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

[kurtwilliams]

I've been scouring the internet trying find the answer to this question. I vaguely remember reading something somewhere that said you can't put 1080p 60fps video on a blu-ray. I'm wondering if this true or not?

Anyone know the answer?

[poisondeathray]

No - It's not compatible

[kurtwilliams]

hmmm, that's disappointing. Oh well, thanks for the help.

[ronmaz]

Anyone know the answer?

https://www.videohelp.com/hd

[johns0]

You can put it on a disc as data and play it on a newer blu-ray player.

[Highwinder]

YES - IT IS POSSIBLE.

Read this thread.

[Cornucopia]

We know it is possible, it just IS NOT fully compatible, regardless of your assurances.

Scott

[usually_quiet]

YES - IT IS POSSIBLE.

Read this thread.

Except your discs aren't Blu-rays and won't be playable with every Blu-ray player. Everything about your discs fits the AVCHD 2.0 spec. See http://www.avchd-info.org/format/ AVCHD supports menus, like DVD and Blu-ray. AVCHD 2.0 can be burned on BD-R. AVCHD 2.0 supports 1080p60 H.264 video, but only up to 28Mbps (the bitrate you used).

Calling it a non-standard Blu-ray is factually incorrect. Call it by its proper name. It's AVCHD 2.0 on BD-R. If you call it what it is, at least people have a chance to verify that their Blu-ray player supports playing that type of media before wasting a disk.

[Highwinder]

The fact that it's possible and playable in most all modern players is all that matters to anybody trying to create 1080p/60 blurays. Functionally, that's exactly what it is, despite whatever underlying technology manipulation may be occurring. Creating a functional 1080p/60 bluray is all I cared about no matter what it's actually called, and it WORKS, and works great in most any modern player I put the discs into (Panasonic, Sony, LG, Samsung, etc).

Not only does this work great for those of us 60p'ers who refuse to settle for interlaced (which we regard as "corrupted") video, this is also a definite answer to the original poster's question. In both cases, that's all that matters.

[usually_quiet]

The fact that it's possible and playable in most all modern players is all that matters to anybody trying to create 1080p/60 blurays. Functionally, that's exactly what it is, despite whatever underlying technology manipulation may be occurring. Creating a functional 1080p/60 bluray is all I cared about no matter what it's actually called, and it WORKS, and works great in most any modern player I put the discs into (Panasonic, Sony, LG, Samsung, etc).

Not only does this work great for those of us snobbish 60p'ers who refuse to settle for interlaced (see "corrupted") video, this is also a definite answer to the original poster's question. In both cases, that's all that matters.

These are NOT 1080p60 Blu-rays. Repeating that they are Blu-rays over and over doesn't make it true. Accuracy/facts are more valuable than misinformation.

No, it isn't all that matters. There is such a thing as low-quality 1080p60 video. It is only fair to point out that the compression artifacts resulting from the lower bitrate you must use for 1080p60 AVCHD also produces "corrupted" video.

[Highwinder]

That would be a reasonable assumption. However, the PS3 gaming system shows the real-time bitrate the video is playing at. It is frequently displaying bitrates up to 36 while playing these discs, showing that they are definitely not capped at 28. And they do in fact look stellar on screen. The Bluray players themselves are usually only spec'ed to 40, so the discs are bumping up against the hardware limits anyway. Good enough for me.

Remember, I'm just trying to help. And I can guarantee that this thread will help many.

[johns0]

The ps3 is more forgiving playing specs that aren't compliant such as avchd with high reference frames such as 8,most blu-ray player will show tons of artifacts where as the ps3 plays with no issues.This is in an authored situation.

[Highwinder]

So do Sony,s LG's, Samsungs, Panasonics, Pioneers, and others. The PS3 isn't the only player myself and many others are playing these on, and have been for a long time.

What surprises me so much is the fierce resistance this issue can get from the naysayers and how they almost want it to go away by needlessly splitting pointless hairs over terminology. I mean, it's like 60p blurays are some kind of threat to some invisible status quo. Seriously, it's officially at a joke level, like the earth isn't allowed to be anything other than flat.

As much as many may pointlessly need to argue over it, it still works and we're out here enjoying it. The naysayers can enjoy that interlaced garbage they're forcing themselves to tolerate, but that's not good enough for me and many others because there's better, and has been that way for a long time now. The functional and irrefutable end result is that I'm able to play in pretty much any bluray player I stuff these discs into. That is in fact all that matters. At least to people who demand better, anyway, just like the original poster. I have answered the OP's question with useful and real-world information to solve his problem and I'm actually having to defend myself. And defend myself, and the realities of this multi-facted technology, I have.

[Cornucopia]

"Most all players", "most any player", "pretty much any bluray player". Vague, presumptuous, bold claims. With nothing to back it up.

"It still works". But "it" is not what the unlearned consumers would think it is (standard Bluray).
And we already have contrary testimony that "it" (1080p60 @ >28Mbps) does NOT work as wonderfully as you claim. Skipping/stuttering being a common result.

Why don't you just admit that you haven't truly TESTED it with an objective, scientific & thorough/exhaustive series of methods and that your success is only anecdotal for a select few devices at your disposal? And to use this nonstandard method at your own risk?

Plus, you haven't responded to being called out on your gaffe regarding h265/HEVC, either. Or was that still also part of your WonderBluray snake oil formula?

Scott

[_Al_]

What surprises me so much is the fierce resistance this issue can get from the naysayers and how they almost want it to go away by needlessly splitting pointless hairs over terminology.

As a videographer, you might get a fierce resistance from your customers delivering 60p on BD as authored Blu-Ray. Pretty simple.

For yourself or your friends you can do whatever you want, of course.

But in a generation or two, all those BD's will end up here, this forum (if Baldrick will still be around ) with a question, how can we play this BD on our phone, or whatever device there will be common. Blu-Ray is not a folk delivery system for video content. Blu-Ray was made up and is used by corporations to deliver their content. And they will gladly destroy it , as soon as possible, so they keep making new money. But videographers have to go along with this, because folks do not want to think otherwise. Menus are not needed yet expected also, because latest BD has it as well. Home videos could be just named properly and you have it sorted out like that forever. It is organized, catalogued forever, you do not need any menu. etc.... You can burn it on BD as data if you want, whatever, just keeping names with datestamp in it and 3-4 word description. This way also you do not need long movies. That is misconceptions and it is only phones or facebook, youtube that broke that weird rule (to have one long edited something, that no one can really find a scene in it he/she wants to see later). Folks do not think for themselves, unfortunately, they do what they see, and that is Blu-Rays with movies. Just short clips, properly named are more than enough.

Heck you can say later, decade or so,Siri, Frank, Bob whatever, "I want to see my video from May 2018" and system will show you selections, this is not possible if you have some BD's with menus.

btw this goes for photos and phone videos as well. If you do not have a datestamp starting in the name (for example 2018_05_29 01 this and that) , or folder names (for example 2018 05) you are lost and you cannot find anything later. I mention this because of this catch 22, I have long 60p edited video, I need a menu to find things, but only BD supports menu.

[usually_quiet]

When I read the following in Highwinder's first post I had a feeling that he was mainly here to stir up pointless arguments for his own amusement:

Here's the other part that people need to understand, and I really want to rub this in for maximum annoyance and "uprising" factor:...

Sad to say that my suspicions have now been confirmed.

[poisondeathray]

Terminology is important in this case because there is a clear distinction in terms of specifications, bitrates and compatibility. There are consequences.

Do you think an older MP3 player can play opus or AAC audio ? No, there are compatibility consequences. A phillips screwdriver is different than a flat head/slot , or robertson screwdriver. The terminology is important there too and has consequences.

Specs are there for a reason. One big one is to ensure device compatability.

Not all players support this AVCHD2.0 28Mb/s 1080p59.94 variant. In fact, there is a warning when you select that option. "check with the device manufacturer that the BD player the disc will be played on supports the selected profile. Not all BD players currently support this format"

[Attachment 45770 - Click to enlarge]

Well I know for a fact that older players simply will even not play it. Others will play by with jerkiness. I tried it a long time ago, and I just verifed again today. Older players are limited to L4.1 AVC in terms of the decoder chip (hardware, not something a firmware fix can patch) , so that excludes 1080p59.94. Period.

But yes, most newer BD players can play it. But they can play much higher specs too, much higher bitrates even, although not necessarily from authored disc. Compatibility for this variant is definitely lower than a real BD even though the bitrate is lower than a typical BD. If you're doing for yourself and you check out your specific models great, but you should not give blanketed advice that "it works" assuming it would for everyone, because it simply doesn't. PD even warns you.

It's not a real BD. Yes, you can have buffered peaks slightly higher than 28Mb/s, but never sustained. The average bitrate will always be below 28Mb/s . For some types of content it might be enough. For others it will not be enough and you will see quality problems. But that <28Mb/s is a compromise, just like "BD" specs are compromised. That's what video is all about - compromises. .

You might not "see" the problems, because you don't know any better. They might look "stellar" you because you're not comparing it to other video cameras or sources. But "1080p" isn't equal from different cameras. Most consumer acquired video actually has around 600-800 lp/ph of actual resolvable detail, in a perfect studio setting with no motion. Once you add in motion, compression it only goes down from there

So I tested it again today - the PD "1080/60p (28Mb/s) BD" output is actually closer to ~24Mb/s average using an actual analyzer. Yes there are peaks slightly above 28mb/s, but you're probably reading aggregate stream bitrate, not video bitrate.

It's watchable but the quality is lower. Keyframe popping, artifacts, softer, missing texture details . I think everyone will agree the bitrate isn't adequate here

Some comparison screenshots
1_orig

[Attachment 45771 - Click to enlarge]
1_pd

[Attachment 45774 - Click to enlarge]

2_orig

[Attachment 45772 - Click to enlarge]
2_pd

[Attachment 45773 - Click to enlarge]


So not all 28Mb/s (or actually closer to ~24Mb/s) AVC streams are equal. There are significant differnces between encoders, even when using the same "BD" restrictions for settings. In some cases, using 720p59.94 using a better encoder at even the same bitrate (let alone higher, say 35Mb/s) will look better than this "1080/60p" using the lower quality encoder that PD uses

So this 28Mb/s "BD" is certainly an option, but with compatibility issues, and definite quality issues.

Actual BD is compromised too, so many people don't even use optical disc anymore (one reason might be menus.) Most newer BD players can play much higher specs through USB. But if I were going to use a BD as a medium for storage, it would be a data disc, not this lower bitrate, lower quality video that PD produces, unless I absolutely needed menus for some reason

[Highwinder]

Yes, there are always trade-offs. But look at those example images above. Good examples, along with the commentary. I'll add that progressive vs interlaced, especially during movement, is instantly going to show the progressive remains clear while the interlaced content gets very fuzzy without using an interpolating TV as a crutch. There's a reason why progressive is desirable over interlaced, and is why people are looking at alternatives to the ancient form of interlacing video, and at this point in technological history, very needlessly. This complaint is part of what caused AVCHD 2.0 to come along in the first place. The loss experienced by the 60p compression is minimal compared to the epic clarity failure of 60i interlaced content during movement. Most video content is full of movement, especially at the camcorder level.

I should clear up one issue: The main reason many of us are sticking with optical is because of long term archiving. True, original source files can just be backed up on the media, but playable media for active regular use makes bluray a great choice. Many of us use bluray for both. Hard drives, USB sticks, SD cards, etc are extremely vulnerable and not considered reliable for archiving. They are magnetically sensitive and as vulnerable as a hot dashboard in a car. Optical disc does not have these problems, and bluray is the only high-capacity optical medium available.

That aside, and like I said in the original post, most all modern players will play these discs. And like I said before, I was trying to help and answer the original poster's question. All he got from everyone was "it can't be done". This is incorrect and I showed otherwise, and it triggered needless drama to the point of people actually looking for reasons to personally criticize. If egos are that sensitive around here, then the original poster came to the wrong place for answers.

To be specific and to address one of the responses above about "scientific testing":

1080p60 blurays (AVCHD 2.0 blurays if you insist) run on the follow TESTED bluray players:

Sony PS3
Sony PS4
Samsung BD-H5900
Samsung BD-F5500
Samsung BD-H6500
LG BP420
Pioneer BDP-150
Phillips bluray players as well (I do not remember the model, I replaced mine with the 5900).

The point is that I HAVE tested these discs in many popular/mainstream players, and so have many others. Would have tested it on more players myself, but I do actually have a budget. And they have been tested to very effectively satisfy any claim or worry of of dysfunction, incompatibility, or non-compliance. It's not "yeah, it might work", the fact is, it does work, and on pretty much every modern player I've been able to get my hands on.

I didn't come in here to cause problems, I came in here to answer the original poster's question to be helpful. Some people aren't interested in that helpful information, and this thread has made that very clear. So be it. But the manufacturers themselves have brought this technology update to pass (7 years ago), regardless of how entrenched traditionalists may have become about old standards.

I'm not out here making false claims - we're actually out here doing this, and it works. 7 years of AVCHD 2.0 have given plenty of time for some of us to put it to use. No word games change that. One would THINK this information would be helpful, but only to those looking for it I guess. To everybody else, it seems to trigger drama. Oh well.

If creating 60p blurays are the goal of anyone reading this thread, it CAN be done. All it requires is a modern (AVCHD 2.0 compliant) bluray player, which means if you bought a player in the last 7 years, and certainly in the last 5, you're almost assuredly good to go. If there are any quality trade-offs, it's almost always going to be better than interlaced or 720p. Go try it and see for yourself instead of getting brow-beaten for even considering it.

[DB83]

It does not matter, as has been said, that the models you mention, or any others support this format. Jo Bloggs on the street knows feck all about standards and if he sees the magic words 'Blu Ray Player' he expects his player to play his disk subject to normal firmware (if available) updates.

If you were distributing this media he would not be impressed at all if you were to say his player was not 'new enough'.

And you qualified your statement either in this thread, or the one you posted that drivel with the words 'most players'.

The issue I also see is one of well-intended, but still, mis-information. I doubt the OP is this thread still reads - he has not been active for 4 years. Yet you dug up the thread to attempt to emphasise your point. Even the other thread which you registered to post on was nearly 5 months old. Was even that on the first page of the sub forum ?

Now you are back-tracking. Case of attempting to catch the horse after the stable door was left open.

But to be useful you check the format and bitrate of your source. If the destination format and/or bitrate is different then re-encoding has taken place which itself impacts on the quality of the end result.

[_Al_]

Also to encode CBR (not CRF or 2pass) is not optimal at all. You are pretty much avoiding pdr's comment.

You are really better off to encode content yourself, properly name it and put it on BD as data in smaller clips, into a directory structure if needed, if you want to archive data on optical disc. You want to archive, then do it properly with labels so no one can sort things out again later and fishing out original video files from BDMV structure.

If you want those 60p BD's authored, you might just author 60p BD using tsMuxer, importing video and audio encoded by you, but tsMuxer would not make menu.

Or multiAVCHD would do same thing if I'm not mistaken. It would load 60p (or encode it within) and create BD structure with menu as well.

[poisondeathray]

Yes, there are always trade-offs. But look at those example images above. Good examples, along with the commentary. I'll add that progressive vs interlaced, especially during movement, is instantly going to show the progressive remains clear while the interlaced content gets very fuzzy without using an interpolating TV as a crutch. There's a reason why progressive is desirable over interlaced, and is why people are looking at alternatives to the ancient form of interlacing video, and at this point in technological history, very needlessly. This complaint is part of what caused AVCHD 2.0 to come along in the first place. The loss experienced by the 60p compression is minimal compared to the epic clarity failure of 60i interlaced content during movement. Most video content is full of movement, especially at the camcorder level.

Yes trade offs. But I'm wondering if you have playback chain setup correctly; it shouldn't look *that* bad for interlaced.

Don't automatically think that "progressive" is better.

