As with a large back catalog, the process of converting the source material to the distrobution formats takes quite some time.

It is more complicated and more expansive to make a good hd telecine than to compress a digital format into another digital format, this is what take more time.

you are quite wrong.

I am right unless your post production studios sucks

 

[iknowall]

a 50GB BR disc encoded with VC-1 will give better quality than a 50GB MPEG2 encoded disc.

More quality no, less quality but more hour of video yes.

Do you not even understand the difference between high cost recordable discs and mass produced pressed discs? Its like talking to the a kid from the short bus.

Do you not even understand that it is only a matter of time to have the cost go down ?

 

[mckmas8808]

Damnit not this again.

 

[aaronspink]

More quality no, less quality but more hour of video yes.

God, you're dense. Ok, I'm done arguing the point, because you are incapable of reason. Both Democoder and myself have tired to put some understanding in your head, but obviously you are incapable of learning.

Do you not even understand that it is only a matter of time to have the cost go down ?

Do you understand it is only a matter of time until we have 2TB discs at 4Gb/s data rates? Why even bother with compression, lets just wait till then. Costs won't go down fast and dual layer pressed discs will remain expensive. The CAPEX required for BR in the manufacturing processes is stagering and the primary pressing houses have little incentive currently to spend the capital, nor is the primary pressing country likely to even support BR and will most likely go their own way. For the forseeable futuer, its SL BR is bust.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[iknowall]

God, you're dense. Ok, I'm done arguing the point, because you are incapable of reason. Both Democoder and myself have tired to put some understanding in your head, but obviously you are incapable of learning.

I am done with this point also.

With hi bitrare Less compression = more quality , and mpeg2 is less compressed.

the only case where you to get same quality with more compression is with a lossless codec.

A real lossless give you at max a 3:1 compression so when you compress more than
3:1 you start to lose quality.

The fact that the successor of mpeg2hd 80mbit /sec. is a less compressed jpeg2000 with 250mbit/sec. just proff my point.

But with low bitrate things change so that more compression give you more quality because the compression used is more advanced .

At low bitrare mpeg4 look better.

Do you understand it is only a matter of time until we have 2TB discs at 4Gb/s data rates?
[Why even bother with compression, lets just wait till then. Costs won't go down fast and dual layer pressed discs will remain expensive. The CAPEX required for BR in the manufacturing processes is stagering and the primary pressing houses have little incentive currently to spend the capital, nor is the primary pressing country likely to even support BR and will most likely go their own way. For the forseeable futuer, its SL BR is bust.

It's only only a matter of time, if they want to push blue ray over the hd-dvd they have to put out the dual layer on the shortest time they can.

 

[dukmahsik]

HP just dropped support for BR

 

[Joe DeFuria]

HP just dropped support for BR

No, they just announced support for HD-DVD (in addition to BR support).

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2005/051216a.html

In order to provide consumers with the best possible high-definition experience, HP today announced it will support the HD-DVD high-definition DVD format, in addition to the Blu-ray Disc format, and join the HD-DVD Promotions Group.

Previously, HP supported the Blu-ray Disc format exclusively.

 

[Xenus]

That sucks and this doesn't help the format war ending quickly.

 

[mckmas8808]

That sucks and this doesn't help the format war ending quickly.

Yeah you're right. But, when the PS3 comes out things will end pretty quickly.