WHAT?? Another new format?? Toshiba unveils another Blu-ray 'Killer'

[thecoalman]

I like it to a degree, but some times the sharpening in up-converting players can make a movie look a lot worse.

Well we haven't seen what the product can do if it exists so I'll reserve my judgment for when/if its released. Maybe Toshiba has an ace up their sleeve. In any event its going to be interesting to see where this goes. Be pretty funny if blu-ray is brought down by DVD....

[PuzZLeR]

...Be pretty funny if blu-ray is brought down by DVD....

Well, it is entirely possible, and the best tech, as history has proven, does not always win.

Kind of reminds me of the Beatles. They released a streak of number one albums. Then they release the "White Album". It was so popular that it even prevented their next album from gaining any momentum in the charts hence ending their streak.

Maybe DvD is just too hot. This would be Toshiba's answer/comeback if there was one right now.

[SatStorm]

Terjeber, I wrote 8000 - 15000 VBR not 15.000 CBR....
(actually I wrote 80000, but that was an obvious typo).

Overall, once again here we have to talk about the situation with HDTVs and the size of the screens. You can see 1080i correct on ~50" screens. On the 42" screens the difference between 720p and 1080i it is almost unnoticeable.
I didn't know that 1440x1080i is BD standard, but I know that it is the choice for most European satellite HDTV channels. Those channels broadcast with 8000-15.000 VBR bitrate and they don't look as good as BD, same way most SDTV DVB S channels don't look as good as DVDs. I mean, a good DVD has a bitrate around 8000kb/s. A good DVB S channel has a bitrate of 5.000 only rarelly (for full D1 Framesize). The unofficially "standard" on this, is 4.000kb/s. Lots of macroblocks but hey, that's the situation.
Same way with the HDTV broadcasts. The difference is that the lower bitrate doesn't show on 46" or less TV Screens (LCD TV screens, not Plasma, here is Europe and we don't like Plasma). It is very difficult in Europe to get TVs bigger 46". Not because of money, but because of space: Our average houses are not that big. Sure there are some houses with room space, but the majority don't have the needed room space. So around the 46 - 50" is the top with todays technology.
Maybe the thin OLED screens may do the difference. But those TVs are far from the present.

[PuzZLeR]

Marketing lesson #2:

Earlier in the thread I described how the DvD's specs could be "upgraded" by the DvD Forum, and how Toshiba can take advantage of this hot product to leverage their position in the market against blu-ray.

Here's what Sony can do riding the DvD wave.

They can release a "DvD player" that plays blu-ray discs. Yeah, I know that this would be a blu-ray player in disguise, but it gives Sony an opportunity to lower its price without cheapening its branding for BD and grabbing more position for BD.

Insane? Not at all. People will think they're buying something they've been trusting for 10 years, with, hey a cool added feature instead of something "completely different". Soon everybody will be wanting this extra feature. Soon almost every "DvD player" will have the option to play HD movies from blu-ray.

Using this delivery method Sony can slowly cannibalize the DvD market since, technologically speaking, blu-ray players can 100%, completely, replace DvD players. Keep in mind, it's only marketing and price that's keeping them from doing so even today.

[PuzZLeR]

I didn't know that 1440x1080i is BD standard, but I know that it is the choice for most European satellite HDTV channels

I don't know if these streams can be directly muxed into a BD structure and play on a BD player, but the resolution is indeed within the standard of the BD spec.

But I'm just curious now, since I don't have access to any of these streams. Are they in square pixels? This would constitute HD's version of a 4:3 aspect ratio then, which then, would not be BD standard since none of the BD resolutions allow a 4:3 aspect ratio. (But it might work anyway but never tried...)

[terjeber]

Terjeber, I wrote 8000 - 15000 VBR not 15.000 CBR....
(actually I wrote 80000, but that was an obvious typo).

I am not sure what you mean by 8000-15000 VBR, 8000 VBR takes exactly as much space as does 8000 CBR, no difference, 15000 VBR takes the same amount of space as 15000 CBR. There is nothing called 8000 - 15000 VBR. Do you mean average 8000 VBR with max 15000? If you do, that is 8000 VBR.

