H
houston
Guest
.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
[LOL] hd-dvd is totally dead
- Thread starter Darmok & Jalad
- Start date
More options
Who Replied?using bluetooth for a remote is retarded. i hate that sony did that for the ps3.
why? I've used bluetooth for a remote on my mythtv machine, and I loved the fact that I didn't have to have line of sight to the machine for it to work.
Yes, this did happen with the first few BD movies that came out.
ok, good I am not crazy then. so what the hell, when did blu-ray switch to h.264? Wouldn't the first blu-ray players be built to handle large MPEG-2 files and only that? You need some hefty hardware to play anything full HD with h.264 so to all of a sudden support it seems weird to me. That is a HUGE change. If Blu-ray had H.264 playability from the get go, then why in the hell didn't all releases use it from the get go?
Silverspirit
Veteran X
because you don't need cutting-edge compression when you have 50GB available
Silverspirit
Veteran X
all i know is what ive read
http://www.burnworld.com/blu-ray/ said:Initial versions of Sony's Blu-ray Disc-authoring software only included support for MPEG-2 video, so the initial Blu-ray Discs were forced to use MPEG-2 rather than the newer codecs, VC-1 and H.264. An upgrade was subsequently released supporting the newer compression methods so the second wave of Blu-ray Disc titles were able to make use of this. The choice of codecs affects disc cost (due to related licensing/royalty payments) as well as program capacity. The two more advanced video codecs can typically achieve twice the video runtime of MPEG-2. When using MPEG-2, quality considerations would limit the publisher to around two hours of high-definition content on a single-layer (25 GB) BD-ROM.
For someone who owns a nice harmony remote, it sucks.
And when do you not have line of sight? You need BT just in case you want to change chapters while in the kitchen or some shit? It really makes no sense.
I run into problems w/ IR on my VCR/DVD combo unit as well as my DirecTV box having to move the controller around until it changes/lets me move the cursor around on dvd menu. Especially with the dvd player being on the bottom of my entertainment unit (since it's the least used).
For someone who owns a nice harmony remote, it sucks.
And when do you not have line of sight? You need BT just in case you want to change chapters while in the kitchen or some shit? It really makes no sense.
My receiver, dvd player, and PVR are all behind where I sit. I use a projector.
all i know is what ive read
thanks for the copypasta, it shed some light... ok, so how many BR titles actually use modern video codecs if licensing costs are such a concern... anyone here have any idea? my first guess is longer films the publisher wanted to keep to a single BR Disc.
Silverspirit
Veteran X
Blu-ray Disc Statistics
edit: hadn't seen this page as of a few minutes ago, it's fucking cool. there's one for hd-dvd, too. Proportionately, Blu-ray has MUCH more mpeg2 titles, though it seems like that's being caused by the early releases
edit: hadn't seen this page as of a few minutes ago, it's fucking cool. there's one for hd-dvd, too. Proportionately, Blu-ray has MUCH more mpeg2 titles, though it seems like that's being caused by the early releases
Last edited:
thanks for the copypasta, it shed some light... ok, so how many BR titles actually use modern video codecs if licensing costs are such a concern... anyone here have any idea? my first guess is longer films the publisher wanted to keep to a single BR Disc.
So realistically, Blu-Ray could potentially cost less than its HD counterpart because they could use MPEG2 to fit it in 25GB whereas it would not be possible on a 15GB HD disc. Another check for Blu-Ray! BRING IT FANBOIS!
Silverspirit
Veteran X
that's true if you're making home movies for high def storage and want to use mpeg2 because it's faster to encode and maybe the software is cheaper or something, but as a consumer you'll want movie studios to use AVC or VC-1 even if they can get away with mpeg2 because the video quality will be better
i think the prevalence of mpeg2 blu-rays is just a result of unpreparedness on sony's part
i think the prevalence of mpeg2 blu-rays is just a result of unpreparedness on sony's part
that's true if you're making home movies for high def storage and want to use mpeg2 because it's faster to encode and maybe the software is cheaper or something, but as a consumer you'll want movie studios to use AVC or VC-1 even if they can get away with mpeg2 because the video quality will be better
i think the prevalence of mpeg2 blu-rays is just a result of unpreparedness on sony's part
Don't start spewing the bullshit to argue your side. MPEG2 does not compress as well, that does not mean the video quality is lower. If anything, the opposite is likely (but probably not) to be true.
edit:
Sound and Vision Magazine - MPEG-2 vs. MPEG-4?
Performing a similar controlled and fair test using the new high-definition discs will be equally daunting, which is why you won't likely see many. Of particular interest this time around is the decision by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment to use DVD-type MPEG-2 video encoding in early Blu-ray discs — especially since they raised the issue at a recent press event. While Sony plans to use MPEG-2 for Blu-ray — albeit at bit rates several times higher than used on DVDs — HD DVD's backers will be relying primarily on the newer AVC codec (a.k.a. H.264 or MPEG-4 Part 10) or the Microsoft VC-1 codec. While any of the three codecs can be used with either disc system, Sony claimed that their high-bit rate MPEG-2 encoding produces more artifact-free video than the others, at least for now.
Sony indeed showed a remarkably clean — but not absolutely artifact-free — MPEG-2 encoding of some movie excerpts, including one from A Knight's Tale. But the company did not demonstrate Sony's MPEG-2 encoding against AVC or VC-1. The company merely showed a table of results from a Japanese test in which viewers were shown MPEG-2 and AVC at various bit rates. At a very high bit rate of 24 megabits per second (Mbps), Sony said, 100% of the viewers found the MPEG-2 high-def video quality "acceptable," against 70% who found AVC acceptable. At a more realistic bit rate of 20 Mbps, MPEG-2's edge shrank to just 5% (60% vs. 55% who found AVC acceptable). That's a small difference that might easily be accounted for by a host of factors known to influence visual-codec tests (such as the choice of program material). The scary part is that even 60% "acceptability" is below what I was hoping either of the new systems would provide, assuming these are scientifically valid results.
Last edited: