"Blu-ray Disc" vs. "HD DVD": Neither Is Winning

[Jerry Jones]

Tjalfe,

How many times do I have to drive home this point?

It's you and people like you who claim Blu-ray's 1080 capability is the reason it's so great.

Yet, we find out that there is virtually no 1080/60p acquisition, recording, editing, output for Blu-ray because the world's video production industry and the broadcast world have not even advanced to the point where 1080/60p is a viable option.

So that leaves us with film.

And film is shot at 24 frames per second.

So -- given the fact that 720p cameras with recording, editing, and output *are* available in the 720/60p format, can you finally -- finally -- understand why the Apple TV's 720p high definition movies are plenty good enough for those of us who see 720p as the best value proposition?

In addition, the reason many of us don't go out and blow a wad of cash on a 1080p TV is due to the fact there's no sign the camera industry is going to offer us 1080 at a full 60 frames per second to make our investment in such screens worthwhile.

In other words, the only benefit of a 1080p screen is that you get to watch a relatively small number of Blu-ray titles in the 1080/24p format... and that's it.

You can't buy a camera that will acquire, record, and output 1080p @ 60 frames per second, so the only benefit of buying that much screen is to watch a relatively small number of Blu-ray titles... @ 24 frame per second.

For me and many others, that negates the value of spending extra for a 1080p screen.

To realize the full benefit of a 60 frames per second acquisition such as sports, we can be completely satisfied with lower cost 720p screens.

Unfortunately, many people buy 1080 *only* because the number "1080" is bigger than the number "720" and that's a silly reason to buy a 1080 set, in my view.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

We are discussing movie playback.. no?.. the little disks which you claim are dead. this was not a discussion about broadcast TV.

[Jerry Jones]

But don't you see, Brian?

*Film* is shot at 24 frames per second!

But, in my view and in the view of many videographers, *video* recorded by both professional and consumer cameras should be *acquired* and *edited* and *output* at 60 frames per second!

This is why the 720p format makes the most sense for *many* of us.

And the fact that there is virtually no 1080/60p acquisition, recording, editing, and output renders your Blu-ray Disc argument absolutely invalid.

Blu-ray Disc is the survivor of a war nobody cares about.

The market penetration of Blu-ray and HD DVD is tiny.

So all of the press devoted to the so-called Blu-ray "victory" is utterly meaningless.

"HD DVD" and "Blu-ray Disc" are *both* as dead as DISC-o.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry

Why is it that every time we talk about buying/renting/downloading DVDs, which were all filmed at 24 fps, you try to turn the conversation to HD video cameras? Don't you even realise that this weaseling is totally irrelevant to the thread?

I think it is time that this thread was locked.

[Tjalfe]

Tjalfe,

What you wrote below, Tjalfe, is not true.

I can demonstrate via the following links:

http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting_panasonic_pov_cameras/

http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/news/news04_000.asp

Panasonic AK-HC900 ($28,500) Web page:

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=68598&catGroupId=14617&surfModel=AK-HC900

Checkmate, Tjalfe.

You really stuck your foot in your mouth when you made the remark that you made below.

This is just too easy; it's like shooting fish in a barrel.



Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

We are discussing movie playback.. no?.. the little disks which you claim are dead. this was not a discussion about broadcast TV.

[Evildead666]

I agree. lock it up. BR has effectively won anyway, lets just leave it at that.

[Brian Ellis]

Jerry

Why is it that every time we talk about buying/renting/downloading DVDs, which were all filmed at 24 fps, you try to turn the conversation to HD video cameras? Don't you even realise that this weaseling is totally irrelevant to the thread?

I think it is time that this thread was locked.

[Jerry Jones]

One more advantage of the new Apple TV is that you can rent HD movies without a computer...

http://www.apple.com/appletv/rentals.html

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Tjalfe,

Your claim that sports video shot by ABC and ESPN is acquired at 24 frames-per-second and then artificially processed to be 60 frames per second is not true.

I can demonstrate those networks are recording using 720/60p cameras via the following links:

http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting_panasonic_pov_cameras/

Panasonic’s ultra-compact AK-HC900 HD progressive scan point-of-view (POV) cameras are playing a key role in capturing the action of the National Hockey League’s Stanley Cup finals on ESPN between the New Jersey Devils and the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. The cameras are also being used for ABC’s live 720p HD coverage of the National Basketball Association’s championship series between the New Jersey Nets and the San Antonio Spurs. ... The 3.9-pound AK-HC900 provides accurate color reproduction in tight places for high-definition sports coverage, television program production, business communications, and government and scientific imaging. The AK-HC900 offers a 720-line high definition output at 60 progressive frames per second, an ideal configuration for sports coverage.

http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/news/news04_000.asp

Earlier this year, Panasonic AK-HC900 HD cameras were used extensively during the broadcasts of the NHL and NBA final series, as well as the playoff series leading up to both leagues’ championships. The ABC Television Network utilized the AK-HC900 to capture its on-air talent, crowd reactions and field shots for the HD broadcast of the Super Bowl XXXVII telecast in San Diego, CA last January. For challenging lighting and scene settings, the high-sensitivity AK-HC900 offers extensive gain control settings (-6 to 62dB), a minimum illumination of 0.03 lux, with a high sensitivity of F10 at 2000 lux when operating at 60-fps.

Panasonic AK-HC900 ($28,500) Web page:

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=68598&catGroupId=14617&surfModel=AK-HC900

Captures high frame-rate 60-fps images for broadcast sports...

Checkmate, Tjalfe.

You really stuck your foot in your mouth when you made the remark that you made below.