Overall, once again here we have to talk about the situation with HDTVs and the size of the screens. You can see 1080i correct on ~50" screens. On the 42" screens the difference between 720p and 1080i it is almost unnoticeable.

On 40" and up seeing the difference between 720 and 1080 is not hard at all, depending on how far from the TV you are. At 42 and up, it becomes easier. On my TV the difference between 720 and 1080 is quite noticeable. Now, that may be because, as you mention, my place is rather small and I am closer than many others. Interestingly my place in Europe was a lot bigger than my place in New York, so not all Europeans live in small spaces, and not all Americans live in large ones, but that's another matter

Maybe the thin OLED screens may do the difference. But those TVs are far from the present.

Looking forward to those.

[terjeber]

I didn't know that 1440x1080i is BD standard, but I know that it is the choice for most European satellite HDTV channels

I don't know if these streams can be directly muxed into a BD structure and play on a BD player,

No problem.

But I'm just curious now, since I don't have access to any of these streams. Are they in square pixels?

No, as with widescreen SD, they do not use a square PAR. 1440x1080 is HDV standard and it is widescreen.

[PuzZLeR]

Thanks Terje.

Still finding it ironic that HDV and BD-HD both need PAR=4:3 to avoid DAR=4:3 at that rez. It may be confusing to some people.

[FulciLives]

People are nuts. As in most of the comments here.

Go on and fight about Blu-Ray.

In the meantime I am enjoying the heck out of my life playing PS3 games and watching Blu-Ray on my PS3 and yes the upscale ability of the PS3 is rather amazing but it still is a far cry from Blu-Ray.

Oh did I mention I have a 51 inch 16x9 WS HDTV that does 1080i :P

In fact I think I'll go play me some BURNOUT: PARADISE right now ...

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

P.S.
I farted

[gll99]

FulciLives wrote

Oh did I mention I have a 51 inch 16x9 WS HDTV that does 1080i

Many early adopters have 720p/1080i 1366x768 sets. Too bad they didn't wait for "true" hd like I did

1080p and 120hz looks like the only way to go for the true hd experience. :P

Actually I'm just kidding I haven't bought anything yet but it shows how quickly things change. I too am looking at the PS3 but need to consider which tv to buy to get the best experience. Right now everything I have has become trailing edge even my computers are antiques and couldn't play hd content even if I had any.

I wouldn't mind a better upconverting player if Toshiba has one especially if it played divx at higher bitrates than my current dvp-640 which chokes on interlaced content above 2000kbps and progressive content above 3500kbps.

[FulciLives]

FulciLives wrote

Oh did I mention I have a 51 inch 16x9 WS HDTV that does 1080i

Many early adopters have 720p/1080i 1366x768 sets. Too bad they didn't wait for "true" hd like I did

1080p and 120hz looks like the only way to go for the true hd experience. :P

Actually I'm just kidding I haven't bought anything yet but it shows how quickly things change. I too am looking at the PS3 but need to consider which tv to buy to get the best experience. Right now everything I have has become trailing edge even my computers are antiques and couldn't play hd content even if I had any.

I wouldn't mind a better upconverting player if Toshiba has one especially if it played divx at higher bitrates than my current dvp-640 which chokes on interlaced content above 2000kbps and progressive content above 3500kbps.

A nice "tongue in cheek dig" but I do have a Hitachi CRT Rear Projection HDTV and even though it is only 1080i there are those that think nothing is better than a CRT RP type design :P

I've heard that the 120Hz sets can make the image look "unnatural" but I've also read that it isn't so much the 120Hz (which is considered good) but another option that seems to come on by default although some sets allow you to have 120Hz without that "other thing" on which does supposedly result in a nice picture. I seem to recall reading this over at the AVS FORUM

Granted a 52 inch 16x9 120Hz LCD is way over $3,000 whereas I paid $1,350 for my Hitachi

The PS3 can handle HDTV resolution and high bitrate DivX and XviD files but it can also handle H.264 which is much better if you ask me.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Billf2099]

Lots of people need timeouts here or something. Jeeze!!!
OK fact police time. 30 inches does not equal 1 meter. Its closer to 40 inches, 39.something to be inexact. Arguing over measurement is like .. well argueing over storage formats. DVD is a storage format. Toshiba is talking about extending DVD's storage format, and hinting at H264 decoding which would be just fine by me. Because H264 formated HD is prettydamn good.

