Will Warner support Blu-ray?

Then, I'll link to my previous post, that says, "boy, you're wrong, all wrong". Since you put so much trust in links, maybe that will convince you.

The fundamental issues is you don't understand the fundamental issues and quote from websites that have nothing to do with any of the discussions at hand.

 

Well, according with you theory they should have used an higer compression than the 20:1, because according to your idiotic theory you get more quality if you compress more the image.

But they use a 5 :1 compression....why ?

Mjpeg video alredy exist you stupid moron. It have a lot of limitation.

First jpeg use a DCT compression over the JPEG2000 is a new wavelet-based compression.

Second, jpeg2000 have a scalable, multi-resolution compression.

Third JPEG2000 offers Region of Interest (ROI) coding. You can define regions within an image which need to be coded with a higher quality than the remaining parts of the image. These ROIs are placed early in the codestream so that they will be decoded or refined first in the decoding process.

And go on a lot of other aspect that i dont waste time to write since you can search by youeself.

Bandwitch is not cheaper, an array of raid disk capable capable to manage the 250Mbit/sec. data rate is absolutly not cheaper than a simple chip that decode a more compressed stream.

You make absolutly no sense.

Simplicity of workflow my ass, having a bigger file make a lot more complicated and expansive all the delivery.

In a real word situation, that you obvious can't know because u talk out of your ass and dont have a real working experinece , you have to delivery the digital copy of the film at all the theaters that will memorize it in the server.

Today you can send it with using a Sat connection that would take a lot of time because the file is very big , or send a capable operator at the theater with the movie memorized with a aspecial program in an hd that will tranfer the movie to the hd of the server of the theater.

Transfer the movie with the hd is sure faster than using a sat connection, but also you have need a specialized person that know how the avica server work and trasfering the movie will also take its time.

Having a so much more bigger file will make all off this a lot more complicated that it is today, using the sat connection would take a whole lot of more time to transfer a single movie , and copying directly to the hd of the theraters server from an external hd will also take a lot of more time.

Yeah and the fact that the quality is better using less compression dont matter at all right ?

It is just a conicidence if you get an higer quality, it was never taked in account.

Infact they go to a lower compression ratio, they go from the 20:1 compression using mpeg2 to a 5:1 compression using mjpeg2000.

If this is not interest in using a less compression ratio i dont know what it is

They dont use JPEG for the same reason why you dont use mpeg1 instead of mpeg2 , mjpeg video have too much limitation.

Then why the go from a 20:1 compression to a 5:1 compressio ?

your ridiculus thesis implies that with the more compression capability with mjpeg2000
they would use more compression instead of less.

But they go from 20:1 to 5:1

So i repeat if they dont care about using less compression why they go from 20:1 to 5:1 ?

Yes it do stupid moron.

The porpoise of DTc is reducing the redundancy of information , DTC delete the video information that are redundancy and you wont notice the difference if they are deleted,
so it make a video smaller and this is a compression.

Also to proof that you can call DTC a compression i give you this quote :

" At the heart of JPEG2000 is a new wavelet-based compression methodology that imparts a number of benefits over the discrete cosine transform (DCT) compression methods used in JPEG.

http://www.us.design-reuse.com/articles/article4595.html

The only one who have no clue here are you that pretend to know more than the sony vicepresindent and than the Ms Vp .

talking out of you ass are not helping your case .

But at hig bitrate those problem are so limited that you wont have any type of artifact to fix.

16 Megabit or megabyte per second ?

If i take an uncompressed master and i encode it at 16mbit/sec. with a 90:1 compression it look like ass compared to the master.

If i take an uncompressed master and i encode it at 16MB/sec that are about 111mbit/sec. with a 13:1 compression
it will sure look near the quality of the original master with such low compression.

But it wont look any better than an mpeg2 video with a 111mbit/sec bitrate. that would look near the quality of the master also.

Wrong

DVCProHD use a 4:2:2 8bit color sampling. Is common knowledge that the dv stantard use an 8Bit color format.

Please get a clue.

Btw give me a comparison where mpeg4 with the same bitrate and color sampling give a better result.

NO the whole reason is to have a cheap digital mastering and editing format , and no mastering format would ever use an intraframe codec.

The only ignorant here is you. Please get a clue.

Dvcprohd dont downsample 1920 x 1080 to 1280 x 1024 , DVCPRO-HD camera
record DVCPRO-HD using a 1280x1080, which gets up-rezzed to 1920x1080

This was done to make a cheaper camera , it is not a limitation of the codec itself.

To make a less expansive 1080p camera panasonic made a camera that instead of recording a full frame 1920 x 1080 record at 1280x1080 which gets up-rezzed to 1920x1080 with the codec.

HDCAM does also records at 1440x1080, which gets up-rezzed to 1920x1080 on playback.

The camera do this internally it is not a limitation of the codec itself.

The only hd camera that record a real 1920 x 1080 resolution is the thomson Viper filmstream camera, please get a clue.

Look moron, google fishing doesn't help you.

I fail to see where your link say what is the advancment at an hi bitrate with no presence of distorsion.

Your link absolutly dont say what type of video artifact mpeg4 can fix making the video better with a video that dont have any video artifact to fix.

Your statement is trivially wrong if you dont specity that compression ratio you use.

It will be equal starting from a point, it may be a very low compression point but it is still here unless the codec do something magic.

I dont have need a link, mpeg2 at hi bitrate is used in the dcinema and the video dont have any type of video artifact.

I dont have need a link to proff something that EXIST and averyone that dont beleave me can go and see by hisself.

YOU are the one making the claims that Mpeg4 at the same 80Mbit/sec. bitrare can make the video even looking better, so provide a link that state that mpeg4 can improve quality in a video that is alredy perfect lookin.

provide a link that state what type of video artifact mpeg4 can fix making the video better with a video that dont have any video artifact to fix.

 

"TDK touts 100GB recordable Blu-ray Disc"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/19/tdk_four-layer_bd/

The disk exist, when will be on the mass market i dont know, but it is only a question of time.

 

The fundamental issues is you don't understand is that someone who talk out of his ass
dont have more credibility than someone that acctually do this in practice for work.

You can say that mpeg4 give a better result at 80Mbit/sec. because "democode say so" but this don't change the fact that when i send an hd-d5 master for the dcinema encoding i have the best result using the mpeg2hd codec.

He dont do this for work, nor he work in the movie industry, so to me that i actually had real work experience in the industry he dont' have any credibility compared to someone who do this for real.

The only fact to say "this is true because democode say so" don't make his argomentation valid nor true.

This is not a random quote taken from a website or a "google fishing" , this is a real word statement made from a Ms Vp that actually do this for work :

 

The sheer display of blockheadedness must be some sort of record, I have to admit that I have never seen someone so wrong argue so much about something you clearly know so little while claiming to be some sort of industry expert.

/salute

 

Thread Locked

This thread is going nowhere.
It's just the same same arguments reformulated again and again, in a more passive-agressive form each time.

If there's new info about Blue-Ray or if someone want to discuss the interest of the format, with regards to video games, just start a new thread.