HD-DVD or Blue Ray?

[magician]

Why can't that be cheap? It's just another evolution of 30+ year-old technology. Maybe if you were talking about the first CD player, but the optical systems are cranked out now, not black magic.

Despite my nick, I'm not into a magic or anything. I've read somewhere that approach that Toshiba took actually makes sense, you now. It has something to do with backward compatibility and reducing costs of transition to new standard, but then again... who knows.

[Technoid]

.....
No, no, no... I didn't mean "higher compression ratio" per se (with the same codec), rather utilising more sophisticated codec which compromises between computing power and compression ratio, not the image quality and the compression ratio.

I see your point, but there is [B]mathematically lossless and perceptually lossles compression.[B] I assume that you would agree that you can have much better picture out of same bandwidth with MPEG4 then MPEG1 stream, would you? Of course it will require more processing in real time, but it is possible.
....

Well, everyone does not have the same perception....

And MPEG4 is neither mathematically lossless or perceptually lossless, even on really high bitsettings it still have tendencies to macroblock like crazy in a way that Mpeg2 never does.

Mpeg4 was initially designed as lowres lowbitrate codec for internet applications (while internet was still mostly modem) etc etc while MPEG2 was designed as a highres highbitrate codec for movies!

Guess what I rather want to view highdef movies on

[Jammrock]

Ohh! I didn't realize that. I've not been following development of standards since first rumors, couple of years ago. It certainly changes my point of view, although I've always knew that Blue-ray is the long term winner.

Originally HD-DVD, when the first AOD draft came out, it was going to use a red laser, but with Blu-ray on the table and the drop in prices of blue laser technology they were forced to change their tune.

Well... I can't agree with you on that. I mean... chips are costly because of patent fees, but producing high quality, robust optics can't be cheap. Especially if you go for high dencity (high precision).

Optics are cheap. The transport mechanism for the optics is the expensive part of the optical pickup assembly. Sony's super-uber-audiophile's-love-it transport runs $1k by itself. The optics however are still the same as everyone else.

You're right about that, but it appears that HD-DVD will still have adventage here as it utilises the same disk structure as the current DVD format. As we all know (now ) it will gain for it much needed edge in cost of producing media and bringing it fast to market.

That's what the HD-DVD people want you to think Every HD-DVD/BD-ROM that comes out with the initial launch will be a hybrid disc, i.e. will have a regular DVD movie on top of the HD movie. This is to lessen sticker shock for the release of a new technology, so you won't have to double-purchase all your movies. HD-DVD to pull this off has to press a double-sided disc. Blu-ray can just press a single-sided. Both will end up pressing 4 to 5 layers per hybrid disc, but in the end both will end up costing (to the consumer at least) the exact same. The difference is that you need less retooling for an HD-DVD fab than a Blu-ray fab, so while the initial cost for Blu-ray is higher, it's only a matter of time before it evens out. Jammrock technology prediction #412402958.2.

No, no, no... I didn't mean "higher compression ratio" per se (with the same codec), rather utilising more sophisticated codec which compromises between computing power and compression ratio, not the image quality and the compression ratio.

Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray use the exact same codecs for both video and audio. The difference will be that you can use less compression with Blu-ray, so the video and audio will be superior vs. HD-DVD (in theory at least). So CODEC wise neither of them have an advantage over the other.

I see your point, but there is mathematically lossless and perceptually lossles compression. I assume that you would agree that you can have much better picture out of same bandwidth with MPEG4 then MPEG1 stream, would you? Of course it will require more processing in real time, but it is possible.

Depends on who you ask. Some people love MPEG-4, some despise it. IT all depends on your accompanying equipment and the quality of the hardware/software decode engine and the level of compression. An MPEG-2 video with 2:1 compression will more than likely look a ton better than a 4:1 MPEG-4 (assuming you have good supporting equipment). Once again, preference of the user and supporting hardware determines the winner of that battle.

I hope so, because I've always preferred nice and clean cut in transition then dragging burden of compatibility with obsolete technology. What can I say, I'm a pro Beta, Rambus, Itanium, Blue-ray and (of course) Matrox guy.

My hope is that Blu-ray will dominate the market, or better yet, that Toshiba and SOny will get their act together and merge the formats...using the blu-ray hardware technology of course

[magician]

.... even on really high bitsettings it still have tendencies to macroblock like crazy in a way that Mpeg2 never does.

That depends on encoder implementation, as well as your ability to fine tune compressoin process. The only way MPEG2 can be superior to MPEG4 is in regard of it's maturity and wide availability of cerified tools, but not in sense of algorithm to which I was referring.

If it satisfies you I will refrase it to "MPEG1 layer I vs MPEG1 layer III" sort of thing.

Mpeg4 was initially designed as lowres lowbitrate codec for internet applications (while internet was still mostly modem) etc etc while MPEG2 was designed as a highres highbitrate codec for movies!