Unless you are actually in the business of making hardware and putting them on movies then all you are doing is making noise. I presume that the people at Toshiba have not lost their mind. They see the market NOT adopting Blue Ray.

I plan on sitting here on the sidelines, possibly buying a PS3 this year, but maybe not. The kids love the PS2 they have so I don't see the need. I'll buy the new Philips 5990, because its under 50 bucks and keep dreaming for hardware that will decode H264 that does not require my Athlon 3800 and its high powered video card. Maybe when I hook up my Direct TV DVR to my network it will see my H264 files and be able to play them. I can dream can't I? Particularly since Direct TV stores in Mp4.

If HD gets to the magic 100 dollar price point it will take off. Otherwise it will sit and do nothing.

[cal_tony]

So! I bought an upscaling DVD player, then a Toshiba HD DVD last Xmas when the prices went down. Then I bought the PS3. Next, I guess it'll be Toshiba again with whatever or whenever it is.
No complaints from me.
For years, all it was was VHS. Then slightly better, and I mean slightly, it was a Super VHS player for me. Couldn't really swear it put out a better picture, but, I'm sure it did. Well, almost sure anyway.

Then it was my DVD player with my 480i TV. Things slowly by slowly were getting better.

So now I have a couple of 1080 TVs and the above mentioned playing devices and as far as I'm concerned, things are getting much better.

I complained when there nothing new on the horizon years ago, So, I'm not about to complain about anything new product wise.

Tony

[SatStorm]

@terjeber: I said 8000-15.000 VBR and I meant that. What you describe is called ABR (average bit rate).
DVB broadcasts (both S/S2) do something called: Statistic Multiplexing . That reminds a bit how CQ VBR acts on TMPGenc encoder. In the case of the broadcasts I know, it goes like this: 8000 is the basis and that can go up to 15.000kb/s if it is needed. So, that's make it VBR.

Regarding 1080i Vs 720p on less than 46", I am with Panasonic with this: Simply mathematics point out that on 3 meters distance, the difference between 1080i and 720p is unnoticable on the human eye. I'm able to test that myself (because of my job) in real life. If you watch a 46" from less that 2 Meters, then you are a subject of medical research: The 99% gets dizzy from this close.

FulciLives: I pointed almost a year ago, that Samsung with the collaboration of MSU (Moscow State University - the ones that make those amazing virtualdub filters) made some new technologies. It is not the 100 -/120 Hz that makes the difference in motion, but something called "motion drive" (Samsung calls it Digital Natural Image engine (DNIe)) and actually adds fake frames between original frames. Those fake frames are a result of morphing technics.
It is the combination of all those filters that makes those Samsung LCDs look great: http://compression.ru/video/frame_rate_conversion/index_en_frcn.html
http://compression.ru/video/frame_rate_conversion/index_en.html
http://compression.ru/video/deinterlacing_samsung/index_en.html
http://compression.ru/video/resampling/index_en.html

Until very recently, those solutions couldn't be used by Plasma Screens. Some new Plasma I recently show, does some use.

Philips also use some look-alike technics, but in works only on DVDs and not typical TV Broadcasts.

I recently tested the new Samsung LN46A750. It is the "cheap" series of Samsung's new TVs and all I can say is that makes my M91 (LED HD ready 2007 model) look like a toy. They manage to eliminate that "hallow" effect and they don't lock through component connections the external upscaler that you may have on your DVD/ DVB S2 reciever any more (thank God).
The new Philips TVs that they gonna appear in the market around Augost also look great!

[terjeber]

@terjeber: I said 8000-15.000 VBR and I meant that. What you describe is called ABR (average bit rate).

When you describe the bitrate of a movie, you talk about the overall bitrate, not about min and max. In other words, a 8Mb/s VBR movie is an 8Mb/s VBR movie and an 8Mb/s CBR movie is just that. Now, if you want to go into detail about the 8Mb/s VBR movie you can give the max (and possibly min if you want to) bitrate as well, but that information isn't particularly relevant when it comes to size. The size (file size) of a VBR movie is determined 100% by the average bitrate. So, an 8Mb/s VBR movie and an 8Mb/s CBR movie takes exactly the same amount of space.

8000 is the basis and that can go up to 15.000kb/s if it is needed. So, that's make it VBR.

Obviously it is VBR. It is 8000 VBR, or 8Mb/s VBR. This is as opposed to the concert video I have been talking about which is 25Mb/s VBR. It maxes out at about 35Mb/s and the lowest I saw was about 6Mb/s, but it is still a 25Mb/s movie.

[ricardouk]

I wrote 100% properly, I know it is an international forum (I am from Norway my self) and there was nothing ambiguous about what I wrote. Double quotes as the designation for inches has been world standard for a very long time, and if you have never seen it before you must be living in a cave. There are 5 or 6 posts in this thread alone using that exact way of saying "inches".

it isnt a standart, if i walk in a shop here i see centimeters. of course ive seen that symbol here but i dont how it relates to meters thaty are the only way i have of "measuring something". Sorry if i sounded harsh but it wasnt my intention, "heat" of the moment.

Lots of people need timeouts here or something. Jeeze!!!
OK fact police time. 30 inches does not equal 1 meter. Its closer to 40 inches

http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_common.htm

according to this site :
30 inch = 0.762 meter

little less than a meter.

[Billf2099]

.95 meters is "A little less then a meter" .76 meters is 3/4 of a meter.
Measurements should be as exact as we can state them without being nutcases. The engineer in me starts screaming when I read a things like 'little less then' To put the difference into a Video perspective.
By the differences stated using 'a little less then' I will now state that a
32 inch LCD TV is "A little less than" a 42 inch LCD TV. I don't know about you, but thats the difference between 30 inches and 40 inches... I might buy the arguement that a 37" TV is a little less then a 42", but never a 32"
Besides, if I'm going to have a little less then, then I think a 47" is a little less then a 50" as long as they are both 1080P.

I don't need a metric converter, a few other people do. I was trained in both systems and pretty much can do the conversions in my head. Except that Farenheit to Celsius one. I always keep forgetting whether to add or subtract the 32 before multiplying or dividing. Luckily that's why God created spreadsheets and the internet. (For those playing along at home, its easy to figure out which way the equation goes, just remember that 212 F is 100C or that 32F is 0 C and you can figure out the equation in two shakes of the lambs tail. When in Canada, 25 is a good day, 30 is a really good day and 40 is global warming killing us all, unless you are in St. Louis Mo, then its just July. It has to be below 0 to play hockey outside.

[SatStorm]

terjeber, I wrote 8000-15000 VBR. Those who knows about encoding, understands what I'm saying.

[lordsmurf]

. So, an 8Mb/s VBR movie and an 8Mb/s CBR movie takes exactly the same amount of space.

That's not true. Even if you specify 8Mb/s as the average, it can be far small in size than the CBR. At that high bitrate, you're likely to end up UNDER the avg a lot. There is 0-7999k available under, and only ~2000k max above it. So you would likely end up with a smaller file that also has better quality at all times. Win-win. The "lose" here is it takes longer to encode, maybe much longer.

[terjeber]

I wrote 100% properly, I know it is an international forum (I am from Norway my self) and there was nothing ambiguous about what I wrote. Double quotes as the designation for inches has been world standard for a very long time

it isnt a standart,

Sigh, you really don't give up, do you? Yes, using double quotes to denote inches is a standard, it has been since long before you were born, and it is a standard in at least all the countries I have lived in, which includes three in Europe, two in Asia and one in North America.

if i walk in a shop here i see centimeters.

How is that relevant? What I am saying is that using double quotes to say "inches" is as standard as using "$" to denote the US currency. There are two areas where single and double quotes have a specific meaning in this way, one is for length measurement, single quotes means feet and double means inches. If you are dealing with maps or perhaps some other reason to denote degrees and arch minutes and seconds, you single quotes is used to denote arch minutes and double to denote arch seconds.

So, if we were talking about going on a sailing trip, and I said that we should move 2'4" then that would mean 2 minutes and 4 seconds on a map - oh, and if you don't know what minutes and seconds mean on a map, please don't parade that here, go read wikipedia or something. Now, if we are not talking about maps, and I use a single or double quote as denoting size, for example, if I say he is 5'3" tall, that means he is 5 foot three inches. That is standard and it has been for a long time.

