Doesn't that suck? WB just increased bitrates for no reason

[Sbert]

both numbers are still way over dvd's numbers. and the question still remains that at that high of a bit rate, where is the visual and/or audio proof? if it's all at the eyes and ears of the beholder, then you still haven't proven anything.

Unfortunately, I think you're approaching this wrong. The key is in the perception of what a person is getting. You might not be getting visual or audio proof that you want, but ultimately if the stats look better, it's perceived as being better albeit there might not be a noticeable difference. So, the effect is basically the same as IF there was actual proof or not.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have my HD DVD equipment anymore and some people could make efforts to make screenshots of different frames with the bit rates and give you that proof, but I don't think anyone at this point gives a shit because it's a lesson in futility in regards to HD DVD vs Blu-ray...since obviously HD DVD is not a supported format as we move forward...

I do have to mention as devil's advocate, you also have to prove that there is no difference as much as anyone has to prove that there _IS_ a difference.

[melodywhore]

Unfortunately, I think you're approaching this wrong. The key is in the perception of what a person is getting. You might not be getting visual or audio proof that you want, but ultimately if the stats look better, it's perceived as being better albeit there might not be a noticeable difference. So, the effect is basically the same as IF there was actual proof or not.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have my HD DVD equipment anymore and some people could make efforts to make screenshots of different frames with the bit rates and give you that proof, but I don't think anyone at this point gives a shit because it's a lesson in futility in regards to HD DVD vs Blu-ray...since obviously HD DVD is not a supported format as we move forward...

I do have to mention as devil's advocate, you also have to prove that there is no difference as much as anyone has to prove that there _IS_ a difference.

i agree with your second comment wholeheartedly. but you get threads like these that show you nothing but tell you everything (what is this obscure movie reference from?). these people may as well be on here boasting penis size, bank accounts screen caps and how hot their wife/girlfriend is because in the grand scheme, they all mean nothing to me.

[Sbert]

i agree with your second comment wholeheartedly. but you get threads like these that show you nothing but tell you everything (what is this obscure movie reference from?). these people may as well be on here boasting penis size, bank accounts screen caps and how hot their wife/girlfriend is because in the grand scheme, they all mean nothing to me.

Yup. I actually think that there is no noticeable difference to the human eye. I think you might find some differences with blown up images for a screenshot - but again nothing worth writing home to mom - and because of different encodes - a shot in HD DVD might look better than a shot in BD. So, I don't think there's going to be any solid proof in your face proof that the higher bitrate will be better unless you get about 1000 people and do a double blind study.

The things we do know are that with the movie taking up more of the bandwidth of total bitrate, it allows for less concurrent things to occur, which may actually limit extras and special features.

I guess it's the studios job to balance extras for bit rate bandwidth with the original movie and audio.

Albeit, I would buy say the superbit version of a BD movie if it was offered without ANY extras...and just maxed out video and lossless audio.

[Kosty]

OK - so was HD DVD prone to artifacts because it had a lower max bit rate?

No but more care had to be give to the encodes. Its easier with Blu-ray with an higher available bit rate and bandwidth.

BD25s are not as likely to get benefits out of the bitrate because the space is a constraint, HD DVD 30GBs almost did not need more bandwidth becuase the space again was a constraint.

BD50s have both the space available to allow a larger file size to take advantage of the higher bandwidth and the higher max bit rate.

[Kosty]

All other things being equal, yes. The lower bandwidth of HD DVD has long been one of the primary reasons why many pushed for blu-ray so hard.

Now keep in mind that that won't always result in noticeable differences. But sometimes it does. Other sacrifices may have been made to avoid noticeable artifacts in picture, like avoid lossless audio tracks for example. Or someone may have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get one particular scene to render well because the bandwidth limitation was causing significant artifacts. Given more capacity, that time would not have to be spent or other sacrifices would not have to be made. But always, always, always the lower bandwidth and capacity the hardware has the more sacrifices must be made (obviously within reason - if instead of movies the discs contained plain text documents the hardware capacity would far exceed the demand and there would be no need to compress anything at all).

With HD DVD the logic was the hardware and specification limitation allowed for simpler and cheaper hardware and existing disc replication using existing DVD infrastructure.

But Blu-ray hardware is arriving now on the market and enough Blu-ray replication infrastructure investment is happening now to make those HD DVD advantages kinda quaint sounding now.

Blu-ray specs are nice to have now as we are seeing mass market production of hardware and BD50s coming to retail and to consumers.

[Kosty]

Hot Fuzz is the difinitive demo disc?? I guess I can't speak since I never viewed the movie or disc, but I just don't see any comady being the definitive demo disc for a format... It bests Bourne Ultimadum? Harry Potter and the order of the phonix? Transformers?

ya just gotta see it to understand. For just showing off how high def explosions and action sequences it rocks. For a total movie experience others are better, but for pure demo eye candy......

The action sequences and gun battles in the town, just look, ....well amazing.

Its worth buying the disc just to show of your system.

[Kosty]

Compressionist cjplay posted the following on AVS:



http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/...&&#post7898249

Of course, that was June 2006. He warmed to HD DVD a lot during the following months (presumably with some encouragement by amir) and merely said that the HD DVD bottleneck merely required some more work to finetune and get the same results.

He also said that the tools at that time made the VC-1 encoding processing a lot easier and that the AVC tools at that time were a pig to use. Same thing that Alan Bell said (Paramount CTO).

One of the things I learned at CES this year, was the Warner technical people said not only that BD50 production and replication capacity was projected to be getting much better, but that the AVC encoding tools and BD-J authoring tools were also getting much better and easier to use and therefore the technical potential of Blu-ray specification wise was more likely to be realistically and economically available for use.

The evolution of BD50 production and AVC and BD-J work flow was significant between July 2007 when the Paramount decision was made and in Jan 2008 when the Warner decision was made. That was a big factor in how both decisions went the way they did. The facts changed and helped create the different results.

[vinnie97]

^That is interesting to know. Like Windows Vista over the same time period, it looks like the AVC/BD-J tools were updated to make them more user-friendly and we all did ultimately benefit as a result.

[Kosty]

^That is interesting to know. Like Windows Vista over the same time period, it looks like the AVC/BD-J tools were updated to make them more user-friendly and we all did ultimately benefit as a result.

I think it was a major factor in the decision.

Blu-ray fan bots will claim that Blu-ray software sales were decisive, but I'm pretty sure that they were rather low on the list and Warner execs considered the Blu-ray software sales numbers title and promotional driven and head to head in comparable titles pretty close.

HD DVD did not sell enough hardware units to gain a decisive win, and Blu-ray HDTV Blu-ray player bundles blunted a HD DVD Dec hardware sales win.

But Warner still had significant Blu-ray concerns on player pricing, BD50 replication capacity and yields and AVC/BD-J encoding costs and work flow. But as the tools got better , more powerful and easier to use, those concerns were mitigated.

With HD DVD failing to break out in 4Q 2007 and the industry and retail leaning Blu, it was the satisfaction of those concerns that enabled the decisive Warner decision to happen.

It was an acknowledgment of technical progress in Blu-ray in being able to scale up to mass market production levels more than any 2007 sales that were I believe much more important.

[Flex Mentallo]

but you get threads like these that show you nothing but tell you everything (what is this obscure movie reference from?).

True Romance

[GeorgeKaplan]

But Warner still had significant Blu-ray concerns on player pricing, BD50 replication capacity and yields and AVC/BD-J encoding costs and work flow. But as the tools got better , more powerful and easier to use, those concerns were mitigated.

With HD DVD failing to break out in 4Q 2007 and the industry and retail leaning Blu, it was the satisfaction of those concerns that enabled the decisive Warner decision to happen.

O.K. let's assume for a second that HD DVD sales would have been satisfying enough for Warner in Q4 - would that mean that they remained being neutral ?

I also still don't understand how (and why) WB obviously expected HD DVD to sell close or even better than br ??
They are the ones who went from HD DVD exclusive to neutral !!
So they, one of the most active studio with one of the largest movie archives, affected HD DVD sales more than almost anybody else.
Any idea ?

[steaky]

Its pure opinion that the best of bluray equaled the best of HD-DVD.

I found that the very best on bluray was better (not by a lot, but better) than the best offered on HD-DVD. Hot Fuzz is the definitive demo disc for HD-DVD and it I would say that it was better than over 80% of the blurays out there.

The point of this argument is the following:

If you had the best compressionist in the world, he would probably tell you that it was easier to encode for bluray due to higher bandwidth.

Lets say he took our favorite move that had a perfect master and made two encodes that was made to fit both formats limitations. Its a fact that the bluray version would have a bigger file size and have more information present. In short, it would be "better"


NOW, before you freak out about the above statement, I will add this:
Whether or not that "better" is noticable to the human eyes..... on a 30-50" TV

Thats a different story, but I will say that the difference would probably not be significant.

However, a higher bitrate just makes us happier. IS that a good enough reason???

This is the crux of the issue IMO.


If you have ever tried to compress video, you know its a tedious process. A bitrate limit that is significantly lower than the other format just squeezes you that much more, into making sacrifices that may not be ideal.

Why handcuff the work? I dont understand that. I dont want 'good enough', we have politicians and Microsoft for that.

[Dave J]

O.K. let's assume for a second that HD DVD sales would have been satisfying enough for Warner in Q4 - would that mean that they remained being neutral ?

I also still don't understand how (and why) WB obviously expected HD DVD to sell close or even better than br ??
They are the ones who went from HD DVD exclusive to neutral !!
So they, one of the most active studio with one of the largest movie archives, affected HD DVD sales more than almost anybody else.
Any idea ?

It's been previously reported that the decision for Warner to move from HD DVD exclusive to neutral prior to the launch of both HDM formats was made at the highest corporate level. Behind the scenes though there were clearly decisions made/deals brokered to give Toshiba a leg up over the competition with numerous "unofficial" exclusives such as Batman Begins and The Matrix Trilogy. There was no shortage of people within Warner that were sympathetic towards Toshiba with Steve Nickerson - Senior Vice President, Worldwide High Definition (formerly of Toshiba) being the most prominent until he resigned late August of last year.