This is just too easy; it's like shooting fish in a barrel.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

720P is originally filmed at 24 fps, then converted to 60 when broadcast by doubling frames, you must know that. Your arguments sound more and more like you are on heavy medication

[Tjalfe]

720P is originally filmed at 24 fps, then converted to 60 when broadcast by doubling frames, you must know that. Your arguments sound more and more like you are on heavy medication

[Jerry Jones]

It has everything to do with sub-optimal quality, Elie.

I see the problem every time I go to the movies.

I loathe the crippled 24p format because it makes motion look so unrealistic.

It's a compromise of temporal resolution.

1080 @ 24p is no match for 720 @ 60p.

Temporal resolution trumps spatial resolution!

You're paying a high price for a crippled 1080p format.

So which do you think is better, Elie, 24p or 48p?



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

True Jerry about the 24P, but that was the issue all along with film and again has nothing to do with quality.

[Elie]

True Jerry about the 24P, but that was the issue all along with film and again has nothing to do with quality.
Strobing is indeed a fact of life with 24fps, but you can counter that with high refresh rae tv's at 120hz.

Film is 24 frames per second. That standard was the approximation of what was defined in the early 20th century by hand crank cameras. And just about every movie disc you can buy is encoded in this format. We're not just talking DVD. We're talking about HD DVD and Blu-ray, too.
How does this relate to an 120Hz HDTV showing frames at 120 frames per second? A bit of simple math tells you that 120 is a multiple of 24, because 24 x 5 = 120. So one of the claims of the purveyors of these sped-up monitors is that they can natively reproduce 24p programming, namely, just about every film has ever been shot.

Again... Blu ray + hollywood film 24fps at 1080P + kick ass 7.1 suround sound + a 1080P TV at 120Hz + some popcorn and soda = an awesome experience!

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/120hz-hdtvs-the-secret-to-making-movies-look-as-smooth-as-butter-231872.php

[Jerry Jones]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p

Disadvantages of 24p

24p video has more trouble with high motion than other, higher frame rates, sometimes showing a "strobe" or "choppy" motion, just like 24 fps film will if shot as if it's video, without careful panning, zooming, and slower camera motion. It is therefore not well-suited for programming requiring spontaneous action or "reality" camerawork. 24p can also hurt the credibility of newscasts by making news footage look too much like staged movie clips – though many newscasts do incorporate 24p footage. It should also be noted that while the strobe of 24p is in many ways considered a disadvantage, it's also part of the "film look." 24 fps film strobes in exactly the same way. Most consumer-level video editors (particularly non-HD ones) are designed for 30 frames per second, and the addition of 24p is sometimes awkwardly implemented. Incorrect user settings can result in a 24p frame at the edge of an edit existing on only one NTSC field, thus cutting its resolution in half. If a non-linear editor is incapable of removing pulldown, the standard 3:2 pulldown pattern should be used when shooting.

Future

Next generation digital cinema equipment is being designed to also handle the 48p frame rate along with the traditional 24p. 48p has twice the (video-like) motion (temporal resolution) of 24p, but also requires twice the bandwidth and data storage[citation needed]. However, it is unclear when, or indeed if, movie makers will start adopting the faster frame rate (probably not before digital movie distribution becomes common).

So it appears even members of the film community realize they're going to have to increase temporal resolution (frame rate) as movie creation goes digital. Eventually, 24p may be seen as a relic of the past.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

Weaseling again, Jerry: ALL Hollywood-type DVDs are made from 24 fps media PERIOD, FULL STOP!!!

[Jerry Jones]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p

Brian, your argument seems so weak.

Video is not film.

This business of trying to use a video camera to acquire video at a film camera's frame rate is not logical in my view.

Film is not video and video is not film!

Wake up and smell the coffee.

My advice to aspiring filmmakers is as follows.

If you want the look of film, then rent a film camera!

Video is not film.

Unfortunately, those of us in the video world have inherited the 24 frames-per-second practice from the film world so that images originally intended for projection in a theatre can now be distributed to people using TV sets.

Did you know frame rate is actually a form of resolution?

It's called "temporal" resolution.

In other words, a higher frame rate means a higher temporal resolution.

I think a lot of amateurs are lured into the 1080p myth because they focus on one half of the resolution equation: the "spatial" resolution.

Well, I do not believe in sacrificing temporal resolution.

I want a full 60 progressive frames per second.

You are willing to settle for less temporal resolution -- 24 progressive frames per second -- so that you can gain spatial resolution (1920 x 1080).

The bottom line, in my view, is that too many people are willing to sacrifice "true life" motion so that they can brag about how "big" their picture happens to be.

Video is all about motion.

Sacrificing smooth, "true life" motion is not a good thing, in my view.

It's a compromise at best.

Those who fall for the 1080p myth are willing to make major compromises and accept motion pictures with lesser overall quality.

High resolution video should be acquired at a full 60 frames per second!

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

Weaseling again, Jerry: ALL Hollywood-type DVDs are made from 24 fps media PERIOD, FULL STOP!!!

[Jerry Jones]

Elie,

You're willing to sacrifice temporal resolution in favor of spatial resolution.

Seems like a prettty big compromise to me.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[paulw]

From Australia... "Seven Reasons To Buy An Apple TV."

http://www.apcmag.com/8032/seven_reasons_why_you_should_buy_an_apple_tv

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Item2: Completely dreamsville. No movie / TV rentals available now or in the forseeable future in this part of the world..

By the way here is a favorable review in this pocast on the Apple TV. It's about 20mins in.

http://www.htguys.com/archive/2008/February15.html

[Elie]

I think so but also along side resolution, what also counts is compression and bit rates, but I thought it was obvious enough so I didn't mention them.

Cheers,
Elie