Now, your answer seems to indicate that I stated that inches was a standard, well, inches has been used for a long time to describe the size of display devices in the same way that feet have been used to describe the size of boats. Perhaps I am slightly older than you, but even in Norway the use of inches to describe TV and monitor sizes was the norm at least until very recently.

[terjeber]

terjeber, I wrote 8000-15000 VBR. Those who knows about encoding, understands what I'm saying.

I have probably encoded a lot more video than you do, and any video editing software, check Premiere, Vegas or any of the big packages for Windows, or FCP for Mac for example, do nothing of the sort. Bitrate is either variable or it is constant, the bitrate for the movie is given as the bitrate, not as a range. A movie encoded into 8Mb/s variable bitrate has a bitrate of 8Mb/s. I have used a lot of video editing software packages and have so far never seen any using the notation you are. You can of course prove me wrong by pointing to one.

[terjeber]

. So, an 8Mb/s VBR movie and an 8Mb/s CBR movie takes exactly the same amount of space.

That's not true. Even if you specify 8Mb/s as the average, it can be far small in size than the CBR. At that high bitrate, you're likely to end up UNDER the avg a lot. There is 0-7999k available under, and only ~2000k max above it. So you would likely end up with a smaller file that also has better quality at all times. Win-win. The "lose" here is it takes longer to encode, maybe much longer.

Well, if you do, the average bitrate isn't 8Mb/s, now is it? I mean, think about it...

The advantage with VBR is that you can get the same quality at a lower bitrate. In other words, you can encode at 6Mb/s and get the same quality that you would get at 8Mb/s CBR since presumably the 8Mb/s CBR video "wastes" bits where you can get the same result with a lower bitrate.

[SatStorm]

OK terjeber, you have encoded a lot more video than me.

[PuzZLeR]

If I were to only have one request from the DvD Forum, it's to include H.264 (and VC-1) within its spec - not as a data file feature, but on video DvDs like with MPEG-2 that you can mux into VOBs and author to disc.

I also believe it's a good comeback for Toshiba, even without having to resurrect the format war.

For us users here, all we'd need is DivX certification on one of these new units and we'd be set for almost all SD video.

[DereX888]

If I were to only have one request from the DvD Forum, it's to include H.264 (and VC-1) within its spec - not as a data file feature, but on video DvDs like with MPEG-2 that you can mux into VOBs and author to disc.

I also believe it's a good comeback for Toshiba, even without having to resurrect the format war.

For us users here, all we'd need is DivX certification on one of these new units and we'd be set for almost all SD video.

We users need no stinky "Divx certifications" at all!
There are already plenty of dvd players in Asia without any stupid Divx Networks' certifications (and without divx logo) that perfectly play all kind of MPEG-4 files (including stupid Divx codecs). Why would you even think that we need any "Divx certification"? If anything, such "certification" ought to be based on FREE standards (just plain MPEG-4 Main and other profiles).
SAY NO TO DIVX!
Why add few extra bucks to the cost of any device that go to some self-appointed "certification" made up by a bunch of ******** who built their company on stealing someone else's MPEG-4 codec? Geez...

[SatStorm]

Divx certification has to do more with the fact of the authored DivX discs.

Personally, I don't like DivX. I rarely use XviD and nowadays, I mostly use H264.

I also use a lot mpeg 2.


(edit for typo)

[lordsmurf]

. So, an 8Mb/s VBR movie and an 8Mb/s CBR movie takes exactly the same amount of space.

That's not true. Even if you specify 8Mb/s as the average, it can be far small in size than the CBR. At that high bitrate, you're likely to end up UNDER the avg a lot. There is 0-7999k available under, and only ~2000k max above it. So you would likely end up with a smaller file that also has better quality at all times. Win-win. The "lose" here is it takes longer to encode, maybe much longer.

Well, if you do, the average bitrate isn't 8Mb/s, now is it? I mean, think about it...
The advantage with VBR is that you can get the same quality at a lower bitrate. In other words, you can encode at 6Mb/s and get the same quality that you would get at 8Mb/s CBR since presumably the 8Mb/s CBR video "wastes" bits where you can get the same result with a lower bitrate.

