Can you put 1080p 60fps video on a blu-ray?

[Cornucopia]

Yes, we're saying that. And so do the standards makers, and so do the manufacturers.

Standards exist mainly for compatibility. This is especially important when dealing with hardware devices which cannot (or cannot easily) be updated/upgraded. This does make standards somewhat outdated after a while, but that's when they often come out with new standards. And profiles.

Your disc, mr. lou, is non-standard. You've admitted it. So has Highwinder. His and your discs were designed to provide some extra feature, but not designed to be reliable for every player that has been manufactured. I can take a BD copy of something released this year, and play it in any player that fits its profile (1, 2 ,3 , 5 or 6).
Can yours, or his?

If not, call your disc something like "lou-ray" and call it a day.

Scott

[mr_lou]

Why is that non-conforming? 1920×1080 59.94i is part of the blu-ray spec and using the "--fake-interlace" flag allows for 29.97 progressive video. Or am I wrong?

No. 1920x1080@59.94i is not part of the original Blu-ray specs.

It is true there's a --fake-interlace flag for x264 that you can use to make 1920x1080@29.97p videos 100% Blu-ray compliant - according to the examples that was once listed on the x264 website. (Can't find the site for x264 anymore. Maybe it was taken down?). And this is the technique I'm using. So I guess that's one difference between my approach and Highwinder's method.

Still though, 1920x1080@29.97p wasn't listed in the specs when it was created 15 years ago (or longer), and some people here believes that you can't call your disc a Blu-ray Disc if it doesn't stick 100% to these 15-year old specs. That's what the discussion is about.

It began with Highwinder claiming that 1920x1080@60fps was possible - and of course it is. No one is denying that doing so doesn't follow the old specs. That's the one thing we agree upon. I (and Highwinder I think) just don't see any reason to call the disc anything else but a Blu-ray Disc, when everything except the framerate follows the specs - and it plays fine in all the players I've tested on (which was a lot - brand new ones in shops and very old ones I bought used). Then to me it's still a Blu-ray Disc.
Especially because it's also running a Java app - which literally requires a Blu-ray player to run.

So of course I'll keep calling my discs Blu-ray Discs. Terribly sorry for the pain it seems to give some people.

[usually_quiet]

Why is that non-conforming? 1920×1080 59.94i is part of the blu-ray spec and using the "--fake-interlace" flag allows for 29.97 progressive video. Or am I wrong?

No. 1920x1080@59.94i is not part of the original Blu-ray specs.

It is true there's a --fake-interlace flag for x264 that you can use to make 1920x1080@29.97p videos 100% Blu-ray compliant - according to the examples that was once listed on the x264 website. (Can't find the site for x264 anymore. Maybe it was taken down?). And this is the technique I'm using. So I guess that's one difference between my approach and Highwinder's method.

Still though, 1920x1080@29.97p wasn't listed in the specs when it was created 15 years ago (or longer), and some people here believes that you can't call your disc a Blu-ray Disc if it doesn't stick 100% to these 15-year old specs. That's what the discussion is about.

It began with Highwinder claiming that 1920x1080@60fps was possible - and of course it is. No one is denying that doing so doesn't follow the old specs. That's the one thing we agree upon. I (and Highwinder I think) just don't see any reason to call the disc anything else but a Blu-ray Disc, when everything except the framerate follows the specs - and it plays fine in all the players I've tested on (which was a lot - brand new ones in shops and very old ones I bought used). Then to me it's still a Blu-ray Disc.
Especially because it's also running a Java app - which literally requires a Blu-ray player to run.

So of course I'll keep calling my discs Blu-ray Discs. Terribly sorry for the pain it seems to give some people.

Do you also call zebras striped mules? After all, that is exactly what they look like, even if they are really something else entirely. LOL

As stated earlier in this thread, there actually is a spec that fits these discs (1920x1080p60 video), AVCHD 2.0 on Blu-ray. ...and while many Blu-ray players can play them, not all will play them without a hitch and some can't play them at all.

[poisondeathray]

Why is that non-conforming? 1920×1080 59.94i is part of the blu-ray spec and using the "--fake-interlace" flag allows for 29.97 progressive video. Or am I wrong?

No. 1920x1080@59.94i is not part of the original Blu-ray specs.

Yes it is. 29.97i and 59.94i actually indicate the same thing, just different naming conventions. You're getting confused about field rates and frame rates, progressive vs. field encoding, content vs. encoding.

It is true there's a --fake-interlace flag for x264 that you can use to make 1920x1080@29.97p videos 100% Blu-ray compliant - according to the examples that was once listed on the x264 website. (Can't find the site for x264 anymore. Maybe it was taken down?). And this is the technique I'm using. So I guess that's one difference between my approach and Highwinder's method.

Still though, 1920x1080@29.97p wasn't listed in the specs when it was created 15 years ago (or longer), and some people here believes that you can't call your disc a Blu-ray Disc if it doesn't stick 100% to these 15-year old specs. That's what the discussion is about.

But it's not just that, his case is a larger deviation in terms of decoding power required

"25p" BD's and "29.97p" BD's are created the same way - either encoded interlaced (and 2:2 pulldown cadence detection by the player), or using fake interlace flag (which you are doing, which is encoded progressive too). When talking about framerates; only ignoring java or bitrates or everything else - they are considered true BDs and you can find real pressed retail BD's made this way, that pass professional verification. The former method of encoding interlace is far more common. Eitherway, these are considered real BD's because they pass verification . The native progressive "25p" case isn't part of the real BD spec either. But they are called BD's. Why ? ...

Well 1920x1080i29.97 means 59.94 fields per second. In terms of pure pixels passed per unit time, this can be though as equivalent to 1920x1080p29.97 because each field is really 1920x540 . So half height fields, but twice the number. In terms of decoding power, they should be the same - so it was "stupid" in terms of the original specs to not allow 1920x1080p29.97 (as in native progressive) , or 1920x1080p25 (as in native progressive) because 1920x1080i25 is allowed, as is 1920x1080i29.97 . The key point here is FRAME rate is the same. 29.97p and 29.97i (25p and 25i) have the same FRAME rate.



This is completely different to Highwinder's case which will not pass verification because of the much higher frame rate. 1920x1080p59.94 is twice the amount you are using . This has major implications in terms of playback, especially for the first few generations of players

It's not just the framerate either. The bitrate for his AVCHD disc - which it really is - cannot use BD bitrates . The average bitrate is ~<24Mb/s for the video stream . Which is AVCHD2.0

[mr_lou]

As stated earlier in this thread, there actually is a spec that fits these discs (1920x1080p60 video), AVCHD 2.0 on Blu-ray. ...and while many Blu-ray players can play them, not all will play them without a hitch and some can't play them at all.

And as I said; that won't cut it: Because the disc also contains a Blu-ray Disc Java Xlet, which is not part of AVCHD 2.0 specs (as far as I know). So you can't call it AVCHD 2.0 on Blu-ray.

The bitrate for his AVCHD disc - which it really is - cannot use BD bitrates . The average bitrate is ~<24Mb/s for the video stream . Which is AVCHD2.0

Are you saying that a Blu-ray M2TS file cannot have a bitrate less than 24Mb/s?

[flashandpan007]

It's not just the framerate either. The bitrate for his AVCHD disc - which it really is - cannot use BD bitrates . The average bitrate is ~<24Mb/s for the video stream . Which is AVCHD2.0

AVCHD 2.0 is 28 Mbit/s, 24 Mbit/s is fine.
see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Specification_addendum_(AVCHD_2.0)

[poisondeathray]

Are you saying that a Blu-ray M2TS file cannot have a bitrate less than 24Mb/s?

No, if you go through the thread, I said those discs he creates in PD have an average video bitrate of 24Mb/s as per the AVCHD2.0 spec. ie. It's not a BD, nor does it use BD bitrates

I'm saying a 1920x1080p59.94 "whatever" won't author, let alone play as a BD disc . But will play fine in many newer players as a data disc or as USB

[flashandpan007]

Are you saying that a Blu-ray M2TS file cannot have a bitrate less than 24Mb/s?

No, if you go through the thread, I said those discs he creates in PD have an average video bitrate of 24Mb/s as per the AVCHD2.0 spec. ie. It's not a BD, nor does it use BD bitrates

I'm saying a 1920x1080p59.94 "whatever" won't author, let alone play as a BD disc . But will play fine in many newer players as a data disc or as USB

It's not just the framerate either. The bitrate for his AVCHD disc - which it really is - cannot use BD bitrates . The average bitrate is ~<24Mb/s for the video stream . Which is AVCHD2.0

AVCHD 2.0 is 28 Mbit/s, 24 Mbit/s is fine.
see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Specification_addendum_(AVCHD_2.0)

see here

[poisondeathray]

It's not just the framerate either. The bitrate for his AVCHD disc - which it really is - cannot use BD bitrates . The average bitrate is ~<24Mb/s for the video stream . Which is AVCHD2.0

AVCHD 2.0 is 28 Mbit/s, 24 Mbit/s is fine.
see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Specification_addendum_(AVCHD_2.0)

Yes, 28Mb/s is the max rate in the spec (and that's what the label is in PD), but in the tests, PD actually produced ~23-24Mb/s average with some slight buffered peaks above. He was claiming something much higher. Definitely not in a bitrate analyzer.

And if you look the crappy quality in the screenshots, there is no way the source material couldn't have benefited from more. You'd need something like 60-70Mb/s (which of course is illegal, I think everyone will agree) for decent quality using PD's encoder for 1920x1080p59.94

[mr_lou]

Now it sounds like you're labeling a disc AVCHD based on the bitrate used...

I'm pretty sure I can encode my video to any bitrate I want. Even 3000 kbps if I want - and it'll still be a Blu-ray Disc.

Regarding the 25 Mb/s....

There's actually a formula to calculate the bitrate. It's called the Kush Gauge formula, created by Kush Amerasinghe who works for Adobe. He wrote this interesting paper on H.264.

The formula looks like this:

width * height * fps * motion-factor * 0,07 / 1000

So if you have like 1920x1080@30fps, homevideo where there's hardly anything happening, the proper bitrate to use, according to this formula, would be:

1920 * 1080 * 30 * 2 * 0,07 / 1000 = 8710 kbps

Motion-factor 1 = Hardly anything happening
Motion-factor 2 = Some movement going on
Motion-factor 4 = Lots of action going on
The 0,07 represents the H.264 compression factor.
(More details on these things in the PDF linked above).

So according to this formula, 25 Mb/s is plenty of bitrate for a FullHD 60 fps video. It almost matches a motion-factor of 3, which is rather high.

And if your video content have very little changes between frames, there's room for many many hours on a single 25 gb disc.

[poisondeathray]

Now it sounds like you're labeling a disc AVCHD based on the bitrate used...

I'm pretty sure I can encode my video to any bitrate I want. Even 3000 kbps if I want - and it'll still be a Blu-ray Disc.

Yes, the bitrate is one of the factors . Sure you can use lower, but not higher.

I called this PD 28Mb/s stream (THEY called it 28Mb/s, not me - but it was actually 23-24Mb/s) AVCHD2.0 because it doesn't use BD bitrates.

Why not us 35Mb/s ? It sure could have used more than that on that test. It's bitrate starved - look at the quality loss. Because it can't - it conforms to AVCHD 2.0 specs.

AVCHD2.0 allows for 1920x1080p59.94 28Mb/s (many camcorders shoot this), BD does not.

Just call it what it is, there are names and specifications for these things. Use them.

I'm usually not a stickler for names , but when there are implications such as device compatibility, hardware decoding issues, I'd argue it's important

Regarding the 25 Mb/s....


There's actually a formula to calculate the bitrate. It's called the Kush Gauge formula, created by Kush Amerasinghe who works for Adobe. He wrote this interesting paper on H.264.

The formula looks like this:

width * height * fps * motion-factor * 0,07 / 1000

So if you have like 1920x1080@30fps, homevideo where there's hardly anything happening, the proper bitrate to use, according to this formula, would be:

1920 * 1080 * 30 * 2 * 0,07 / 1000 = 8710 kbps

Motion-factor 1 = Hardly anything happening
Motion-factor 2 = Some movement going on
Motion-factor 4 = Lots of action going on
The 0,07 represents the H.264 compression factor.
(More details on these things in the PDF linked above).

So according to this formula, 25 Mb/s is plenty of bitrate for a FullHD 60 fps video. It almost matches a motion-factor of 3, which is rather high.

And if your video content have very little changes between frames, there's room for many many hours on a single 25 gb disc.

Not a useful formula in real life - and you cannot use this formula in a generic fashion, because there are large differences between encoders, and many other source considerations. How many home videos have no or little motion? If anything it's the opposite - shaky camera, poorly lit, noisy - ie. difficult to compress .

Take a look at the screenshots on the 1st page. Look at the detail loss.

For example, if you encode a 25Mb/s h264 video with Adobe (Mainconcept), it won't look as good as using something like x264 encoder. There are large quality differences between encoders - there are many published tests and comparisons if you want more info

[usually_quiet]

As stated earlier in this thread, there actually is a spec that fits these discs (1920x1080p60 video), AVCHD 2.0 on Blu-ray. ...and while many Blu-ray players can play them, not all will play them without a hitch and some can't play them at all.

And as I said; that won't cut it: Because the disc also contains a Blu-ray Disc Java Xlet, which is not part of AVCHD 2.0 specs (as far as I know). So you can't call it AVCHD 2.0 on Blu-ray.

I was discussing Highwinder's video. As to your discs, poisondeathray explained why the video on your discs isn't 1080p59.94 encoded as interlaced.

As he stated "1080i59.94" and "1080i29.97" reflect two different naming conventions and both describe the same type of video. ...and that type of video is included in the original Blu-ray specs.

The existence of two different conventions causes endless confusion here and elsewhere. You are just the latest victim.

[Cornucopia]

That paper is interesting, though it shouldn't be thought of by any means as a white paper (which has a specific scientific/engineering connotation, and a specific format that includes a summary of RESEARCH DATA).
The formula is only good as a starting point, as it should have more ranks to the motion analysis and it has nothing which quanifies pixel spatial complexity (whether static or dynamic), which can GREATLY affect quality perception.

mr_lou, your disc(s) is not in the same category as Highwinder's, so don't get confused with replies referring to his situation. The closest his can come to in the published specs is either AVCHD 2.0 or UHDBD, so in those respects, his should be called xAVCHD or xUHDBD or something along those lines.
Yours does fall much more in the xBD camp.

If you or others want to call it BD in your own blogs, or at home, have at it.
When you bring it here, you are using a well-known and tightly-defined sci/eng convention* in public for something that falls outside of its umbrella and won't act consistently in others' experience with what is expected of that convention. In effect, a LIE. And if you were selling these to people, they would be within their rights to sue and get their money back for being so fraudulent.
That's certainly one main reason why I take it seriously.

All because, what, you can't be bothered to come up with a catchy name? I though "lou-ray" was kinda cool.

Scott

*that would be like deciding "mega" in megabyte was now going to refer to 700000 instead of 1000000, to accommodate your variation.

[mr_lou]

Yes I forgot 29,97i and 59.94i refers to the same thing. I did remember reading it somewhere long ago, when it was mentioned here. So we're on the same page there.

I will agree that a disc that contains an AVCHD folder, (and doesn't contain and run a Blu-ray Disc Java Xlet) - that is precisely an AVCHD disc.
But if the BDMV folder resides in root, and the disc also contains (and runs) a Blu-ray Disc Java Xlet - then it's no more accurate to call it an AVCHD disc than it is to call the other one a Blu-ray disc.

Something else to remember: The Blu-ray Disc Association doesn't permit anyone to use the Blu-ray logo on discs if you don't have a license. But wedding photographers and such are allowed to put "Blu-ray Disc TM" to identify what kind of disc it is. This is perfectly acceptable and legal for anyone - regardless of what they actually put on the disc - even if the content won't actually play on any Blu-ray player.

So I think that's were the discussion ends. Feels like you're actually defending the logo - and I can agree with that. That makes sense.

Obviously Highwinder (and anyone without a license really) cannot use the Blu-ray Logo on the disc - because it's not a "real" Blu-ray, as we all agree. Even if it would have passes verification, we still can't use the logo without a license.

But it is perfectly fine to put the words "Blu-ray Disc TM" on our disc. No one can sue anyone for that.


At this point, I'd like to thankyou all for behaving. It's very rare I experience the kind of polite attitude I'm seeing here. It's been a pleasant surprise. Gives the whole forum a good vibe.

[Cornucopia]

Snark aside, you are wrong about the BDA & logo stuff.
When a person authors a disc using legit, BDA-licensed authoring & burning applications (or using a legit pressing plant), that comes with tacit approval to use the logo, name, etc.on the disc & other materials.
That's why wedding photogs can do that, because they've "paid the dues", and are using something which, if used properly, should create compatible discs.
Logos & other trademarks are supposed to be manifestations of a certain cache, but also - and especially in cases like these - indication of compliance.
And if push ever had to come to shove, you would find out that YES, certainly here in the US and most WIPO-signatory contries, that using any trademark inappropriately, logo or not, counts as infringement.
And just so you are aware, "Blu-ray" and various derivative names and phrases ARE trademarked, and have been enforced. Those guys don't take kindly to people "besmirching their good reputation" by affixing it to something that doesn't meet their standards. They do and have successfully sued. And it is THEIR standard, not some public domain thing that's open to interpretation.

I'm sure you are gonna do what you wanna do, regardless. But don't then be surprised when called out on it.

Scott

[mr_lou]

Please take a look at http://www.blu-raydisc.info/logo-faq.php

Look at the bottom. It states the exact example I was referring to: Wedding photographers (and the likes) cannot use the BD logo, but is allowed to put "Blu-ray Disc TM" on the disc instead. They're even allowed to design the label in a way so that the original BD logo on the disc itself is visible.

So once again: The BD logo on a disc ensures that it is compliant to the specs. Therefor you're not allowed to use the logo without permission, and I can understand people objecting to people doing that anyway. But everyone is free to put "Blu-ray Disc TM" on their disc, as stated on the Blu-ray Disc Association's own website.

And if that doesn't close this discussion, nothing will. In any case, I've said what I wanted to say. So everyone have a nice day!

[Cornucopia]

Strange that they would write it like that, as that's not what they've been known to do (and not do) in real situations. I'll stand corrected on that last bit, then.

Scott