BluRay delayed.....

[harrisonford]

I think, I can't remember where I read it at, but Blu-ray patents cost about $400 us dollars per machine, as the life of the machine comes around, they will lower the cost of these patents, Could some else confirm or deny this about blu-ray?

[Bob W]

HD DVD movies are all on dual layer or 30GB discs and are encoded using VC1. Unless something changes Blu-Ray movies at launch (and for some time there after) will be on single layer discs or 25GB and will use mpeg2 encoding. They are nowhere near solving the yield problems on the 50GB BD-Rom and last I heard even the yields of the single layer BD-Rom is running something like 40%.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=665702

[Bob W]

terjeber,

None of the HD-DVD disk in the US use MPEG2. They are VC-1

Not true. HD-DVD uses MPEG-2 compression. So does Blu-ray. Digital TV transmission in both the US (ATCS) and Europe (DVB) also uses MPEG-2 compression. The satellite guys are currently using MPEG-2, but are planning to switch to MPEG-4 to squeeze more bit rate into the bandwidth limit.

The irony is that there is no HD-DVD recorders or media on the market, only players. And Blu-ray has recorders and media, but no players.

The bad thing about Blu-ray is that the anounced players are going to be $999 or more while the HD-DVD players are in the $500 range. That will be the death of Blu-ray in my opinion. The bottom line is that consumers are not going to pay a higher price for better quality picture. For those of you younger than me, I'll remind that you the reason we had VHS and not Beta was for the exact same reason. Beta was a better quality picture, but the players were more expensive. The only possible exception is the Playstation 3 which should have a Blu-ray player in it (at least one of the possible multiple models) which they are currently saying will be in the $700 range. Still more than the HD-DVD.

everytime when I go to BB or CC and take a look at that HD crap...I keep wondering where is that BIG difference....because I really can't see it.

Then you aren't seeing true HD. Just because you have an HD set, doesn't mean your watching HD. Some idots buy a HD 16:9 TV at Best Buy, go home and watch 4:3 material stretched out to 16:9 and think, "Wow! This HD is awesome!". HD material is phenominal.

HDTV is excellent but needs something the mainstream european household don't have room for: A Big TV Screen. More than 37"

Actually, the driving force behind HD resolution displays was the Japanese. They had smaller living spaces and were sitting closer to the TV. Well the closer you get to a SD television, the more visible the scan lines are. Just because you can buy 60" plasmas with HD resolution doesn't mean that smaller displays won't benefit. In fact, they will benefit just as much, especially in the smaller living spaces of Europe and Japan.

OK, done ranting (and correcting)

All HD DVD titles are VC1 on DL 30GB discs. One hybrid title is a SL HD DVD on one side with a DL DVD on the other side and it also uses VC1 for the HD DVD side.

[CubDukat]

I don't think you're going to be very impressed with BluRay either when it finally comes out. The word is that right now BluRay doesn't yet support any of the advanced video codecs it is supposed to, so early BluRay discs will all be MPEG-2 video at very high bit rates.

HD-DVD and Blue-Ray movies both will probably ship encoded in MPEG-2 for the first few years. There are a number of excellent reasons for this, the main being that MPEG-2 is a format that is well established and that the studios knows how to encode into very well. Remember, encoding DVD video at the level we are currently used to is an art mastered by few. DVDs when they came out were of far inferior quality to what we are used to now. Today they encode frame-by-frame for good productions, with individual settings for varying scenes.

The reason we are seeing a format war is that MPEG-2 needs more disk space for HD video, you could probably encode perfectly acceptable HD movies on a dual layer DVD. HD-DVD and Blue-Ray are intended for MPEG-2 use.

For this reason, the additional storage capacity of Blue-Ray would indicate that the quality of Blue-Ray movies will be superior to the quality of HD-DVD movies.

Technically Blue-Ray is a better format, and I just wish that the technically superior format would win for once. Imagine how much better our old home movies would have been if Beta and not the inferior VHS had won the format war. I am currently converting a ton of home-video on VHS to DVDs. The quality is appaling. Anyone interested in video, as an enthusiast or professional, should support the technically superior format so that we are not stuck with "good enough for the dumbest users" once again.

Actually, most of the reviews I've read, including the ones in "Widescreen Magazine" have said that the majority of the current HD-DVD titles are actually encoded in VC-1 (At least the Warners ones are), and they seem to like it more than high-bitrate MPEG-2.

BTW, I got a second look at HD-DVD today at Best Buy, and it definitely looks a lot better than the last time I saw it. Guess it really was the display. Unfortunately, Best Buy had the titles, but they say they won't have the players until sometime in August. Now, I'm not sure if he meant that they had sold out or whether they were delayed, or whether he was getting HD-DVD mixed up with Blu-Ray. Either way, it's not good.

[CubDukat]

Update from Microsoft's own website on VC-1:

Apparently *all* currently shipping HD-DVD titles are encoded in VC-1.

[Bob W]

I don't think you're going to be very impressed with BluRay either when it finally comes out. The word is that right now BluRay doesn't yet support any of the advanced video codecs it is supposed to, so early BluRay discs will all be MPEG-2 video at very high bit rates.