Encoding-wise, sure, 8Mb/s is still the average. Mathematically, no, it's not the average. By using VBR, you allow the encoder to make those determinations on its own. In most cases, it is more aggressive towards using less when it's okay, using more when needed. By specifying such a high avg, you've really missed the point of VBR. It would be different, had you specified a lower number (assuming we're talking standard DVD-Video MPEG-2 encoding here). For an MPEG-2 HD stream, you're way under adequate bitrates, it'd be blocky.

[PuzZLeR]

SAY NO TO DIVX!

Looks like we have a marcher here.

May I suggest? Google: liberal leftist forums OR hippie banter

[terjeber]

Well, if you do, the average bitrate isn't 8Mb/s, now is it? I mean, think about it...
The advantage with VBR is that you can get the same quality at a lower bitrate. In other words, you can encode at 6Mb/s and get the same quality that you would get at 8Mb/s CBR since presumably the 8Mb/s CBR video "wastes" bits where you can get the same result with a lower bitrate.

Encoding-wise, sure, 8Mb/s is still the average. Mathematically, no, it's not the average.

Hmmmm, the meaning of "average" doesn't change when you go to video. If you encode something VBR and the total bytes used over a period of time is less than the total bytes of a constant-bitrate of X bytes/s, then your VBR encode is less than an average of X bytes/s. Mathematically and encoder-wise or any other -wise you would like to conjure up. Now, here is the interesting point, if you do a test with VBR and CBR you will, in some cases, find that VBR yields a smaller file than does CBR. This is most likely if you use 1-pass VBR. Why is that? Because your encoder is not clairvoyant. If it runs a single-pass encode it has to guesstimate what it will encounter in the future and adjust the bitrate accordingly so as not to go past what was decided as the average bitrate.

So, if your encode for X bits/s VBR and another for X bits/s CBR, and the file size of the VBR encode is smaller, it didn't actually encode at an average of X bits/s it encoded at a lower bitrate, just in case. Most encoders, if you use 2-pass encoding, will hit the target average bitrate better. Still, mathematically-wise, magically-wise, encoding-wise or just un-wise, if the total number of bits averaged over the total number of seconds for your video doesn't end up at X, then the bitrate is not X bits/s no matter how you dice it.

By using VBR, you allow the encoder to make those determinations on its own.

No, you are telling the encoder to hit a certain average, but some times hitting that average is a little difficult given the lack of clairvoyant encoders. That is why we have 2-pass encoding. It allows the encoder a trip into the future to check, and then to run through it again and adjust the encoding to it's now clairvoyant abilities.

In most cases, it is more aggressive towards using less when it's okay

This is very correct for 1-pass encodes. That is because it is safer to be on the safe side (not as funny when I read that again), the encoder assumes that it might run into hard-to-encode video in the future and it might need the extra headroom. If it doesn't, the trade-off is that it at least made an intelligent guess as to how you would not notice the fact that it hasn't really encoded your video at the desired average bitrate. No matter how you turn it, average is average. If your video is 8000 bits in size (please note, I didn't say file, the file size is also impacted by wrapper overhead), 10 seconds long, it is 800 bits/s (average) whether it VBR or CBR. If it is 7000 bits at 10 seconds it is 700bits/s no matter what. In segments it is probably higher than 700 bits, but that is irrelevant.

[DereX888]

SAY NO TO DIVX!

Looks like we have a marcher here.

May I suggest? Google: liberal leftist forums OR hippie banter

No one is stopping you from giving YOUR money to any crooks of your choice
Why not just donate portion of your income to your favorite Divx Networks? It'll have about same effect on the progress of digital video as not doing so - but sure it'll make the DivX Networks crooks happier

Obviously some people are born suckers and simply what they don't understand they always label as "liberal", "hippie" and whatever they think is crap
Yes, calling me "liberal" is like calling me very bad names to me, but "hippie"? WTF is that?!
(after googling it I am really amused - do you really think everyone here is as old as you are and remembers your Flower-Children? Dude... far out! Hehehe )