"HD DVD" Capacity Increase Challenges "Blu-ray Disc"

[Jerry Jones]

The June 2006 issue of POPULAR MECHANICS featured this sad, but true article:

http://tinyurl.com/f5o58

So you just bought an HDTV. You laid down serious cash for your new set, upgraded your tuner box and hooked it all into your surround-sound system. Then you turned it on and tuned into a whole new era of disappointment. Those HD pictures don't look as good as they should. The image breaks up into little blocks. Fast-moving objects aren't crisp. And standard-definition TV programs look like garbage. Is it your TV? Is it the fault of your cable or satellite company? The truth is that it could be either, or both. HDTV is still an evolving technology and plenty of glitches make it onto the screen. Some problems can be fixed with a simple adjustment, while others should send you back to the store with receipt in hand. And many problems have nothing to do with your set at all. Here's your troubleshooting guide.

More aspirin, please.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

Jerry,

Let's take X3.

If we met somewhere and set up a good 1080p capable monitor, let's say 42" or better, and play the SD DVD and the BR version of X3 side-by-side I bet you 9 out of 10 people would say the BR version looks better.

Do you disagree?

In fact we could shoot some video on a good HD camcorder and play it back HD and SD and do the same test and 9 out of 10 would say the HD looks better.

Do you disagree?

HD disc technology is still in it's infancy. Yes there are a lot of bad titles out there, and bad over the air and cable content. But there is also good content and it's getting better every day.

Apples-to-apples I'm talking about the BEST the each technology has to offer today.

DVD has been tweaked to the nth degree while HD-DVD and BR are on a rapid increase in quality. Of course there are going to be more bad examples of the newer technology.

You speak of the all the problems with BR but as I see them right now it's only availablity and price.

If I had a BR player I could play ANY BR title on my computer no problem.

To my eyes good HD looks a hell of a lot better than good DVD.

If you think I'm crazy then fine that's just my opinion. It's possible to find bad HD just as there was a lot of bad DVD when that format launched.

On the other hand if you take a well encoded CD and play it back on a hi-end system, and the same program using hi-res audio and most people will have problems distinguishing between the two.

I stand by my original statement. HD looks better than SD. And of course that assume equal production value. If you did not assume that then it would be impossible to make any value judgements on anything!

[Hulk]

Jerry,

What are you trying to convice me of?

DVD's are a better format than any HD disc format because there are problems with the new technology? So we should NEVER move ahead because, "oh my God!" there might be some problems!" We better stay with what we know works and never even THINK of moving to something better.

No, a few crappy Best Buy demos don't make me forget about all the great demos I've seen. Or the football game I watched at my cousin's house on Christmas Eve on their middle of the road HDTV set on an over-the-air broadcast that made everyone there (40+) gasp at how good it looked.

Sorry but that's real world and people are buying these things for a reason.

No way you are going to convince me to plant my feet and never admit something new, although a little rough around the egdes at first, is worth pursuing.

No amount of quotes, negative reviews, or other opinion articles is going to convince me that good HD doesn't look better than good SD. Period end of story.

[Hulk]

And that Sanyo camera IS crap.

There are still a lot of crap SD cams out there too. But since the miniDV format is well developed so most are decent.

But I'm not going to damn a format based on a bad camera design!

Weren't you recently pushing FOR H.264 for camera recording????

[Jerry Jones]

No way you are going to convince me to plant my feet and never admit something new, although a little rough around the egdes at first, is worth pursuing. No amount of quotes, negative reviews, or other opinion articles is going to convince me that good HD doesn't look better than good SD. Period end of story.

Mark,

You seem to exhibit a classic Pollyanna attitude toward high definition.

The fact of the matter, Mark, is that high definition -- as it's being dished out to consumers with many models of HDTVs and with ATSC broadcasting weaknesses and with shortcuts taken by cable/satellite providers -- isn't "all that."

This type of mass-marketed high definition isn't a quantum improvement, Mark.

And you darn well know it.

Tell you what.

Stop by my place here in Boise, if you ever get the chance and I'll show you something astonishing.

I have two TV sets sitting side-by-side.

TV #1 is a 26" HDTV with enough resolution to support 720p and that's all one needs to watch a 720p football broadcast on either FOX or ABC.

TV #2 is a 26" standard definition TV with an ATSC tuner that down-converts 720p to widescreen 480i.

OK?

Now, guess which one looks the best?

I can tell you for a fact that the standard definition TV actually delivers a picture that I personally prefer and I suspect many would agree with me that it has an edge.

Now, the HDTV flat-panel screen model doesn't deliver a "terrible" picture.

But this is the point I would attempt to drive home to you: resolution is a double-edged sword.

The HDTV -- if you sit closer than 6 feet -- shows all manner of hard-edged pixel artifacts that seem to be a weakness of the high definition encoders being used by the broadcasters.

The standard definition TV -- if you sit closer than 6 feet -- does not show the artifacts.

If you sit farther than six feet from either screen, then they seem to tie.

Larger screens -- you bet -- high definition's resolution begins to pay off.

But the smaller HDTVs being sold in stores today?

Well, we have a saying here in Idaho, Mark.

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

And that's the message I leave with the marketing folks who are shoving high definition to the masses.

When push comes to shove, the really good stuff simply costs too much for most people.

And that's why your seemingly Pollyanna attitude toward HD sometimes irritates and annoys.

I'll leave you with one more thought.

If you compare a professional standard definition DV camcorder with three 2/3" CCDs with a semi-pro HDV camcorder with three 1/3" CCDs, then you'll soon see why format frame size does not make up for a small sensor.

If somebody were to offer me two camcorders... an HDV model with a 1/3" CCD vs. a standard definition model with a 2/3" CCD, I would take the standard definition camcorder in a heartbeat.

Frame size does not necessarily constitute high picture quality.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

By the way, as you've said, the larger, more expensive HDTVs with the best internal processing do deliver fantastic high definition pictures, but they're bloody expensive, but even then the entire production chain must not contain an error.

Everything has to be done right to make truly good HD pictures.

And as the AnandTech articles point out, people pretty much have to buy...

a. a new graphics card minimum

...but more likely...

b. a entirely new computer system to even begin to play -- let alone edit -- HD clips.

And even after buying the fastest computer on the market, you soon realize that even that probably isn't going to deliver truly good editing performance.

So can you at least acknowledge that those of us who aren't as excited as you about high definition have some valid reasons for our lack of enthusiasm?

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

And that Sanyo camera IS crap.

There are still a lot of crap SD cams out there too. But since the miniDV format is well developed so most are decent.

But I'm not going to damn a format based on a bad camera design!

Weren't you recently pushing FOR H.264 for camera recording????

Yes, I'm far more enthusiastic about H.264 MPEG-4 than plain old MPEG-4.

The point I was trying to make is that "high definition" must be well done.

Otherwise, I don't want it.

In fact, there's no way I would buy the SANYO HD1 or HD1a over a decent standard definition MiniDV camcorder.

On the other hand, if the forthcoming SANYO HD2's new imager truly improves the product -- and the reviews by sites such as CamcorderInfo.Com verify that improvement -- then I might pick one up because the .MP4 files can be edited by today's computers with the convenience of flash media recording.

1. Convenience (flash media recording);

2. A format that can be edited by today's software;

3. No need to buy a new computer or a new graphics display;

4. Small and light for backpacking.

I can see why backpackers -- in particular -- might buy the HD2 if the image quality has truly been improved.

But -- yes -- H.264 is the future.

Unfortunately, it's going to be some time before computers catch up with that format.

So my advice would be to sit back and wait for computers to get truly fast enough and for software to be updated to support the format.

They may only take eight to twelve more months.

On the other hand, it may take two or three years.

Haven't you noticed how the software companies tease us with incremental releases that don't include all of the features we really need?

So they stick us with a series of updates that add to the cost of upgrading to the point where you have to be a member of the Bill Gates family to afford this insane hobby.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Dr Mordrid]

Rememer how we captured/exported/played high quality SD MJPeg on Pentium 133's? Put IntraAVC, VC1 or H.264 versions on graphics cards and the issue resolves in a minute. Do the encoding/decoding in the programmable pixel shaders and it's faster than realtime.

IMO lose MPEG-2. Properly done VC1 and H.264 make it look lame anyhow.

[Jerry Jones]

Rememer how we captured/exported/played high quality SD MJPeg on Pentium 133's? Put IntraAVC, VC1 or H.264 versions on graphics cards and the issue resolves in a minute. Do the encoding/decoding in the programmable pixel shaders and it's faster than realtime.

IMO lose MPEG-2. Properly done VC1 and H.264 make it look lame anyhow.

Agree that VC1 or H.264 is the best method.

The graphics display idea is good, but it's still probably going to force those of us who have switched to laptops to buy a new computer.

I wonder if Matrox is working on such a solution.

If so, would Matrox force us to convert to Adobe Premiere Pro?

Remember how Matrox got many of us started with Ulead MediaStudio Pro only to end the relationship with Ulead and then pressure us to buy Adobe Premiere Pro?

Same with Canopus.

Canopus bundled initially with Ulead MediaStudio Pro and then ended the relationship with Ulead and tried to force everybody to go with Adobe Premiere (or the then limited Canopus editing software).

