Next-Gen DVD Split By Two Competing Standards

[Ray Austin]

Blu-Ray may be feeling a little blue???

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20031114S0001

[Brian Ellis]

Typical! DVD±R all over again.

Not that I ever believed Blu-Ray to be a good idea, anyway, (see my past posts on the subject) for just the same reasons cited in the last paragraph.

[wkulecz]

Its not DVD+/- all over agian, this is much worse. DVD+ vs DVD- was basically a dispute of the fine print details of laying down the bits as the proliferation of combo burners attests.

This is gaining capacity by tweaking the existing method of laying down the bits and using higher compression, vs a new method of storing much more bits per disk and staying with the about same compression.

My bias is towards more real bits on a disk with less compression, but if HD-DVD players are compatible with existing disks, are noticibly better than current DVDs with HD DVD, and cost less it'll be the short term winner.

The long term winner will be set by which format can line up HDTV content and deliver the best HDTV picture quality while successfully addressing the consumer demand for "time-shift" recording.

Once you start seeing good quality real HDTV its hard to go back to anything less.

--wally.

[Brian Ellis]

OK, perhaps not DVD±R, but mini-DV v D8. or VHS-C v Sony 8 or VHS v Betamax or audio cassette v. 8 track

Isn't it amazing that one Japanese company and one Dutch company, in concert, always seem to be the ones that are involved in trying to impose (and sometimes succeeding, sometimes not) THEIR new standards. This is often more commercial bulldozing than clever technology, even where there are significant advances.

[Ray Austin]

Well actually I think it's good, mainly for price pressures. If there was only one choice we'd be stuck paying whatever, but when there's more than one choice that typically puts price pressure on the more costlier of the two... in this instance it's Blu-Ray.

Your normal average consumer would not be able to afford it.

I also agree about the compression thing to a degree but I think eventually compression will be a good thing. For one look at AC3 audio. That is simply astonishing compared to even MP3 bit rates.

Compression for video is really still in it's infancy. With in another 5- 10yrs we should see some incredible advances in compression technology... not to mention RT conversion. It's where we are headed.

By that time we be complaining about spending 3,000 for a plastic screen that you can fold up and put it in your back pocket.

Competition is a good thing... it should make you a conscious buyer tho' and not the first to buy the newest thing to come out.

[dZeus]

Originally posted by Ray Austin
Well actually I think it's good, mainly for price pressures. If there was only one choice we'd be stuck paying whatever, but when there's more than one choice that typically puts price pressure on the more costlier of the two... in this instance it's Blu-Ray.

Your normal average consumer would not be able to afford it.

I also agree about the compression thing to a degree but I think eventually compression will be a good thing. For one look at AC3 audio. That is simply astonishing compared to even MP3 bit rates.

Compression for video is really still in it's infancy. With in another 5- 10yrs we should see some incredible advances in compression technology... not to mention RT conversion. It's where we are headed.

By that time we be complaining about spending 3,000 for a plastic screen that you can fold up and put it in your back pocket.

Competition is a good thing... it should make you a conscious buyer tho' and not the first to buy the newest thing to come out.

OT: I'm wondering what this astonishing thing is about AC3 compared to MP3, since I'm not seeing it.

I hope the standard with the highest storage capacity wins. MPEG2 is proven technology for superb image quality. Most/All MPEG4 implementations I've seen to date sacrifice too much detail to cut down the bitrate.

[Ray Austin]

Originally posted by dZeus
OT: I'm wondering what this astonishing thing is about AC3 compared to MP3, since I'm not seeing it.

I hope the standard with the highest storage capacity wins. MPEG2 is proven technology for superb image quality. Most/All MPEG4 implementations I've seen to date sacrifice too much detail to cut down the bitrate. [/B]

What is astonishing is the file size, you currently can't fit 2hrs of good quality video on a DVD without AC3. Am I right???

The statement you made about Mpeg2 is proven technology for superb image quality is decieving. I've seen plenty of bad Mpeg2 image quality. The image quality of Mpeg2 is mainly depended upon three underlying factors.

• Master video 1st generation.
• Bit-Rate
• How it was encoded? { IE multiple pass software, single pass high rate hardware, etc.}

encoders have come a long way in just 2 yrs... so if you follow that curve... well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

[dZeus]

Originally posted by Ray Austin
What is astonishing is the file size, you currently can't fit 2hrs of good quality video on a DVD without AC3. Am I right???

ok, where does the fact that DD/DTS was chosen as compression standard (AC3 is only the container format, not the compression technique) for DVD have influence on it's supposedly superiority to MP3? It doesn't, and I can also tell you that it's not superior to MP3. Give me one credible source which states that DD sounds better than MP3 at the same bitrate.

The statement you made about Mpeg2 is proven technology for superb image quality is decieving. I've seen plenty of bad Mpeg2 image quality. The image quality of Mpeg2 is mainly depended upon three underlying factors.

• Master video 1st generation.
• Bit-Rate
• How it was encoded? { IE multiple pass software, single pass high rate hardware, etc.}

encoders have come a long way in just 2 yrs... so if you follow that curve... well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

thank you for proving my point. Right now, MPEG2 encodes look better at the same bitrate, so why use MPEG4?

[Marshmallowman]

MPEG2 encodes look better at the same bitrate

Not from what I have seen,

[dZeus]

Originally posted by Marshmallowman
Not from what I have seen,

did you encode with the same quantization matrix? I've done that, and it always gave bigger filesizes

[Ray Austin]

Originally posted by dZeus
ok, where does the fact that DD/DTS was chosen as compression standard (AC3 is only the container format, not the compression technique) for DVD have influence on it's supposedly superiority to MP3? It doesn't, and I can also tell you that it's not superior to MP3. Give me one credible source which states that DD sounds better than MP3 at the same bitrate.

Well, hmm that's pretty easy... take a look at any movie theatre...most use DD/DTS, go browse at bestbuy in the car audio dept or even the home audio dept. Not to mention DD recieves royalties on the encoder... {It's not cheap}

Most if not all Hollywood produced DVD's contain AC3.

thank you for proving my point. Right now, MPEG2 encodes look better at the same bitrate, so why use MPEG4?

I'm sorry how was I proving your point? I don't know what you are asking why we shouldn't use Mpeg4. I haven't said anything about Mpeg4.

You said that you thought Mpeg2 was a superior format in which I replied that it depends on the Three things I listed. I could easily make crappy Mpeg2 footage just by lowering the bit-rate. So don't proclaim that hands down Mpeg2 footage is the best. It isn't the worst, but it depends on all the three things I listed.

MP3 audio format is a good format for playing music files and such, but to say it is superior to AC3? I think that's a long shot at best, 'cause if it were there would be no such thing as DD at this moment. All you have to do is look around.

[Brian Ellis]

It is impossible to compare MPEG2 and MPEG4 without qualifying the subject content. The compression works so differently. If you are filming Schumi at Brands Hatch or Monza, then the subject-oriented compression of MPEG4 is infinitely superior; if you are filming a bucolic country scene where the only movements are the ripples on the water and the waving of a willow branch in the summer zephyrs, then MPEG4 is inefficient, assuming equivalent quality settings, of course. To try and compare them is like comparing apples and oranges. Both are round, about the same size, often not-dissimilar colours, but they're mighty different inside, even if they both give you the pip.