1080p59.94 only works, if you have adequate bitrate, adequate encoder , otherwise it can look pretty *bad* too. 1080p59.94 requires a lot more bitrate to look a certain level of "quality" . That' s why we have interlaced in this world in the first place. It's a bandwidth tradeoff. Often 28Mb/s is not enough, certainly not with n'th generation encoding using restricted compatibility settings with a subpar encoder

How's that for epic clarity failure ? WTF ? That's what you're making with this PD "28Mb/s" option.

[Attachment 45788 - Click to enlarge]

It doesn't look that great in motion either - keyframe popping and motion prediction artifacts.

Is that even worth burning to a disc ? It's not a real option for people that favor quality

I should clear up one issue: The main reason many of us are sticking with optical is because of long term archiving. True, original source files can just be backed up on the media, but playable media for active regular use makes bluray a great choice. Many of us use bluray for both. Hard drives, USB sticks, SD cards, etc are extremely vulnerable and not considered reliable for archiving. They are magnetically sensitive and as vulnerable as a hot dashboard in a car. Optical disc does not have these problems, and bluray is the only high-capacity optical medium available.

Yes, pros/cons again

Cost per GB favors USB HDD by far. Optical discs require cases or folders to store which should be added to the total. What's not discussed often is the clutter and time factor. 1000's of discs are difficult to keep organized. It takes time to burn and switch discs. Time is money, I'd rather be doing other things. You can get multiple HDD backups for the same cost. It' s much easier to copy a HDD than to swap a few hundred discs one by one. And just think - your wife/partner won't nag you for making a mess of 1000's of disc cluttered everywhere. The peace alone is worth it for some people.

I've had HDD's fail, but I've had quite a number BD's fail too. They are not bulletproof. Some easily explained (scratches), but some unexplained where they just wouldn't be read by any player. I have a lot of experience with BD. Just look at my old posts. Don't let the marketing speak fool you, they are not as reliable as you think. Pressed BD's are definitely more reliable; "burned" BD's not so much. It's not a good backup option unless you have multiple backups. Multiple backups are the ONLY way.

[Highwinder]

It does not matter, as has been said, that the models you mention, or any others support this format. Jo Bloggs on the street knows feck all about standards and if he sees the magic words 'Blu Ray Player' he expects his player to play his disk subject to normal firmware (if available) updates.

If you were distributing this media he would not be impressed at all if you were to say his player was not 'new enough'.

And you qualified your statement either in this thread, or the one you posted that drivel with the words 'most players'.

The issue I also see is one of well-intended, but still, mis-information. I doubt the OP is this thread still reads - he has not been active for 4 years. Yet you dug up the thread to attempt to emphasise your point. Even the other thread which you registered to post on was nearly 5 months old. Was even that on the first page of the sub forum ?

Now you are back-tracking. Case of attempting to catch the horse after the stable door was left open.

But to be useful you check the format and bitrate of your source. If the destination format and/or bitrate is different then re-encoding has taken place which itself impacts on the quality of the end result.

Backtracking? I stand by every word.

Look, I get it that you're adamantly opposed to this. But regardless of your knowledge of standards, these discs work and I have yet to come across a player that doesn't play them. In my world, that's irrefutable fact against your narrow-minded response. But you go on quoting those standards. Looks like a fun hobby. In the mean time, I'm watching "1080p60 blurays that play on regular bluray players because the hardware manufacturers that set the standards (like Sony and Panasonic) decided to build things that way".

Your argument isn't with me - it's with the hardware manufacturers themselves. Good luck with that.

[DB83]

Well I think we are all wasting our time even trying to reason with you. You came on here with your mind made up that you are right and no words by anyone, even those with much greater knowledge than me, and probably you as well, are going to change that. You have ignored virtually every single technical comment because 'it works'.

If you are so insistent that it works you could upload working samples of before and after (not just a frame). But you are not open to real criticism so why bother.

[usually_quiet]

Backtracking? I stand by every word.

Look, I get it that you're adamantly opposed to this. But regardless of your knowledge of standards, these discs work and I have yet to come across a player that doesn't play them. In my world, that's irrefutable fact against your narrow-minded response. But you go on quoting those standards. Looks like a fun hobby. In the mean time, I'm watching "1080p60 blurays that play on regular bluray players because the hardware manufacturers that set the standards (like Sony and Panasonic) decided to build things that way".