The misery associated with all of that is one reason why I'm now inclined to go MACINTOSH.

If I'm again put into a position where I have to buy a new computer to enjoy high definition, then I would be inclined to upgrade to a hardware/software combination that is designed to work specifically for the task and will be supported well into the future with no pressure to switch to a new NLE at the drop of a hat as was the case with Matrox and Canopus.

The Windows-based PC world -- where video is concerned -- always seems to be in a state of endless turmoil and change.

Endless hardware/software conflicts.

Endless battling between competing hardware/software vendors.

I remember situations on the Canopus board where Adobe would blame Canopus and Canopus would blame Adobe and they would fight it out on the board.

Then there's the notorious Pinnacle (now Avid).

Oh, my head aches when I think about the misery that Pinnacle has inflicted on the poor video editing masses.

I guess I'm one of the "tired" consumers.

Apple seems to offer the best hope for those of us in need of rest.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

Jerry,

First I want to say that I do enjoy our discussions. And I appreciate the invite to your place!

You have been on a mission for quite some time now to inform people that the move to HD, and by that I mean HD camcorders and displays is NOT a cost or performance positive endeavor for many people these days.

The technology is new. There is a lot of bad product out there and the label "HD" doesn't mean better. I agree. And I also agree that people should be WELL EDUCATED on what they are getting into and it's performance before jumping in with both feet and their wallet.

I just want to make it absolutely clear to you that I agree with you on those points.

I have also seen many terrible HDTV demos. And I know the macroblocking and random on and off switching of pixels you are talking about.

But I have also seen quite a few good examples my friend and that is where our opinions part ways. I see lots of potential in HD and I see lots of people using it today that are extremely happy with the results. And I am seeing more and more good HD all the time. And it doesn't cost $10000 to make it happen like it did a few years ago. I've seen some very good LCD's in the 40+ inch range for under $4000. Still a lot of money I grant you that.

If you have a crappy feed then as we say in the audio biz "garbage in garbage out." It doesn't matter what is downstream. But with good source material and a good monitor the results are absolutely stunning.

I am very close to going HD myself. I'm in the process of finishing my basement and I'm building a home theater. If I go out and buy an expensive LCD, bring it home, plug it into my Comcast box and get crap you can bet I'll take it back and post all about it on this forum!

HD is here to stay.

[Hulk]

Agree that VC1 or H.264 is the best method.

The Windows-based PC world -- where video is concerned -- always seems to be in a state of endless turmoil and change.

Endless hardware/software conflicts.

Endless battling between competing hardware/software vendors.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

I've had quite a different experience than you I must say. My XP box is faster than anything you can buy off the shelf that isn't overclocked and it cost me $1200. It's totally stable. Not a crash since I built it. Just as my last PC was for the 4 years I used it.

I use the Firepod to record and playback multichannel audio, Vegas to edit and capture, and am loving it.

[Jerry Jones]

You have been on a mission for quite some time now to inform people that the move to HD, and by that I mean HD camcorders and displays is NOT a cost or performance positive endeavor for many people these days. The technology is new. There is a lot of bad product out there and the label "HD" doesn't mean better. I agree. And I also agree that people should be WELL EDUCATED on what they are getting into and it's performance before jumping in with both feet and their wallet. I just want to make it absolutely clear to you that I agree with you on those points. I have also seen many terrible HDTV demos. And I know the macroblocking and random on and off switching of pixels you are talking about. But I have also seen quite a few good examples my friend and that is where our opinions part ways.

Actually, it seems we now are in agreement.

Truly well done HD is great; I don't deny that.

Unfortunately, the "gotchas" facing consumers are numerous and well documented and I think some people are jumping on the high definition bandwagon far too early and I suspect they're eventually going to be disappointed.

I know from experience.

I spent $2,700 on a JVC JY-HD10 HDV camcorder and I now consider that the worst investment I've ever made in my life; I could kick myself for sinking that amount of cash into that camcorder, but I got suckered by the high definition hype.

For me...

1. processors need to get much faster

2. stand alone players need to support all interactive features

3. drives need to get cheaper and faster

4. internal image processing of lower-cost HDTV monitors needs to improve

5. software needs to support H.264 editing

...and I can go on and on.

Until this happens, good standard definition isn't such a bad thing.

The 80s and the 90s weren't so long ago and that's when I was working in local TV.

We would have been amazed by the standard definition digital technology available to consumers today.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

Standard definition is definitely NOT a bad thing. I was kind of amazed last night I taped "24" on my 5 year old VCR (SP speed) and the picture on my 32" tube JVC looked pretty darn good. As you said, until screen sizes get pretty big, say 32-35" SD holds up really well.