HD-DVD and Blue-Ray movies both will probably ship encoded in MPEG-2 for the first few years. There are a number of excellent reasons for this, the main being that MPEG-2 is a format that is well established and that the studios knows how to encode into very well. Remember, encoding DVD video at the level we are currently used to is an art mastered by few. DVDs when they came out were of far inferior quality to what we are used to now. Today they encode frame-by-frame for good productions, with individual settings for varying scenes.

The reason we are seeing a format war is that MPEG-2 needs more disk space for HD video, you could probably encode perfectly acceptable HD movies on a dual layer DVD. HD-DVD and Blue-Ray are intended for MPEG-2 use.

For this reason, the additional storage capacity of Blue-Ray would indicate that the quality of Blue-Ray movies will be superior to the quality of HD-DVD movies.

Technically Blue-Ray is a better format, and I just wish that the technically superior format would win for once. Imagine how much better our old home movies would have been if Beta and not the inferior VHS had won the format war. I am currently converting a ton of home-video on VHS to DVDs. The quality is appaling. Anyone interested in video, as an enthusiast or professional, should support the technically superior format so that we are not stuck with "good enough for the dumbest users" once again.

Actually, most of the reviews I've read, including the ones in "Widescreen Magazine" have said that the majority of the current HD-DVD titles are actually encoded in VC-1 (At least the Warners ones are), and they seem to like it more than high-bitrate MPEG-2.

BTW, I got a second look at HD-DVD today at Best Buy, and it definitely looks a lot better than the last time I saw it. Guess it really was the display. Unfortunately, Best Buy had the titles, but they say they won't have the players until sometime in August. Now, I'm not sure if he meant that they had sold out or whether they were delayed, or whether he was getting HD-DVD mixed up with Blu-Ray. Either way, it's not good.

Most BestBuy stores have the player in demo using a Westinghouse 42 inch 1080p LCD which is not the best display imo. The problem is I have seen my local BB set the output of the player to 720p which is a huge eror as they need to be set to the resolution on the disc or 1080. Two times I have had to change the settings at BB and I don't work for them. You may have seen the demo when it was set wrong.

[SingSing]

Actually, the driving force behind HD resolution displays was the Japanese. They had smaller living spaces and were sitting closer to the TV. Well the closer you get to a SD television, the more visible the scan lines are. Just because you can buy 60" plasmas with HD resolution doesn't mean that smaller displays won't benefit. In fact, they will benefit just as much, especially in the smaller living spaces of Europe and Japan.

In U.S. 5 to 8 feet away from a big screen TV is common. In Japan, the setup is 4 feet or so, it does make a different.

[CubDukat]

Most BestBuy stores have the player in demo using a Westinghouse 42 inch 1080p LCD which is not the best display imo. The problem is I have seen my local BB set the output of the player to 720p which is a huge eror as they need to be set to the resolution on the disc or 1080. Two times I have had to change the settings at BB and I don't work for them. You may have seen the demo when it was set wrong.

The display in both instances was a Samsung flat-panel. The first one was an LCD screen and the other one was a DLP or plasma screen that was much larger.

Even so, I'm still going to wait until the second or third generation of both formats before I even consider buying. Hopefully by then HDMI receivers that can output TrueHD/Dolby Digital Plus/DTS-HD qithout compromise will be out--not to mention they should be cheaper then.

[terjeber]

And ROF and terjeber,
the studios themselves, when promoting HD-DVD in their whitepapers (which I have a copy of) specifically say that HD quality only becomes evident/obvious on screens larger than ~32".

I am not surprised that HD content on monitors smaller than 32" would be hard to distinguish from SD content at a typical viewing distance. I would expect color fidelity improvements to be obvious even at the smaller sized screen, but some of the advantage of HD here may be lost in the fact that most HD screens are crappy LCD or Plasma screens. A 34" CRT would probably be the best smaller sized screen to watch HD content. A good 42" plasma or LCD may OK too.

unless you go so close to something like a 25" screen that you can already see the dots, HD won't be a noticeable improvement. HD has many merits, no need trying to add on some it doesn't deserve.

I'd love to see the dummy who purchased a 25" HDTV, and as I said, I would still expect to see improved color fidelity, but most people watching HD content are going to do so on big screen TVs. 40" and up. If you can't see the difference between HD and SD on a good 42" plasma or indeed the Sony 34" Wide CRT, you really do need better glasses

[MOVIEGEEK]

there is a limit from where your eye can't see any better....you can have 1000 times more info, just more space.......unless you have a 1000" tv.

You have a point and it applies to audio also:most people can't tell the difference between an audio CD and DVD-AUDIO(a-b test) because the human ear can only hear 20-20,000Hz(the older you get the lower the top end).Some high end speakers have tweeters that can go to 50KHz...why?...marketing.

[yoda313]

most people can't tell the difference between an audio CD and DVD-AUDIO(a-b test) because the human ear can only hear 20-20,000Hz

Thats not a 1:1 comparison. DVD-AUDIO is mostly used with MULTI-CHANNEL SURROUND SOUND in mind. Sure you can do plain stereo with dvd-a but its main benefit is higher fidelity surround sound.