Guess what I rather want to view highdef movies on

That is the most erroneous and misleading simplification of codec design I've ever heard, and believe me I've heard a lot. Avoiding to get in technicals, I would say that MPEG4 is a "object aware" type of codec which is designed to address problem of compression and interaction with content rich media. It supports different types of media content (stills, audio, video, graphics, text, 3D meshes, textures, animation...) and can apply to them specific compressions as well as provide interaction between them and a user. Add to this meta content and you'll have a MPEG7, which will be searchable by definitions of containing objects. MPEG4 will eventually surpass MPEG2 as a standard for (future interactive) digital television, and many satellite television companies are already moving their HD broadcasts from MPEG2 to MPEG4.

If you didn't seen MPEG4 video of remarkable clarity then just wait for first commercial release of any MPEG4 material and see how it should be done.

[magician]

Originally HD-DVD, when the first AOD draft came out, it was going to use a red laser, but with Blu-ray on the table and the drop in prices of blue laser technology they were forced to change their tune.

Ohhh, then I'm not that ignorant as**ole after all?

Optics are cheap. The transport mechanism for the optics is the expensive part of the optical pickup assembly. Sony's super-uber-audiophile's-love-it transport runs $1k by itself. The optics however are still the same as everyone else.

That's what the HD-DVD people want you to think Every HD-DVD/BD-ROM that comes out with the initial launch will be a hybrid disc, i.e. will have a regular DVD movie on top of the HD movie. This is to lessen sticker shock for the release of a new technology, so you won't have to double-purchase all your movies. HD-DVD to pull this off has to press a double-sided disc. Blu-ray can just press a single-sided. Both will end up pressing 4 to 5 layers per hybrid disc, but in the end both will end up costing (to the consumer at least) the exact same. The difference is that you need less retooling for an HD-DVD fab than a Blu-ray fab, so while the initial cost for Blu-ray is higher, it's only a matter of time before it evens out. Jammrock technology prediction #412402958.2.

If you say so.

Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray use the exact same codecs for both video and audio. The difference will be that you can use less compression with Blu-ray, so the video and audio will be superior vs. HD-DVD (in theory at least). So CODEC wise neither of them have an advantage over the other.

I've just updated on this matter and found out that Blue-ray consortium is still developing BR-ROM standard, which will beside MPEG2 eventually support H.264 codec also know as MPEG4 part 10 or AVC. I'm really plesed with their decision, although it is rather unexpected and pretty confusing considering the fact that there are already Blue-ray devices on market which support only MPEG2.

Depends on who you ask. Some people love MPEG-4, some despise it. IT all depends on your accompanying equipment and the quality of the hardware/software decode engine and the level of compression.

Exactly! As I said, MPEG4 can be inferior to MPEG2 only in terms of maturity but not conceptually. Compression algorithm is more sophisticated, thus requires more processing power per byte (window).

An MPEG-2 video with 2:1 compression will more than likely look a ton better than a 4:1 MPEG-4 (assuming you have good supporting equipment).

And how about MPEG2 2:1 vs MPEG4 3:1 or even 2.75:1? That's exactly how much BR is biger then HD-DVD. Don't get me wrong, I'm all pro BR, but for the sake of truth I can't let MPEG4 to be chicaned like that. It definitly has technological edge which is once more proven by Blue-Ray adoption.

Once again, preference of the user and supporting hardware determines the winner of that battle.

My hope is that Blu-ray will dominate the market, or better yet, that Toshiba and SOny will get their act together and merge the formats...using the blu-ray hardware technology of course

And HD-DVD codec!

[mmp121]

And HD-DVD codec!

Jammie JUST said:

Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray use the exact same codecs for both video and audio. The difference will be that you can use less compression with Blu-ray, so the video and audio will be superior vs. HD-DVD (in theory at least). So CODEC wise neither of them have an advantage over the other.

Read slower and absorb what he said.


BTW, Jammrock, you don't mind me callin you Jammie do you? If so I'll stop.

[magician]

Read slower and absorb what he said.

You should realy look more careful and absorb the meaning of those smilies. Or give up console browser.

P.S. No, really... BR wasn't about to adopt MPEG4 so I see this as an accommodation in HD-DVD favour, so as adoption of blue laser by the other side. If you look it that way, you can say that joint standard will use BR technology and HD-DVD codec. Of course, this simplification is only for quirk.

[Jammrock]

BTW, Jammrock, you don't mind me callin you Jammie do you? If so I'll stop.

Many MURCers call me Jammy, so go right ahead.

@magician: MPEG-4 has been on the BD bandwagon for a while now. The 1x standard is complete, and the 2x standard is near completion. The CODECs have been pretty much nailed down. You can get some nitty gritty info here:

http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/

[magician]

Thanks for the link, Jammy.

According to that link, and several other sites, Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) is still working on BD-ROM specification (apart from Blu-ray Disc v2.0 which deals with recording format) and settled to finish it "some time in the beginning of 2005".

Of course, I was joking abouth HD-DVD's codec, but you'll have to admit that it can be seen as assent under pressure, as well as HD-DVD's adoption of blue laser.

[Chrono_Wanderer]

BluRay. Higher capacity and PR telling me that it uses blue laser and it sounds totally cool and uber. XD

OK, kiddie mode off.

I really need to look into it, but from what I can see, BD-R/RW has higher capacity so I'd love BD-R/RW for that reason.