Your argument isn't with me - it's with the hardware manufacturers themselves. Good luck with that.

Nobody has said that AVCHD 2.0 on BD-R should never be used under any circumstances.

You are misrepresenting the position of the other particpants in this discussion and claiming persecution where none exists. That is a well-worn page from the troll handbook, so at this point I'm going to come right out and say that you are a troll.

For the most part, we've merely been asking you to use correct terminology to describe these these authored discs to avoid confusion. You have known from the beginning that these 1080p60 discs don't conform to the Blu-ray standard and have been informed multiple times that they are actually AVCHD 2.0 on BD-R. ...and yet you continue to refer to them as "blurays". You aren't stupid or technologically ignorant, so this looks to me like a decision made to generate maximum annoyance from other participants in this thread.

Authored AVCHD 2.0 was designed for use with the first 1080p50/60 cameras. In a technological sense, it is as much a relic of its time as authored Blu-ray. If someone has one of those older cameras, from a technical standpoint, authored AVCHD is as good a way to go as any, assuming that they have something that is able to play it.

However, it is fair to point out that AVCHD 2.0 isn't the best option available due to its bitrate limitations if someone is looking to retain the higher quality video available from a more modern 1080p50/60 camera. Burning 1080p60 with higher bitrates as data files on BD-R or BD-R DL would provide better quality, if someone has a machine that will play it. I'm not sure why someone would genuinely be offended by that suggestion or characterize it as narrow-minded when it is a valid option and playable by some Blu-ray players.

[poisondeathray]

One of the reasons why the quality is lower is the PD stream only uses a 15 frame (1/4 sec) GOP . Spec compliant AVCHD2.0 normally uses 30 frame (1/2 sec) for 59.94p. It's like they are dumbing it down on purpose, not sure why. But if you had more control over the settings it could improve the quality. Or if you could replace the encoder. (There is an option to use quicksync if you have Intel CPU , I tried it - it doesn't improve much, worse in other areas too) .

[Cornucopia]

I agree with DB83, if you really wanted to stand by what you claim, you could upload a sample of the source footage and a sample short ISO of your non-standard BD/AVCHD. Then we could all see for ourselves whether these work as you say.

Scott

[mr_lou]

I can't believe the amount of resistance Highwinder has been getting for this.

I too have created "non-old-spec" Blu-ray discs for quite some time now, meaning 1080p@29,97fps video on a BD-R.
And I call them Blu-ray discs because:

• Root folder contains a BDMV and CERTIFICATE folder - not an AVCHD folder. (Last time I read up on AVCHD, it required the content to be inside an AVCHD folder. But specs might have changed, so ok).
• Disc is burned with UDF2.5 filesystem.
• But most importantly: Disc runs a "Blu-ray Disc Java Xlet", also known as a "BD-J menu" (coded by me). As far as I've read, AVCHD doesn't support BD-J Xlets. But correct me if I'm misinformed. That would be interesting.

[Cornucopia]

If you followed the the tradition of XVCD, XSVCD, miniDVD, etc., we really wouldn't have that much of a problem with it, but just calling it a Blu-ray because YOU find it similar enough and seem to like it is unscientific & deceitful. And maybe a bit egotistical.

Scott

[mr_lou]

I'm calling it Blu-ray because it's a Blu-ray folder structure on a UDF 2.5 filesystem running a Blu-ray Disc Java Xlet - and the videos are encoded according to Blu-ray specs - except the framerate wasn't included in the standard 15 years ago. So you're saying, that just because the framerate differs from the original specs - while everything else is still acting like Blu-ray - then it's not Blu-ray? If I hadn't seen the other replies in these threads I'd think you were joking.

AVCHD simply does not execute Blu-ray Java apps. Only Blu-ray does. Calling it anything else but Blu-ray, just because the framerate wasn't included in the specs 15 years ago, makes absolutely no sense.

[SaurusX]

I can't believe the amount of resistance Highwinder has been getting for this.

I too have created "non-old-spec" Blu-ray discs for quite some time now, meaning 1080p@29,97fps video on a BD-R.

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?