And yes there is a way to go for HD to be "there." As you know everyone has a different perception of when it's worth it.

I think that initial taste of HD you got with the HD10 really set you off on the wrong experience with HD. That's a lot of money and I'd be pissed off to with the quality of that cam.

[Jerry Jones]

Standard definition is definitely a bad thing. I was kind of amazed last night I taped "24" on my 5 year old VCR (SP speed) and the picture on my 32" tube JVC looked pretty darn good. I think that initial taste of HD you got with the HD10 really set you off on the wrong experience with HD. That's a lot of money and I'd be pissed off to with the quality of that cam.

Did you intend to type definitely "not" a bad thing?

Well, I use the JVC JY-HD10 as an example, but it's not the only example.

Speaking of the JVC JY-HD10, you may remember that when I had that camcorder I attempted to encode the 720p clips to NTSC DVD and I ran into all kinds of problems: http://tinyurl.com/38mtrn

Well, it seems there's a reason.

And there's no way I could have known -- in advance -- about this problem, which should serve as a warning to those who might be considering high definition 720p camcorders that do not have the capability of shooting at 60 frames per second.

Have a look at this article:

Link to Digital Content Producer: http://tinyurl.com/2ojg4f

When shooting HD, the camera captures 30 progressive frames per second — half the temporal rate of 720p HD broadcasts. The NTT “SuperENC” MPEG-2 decoder/encoder chip is primarily responsible for the low frame rate. Some shooters will like the low rate because it is close to 24fps, thereby providing what they consider a “filmic” look. Others will dislike the look, as rapidly moving objects — or non-moving objects when one pans too quickly — appear as “double objects.” The name for this visual artifact is “eye tracking,” and it is generated within our eyes. The double images are not recorded to tape. Our eyes create the artifact from moving objects within a series of images where every frame is repeated — as it is when 720p30 is converted by the camcorder to 720p60 for display. (Just as when film is projected using a double-bladed shutter.) Although the artifact can't be eliminated, you can minimize it by locking the shutter-speed at 1/60 second — a speed equivalent to a film camera set to a 180-degree shutter. JVC recommends locking a 1/30 shutter speed that masks the artifact by creating so much motion blur — from the very slow shutter — that the two objects blur into one. While I prefer the former solution, my testing showed that any shutter speed from 1/30 to 1/60 second is equally acceptable. Another alternative is to shoot 480p60, native 16:9, SD video because it is free of eye-tracking artifacts. While image resolution is visibly lower, SD (like HD) is free of both interlace and NTSC artifacts.

I just stumbled across this article yesterday.

And it explains why my down-conversions to DVD NTSC looked so incredibly bad.

Sure there are "workarounds," but when one plunks down $2,700 for a single-chip high definition camcorder, one expects a lot better.

And none of this was known prior to my buying the camcorder.

It's this kind of "GOTCHA" that I've learned to despise about high definition hype.

Too little is revealed to the consumer until after the purchase.

The same kinds of things are happening -- not just with camcorders -- but with so-called editing solutions, displays, drives, players, etc.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Standard definition is definitely a bad thing. I was kind of amazed last night I taped "24" on my 5 year old VCR (SP speed) and the picture on my 32" tube JVC looked pretty darn good. As you said, until screen sizes get pretty big, say 32-35" SD holds up really well.

At the university where I work, we have the classrooms equipped with those old rear projection "big screen" standard definition TVs.

They work well enough for displaying video of the students that might be in a class in another city.

Or they work well enough for displaying video of the professor who might be teaching from another city.

But they don't work so well for displaying computer screen images... PowerPoint presentations, Web CT images, Web site images, etc.

That's where high definition would be helpful.

When I was working at the City of Boise Public Works Department, I sometimes found it frustrating when working with one civil engineer, in particular.

He was a civil engineer... not a digital signal processing engineer... so he seemed to be woefully ignorant of technology limitations.

My job -- in his view -- was to overcome those technical limitations!

In other words, he couldn't understand my explanations about why his amazingly complex GIS computer-generated map images would not display well when projected by a projector with limited resolution.

He made me feel as if I was deliberately slacking off. (Ha!)

It was quite uncomfortable because he just couldn't seem to grasp the concept of digital screen resolution and associated scaling issues.

I thought to myself "This guy is an engineer and he doesn't get it."

Finally, I directed the GIS guy to export vector-based file types, which I then converted to Adobe Acrobat files, which I then projected.

I could then zoom-in on detailed areas within these amazingly complex GIS maps during the projection.

A high definition projector would have been most helpful, but I wonder if even that kind of resolution might not have been sufficient for such detailed maps.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net