Has Paramount doomed HD-DVD?

[CochiseGuy]

Sorry Cochise Guy. I have corrected my mistake. Looking at the two I am wondering which BD player the reviewer used. I have noticed that the PS3 does not burn the whites like the Samsung does. The Sonys BDs don't really do that either. However, I have heard that the LG's do run hot. My take on this is that BD players are just like DVD players - once you get your player you might have to play with your settings to get the best result.

HighDefDigest describes their High-def equipment here -

The current core of our system is the Sony KDS-R70XBR2 70" LCoS 1080P HDTV. It is one of the elite consumer monitors that can accept full 1080p via its HDMI inputs, allowing it to display every last line of high-definition's maximum resolution of 1920x1080. Our Sony KDS-R70XBR2 has been professionally calibrated by an ISF-certified technician to ensure a reference-quality presentation.
ADVERTISEMENT

Audio is processed with the Pioneer Elite VSX-81TXV 7.1CH Dolby Digital/DTS A/V Receiver, which supports full 192 kHz / 24-Bit conversion of decoded Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Lossless Master Audio formats via HDMI. It powers three S-150THX left, center and right speakers, a pair of left and right SS-150 surrounds, an additional pair of S-100B back left and back right surrounds, and a M&K MX-200 subwoofer. No artificial equalization or other sound processing is used to retain the integrity of the original source material.

For high-def disc playback, we currently use Toshiba's HD-XA2 for HD DVD, and Samsung's BD-P1000 for Blu-ray. Beginning in November of 2006, we also began comparing high-def playback on our standalone players vs high-def playback on Sony's PlayStation 3 60Gb Blu-ray Player and Microsoft's Xbox 360 HD DVD Player.

In their review for "Return to House on Haunted Hill" which has seamless branching - for alternative plots (Sounds kind of interesting - at various points of the movie you're presented with 2 questions, and the disk loads the corresponding footage for your decision). They mention comparing different players to test the load time for the seamless branching -

(I tried the Blu-ray version on the PlayStation 3 and a Samsung, and the HD DVD version on two different Toshiba players, and "jump" times were between 3-5 seconds, with the PS3 the quickest.)

Are you saying you have both a Samsung player & the PS3? When you say "My take on this is that BD players are just like DVD players - once you get your player you might have to play with your settings to get the best result" makes me wonder if that is why I wasn't so impressed with my PS3 - I always thought the top quality HD DVDs always looked better than the top rated BD's. But I never made any adjustments on my HDTV for the PS3 - HD Sat. & OTA and HD DVD look great the way it's adjusted now, I wasn't about to change anything to make the PS3 happy.

My theory here is that is so small a percentage of HD-DVD titles with a Lossless Codec that the reviewers have given up on hearing one even though we are talking about one of the biggest blockbusters of 2007. Even the HD-DVD camp has given up on Lossless Codecs because they are okay with not having one and try to convince everyone that a DD 5.1+ is equal to a Lossless Codec - a comparisson that is as moot as trying to convince someone of the benefits of HD when they can not see the differance between SD and HD.

Well, your theory is dead wrong. A quick check at HDDVDstats.com & sorting by Audio reveals over 50 titles with TrueHD. In looking over the titles, a couple that I have and can confirm the TrueHD was a noticeable improvement include Happy Feet (the BD only got DD), Letters from Iwa Jima (again, DB was deprived), Matrix Trilogy, Poseidon (dreadful movie, but sounded great!) TMNT, and We Are Marshal, to name a few. But then there's Top Gun - it had TrueHD 5.1 and DTS ES 6.1. I tried both, and even though my 6.1 capable Onkyo 605 is only connected to a 5.1 speaker system, I preferred the DTS ES audio track - better dynamic range & separation of channels.

Well, my Transformers arrived from Amazon today, so I have a great popcorn flick to watch this evening. I'll let you know how that 'crappy' lossy audio sounds - if I didn't live on 10 acres, my neighbors could probably give you an opinion too.

 

[vurbano]

Even the HD-DVD camp has given up on Lossless Codecs because they are okay with not having one and try to convince everyone that a DD 5.1+ is equal to a Lossless Codec - a comparisson that is as moot as trying to convince someone of the benefits of HD when they can not see the differance between SD and HD.

Sure on a frequency by frequency basis you may be are to tell the difference between truehd and DD+ 5.1 but even professionals have said that they couldnt tell the difference between DD+5.1 and a master when put to a real world test, a soundtrack. And you compare it to SD vs HD? That must be some good sh$t you are smoking.

Sorry Cochise Guy. I have corrected my mistake. Looking at the two I am wondering which BD player the reviewer used.

SO this is all you have left to argue when you lose all the other points. The old standby, it must be their equipment. Pathetic.

 

[jayn_j]

I see what you mean now. So, if HD-DVD does "win" here, there is a good chance that BD will still be available here if it remains popular globally, or at least in a few other markets. Good point.

Thanks. Add to that as long as someone still believes in the format and is willing to continue to invest. RCA 'won' the videodisc war back in 1984 and then killed the format. NA Phillips, through Magnavox made the initial technology investment and then chickened out. It was Pioneer that continued to invest in the technology with both marketing and R&D. Check the patents. Phillips has all the ones from the '70s,Pioneer has all the ones fro the '80s and '90s.

By the same token, Beta remained available long after it lost that war because of higher popularity in Japan and South America. Low investment to keep a player or two on the price list.

So yes, both formats could survive for a long time, even if one becomes dominant. It all depends on how committed the heavyweights remain. Now, I don't believe that will happen. Somebody will flinch, but I am also very afraid that 90% of the populaton will remain confused and apathetic. The result then is the same as the DVD-A/SACD war, and we all lose.

 

[JoeSp]

HighDefDigest describes their High-def equipment here -



In their review for "Return to House on Haunted Hill" which has seamless branching - for alternative plots (Sounds kind of interesting - at various points of the movie you're presented with 2 questions, and the disk loads the corresponding footage for your decision). They mention comparing different players to test the load time for the seamless branching -



Are you saying you have both a Samsung player & the PS3? When you say "My take on this is that BD players are just like DVD players - once you get your player you might have to play with your settings to get the best result" makes me wonder if that is why I wasn't so impressed with my PS3 - I always thought the top quality HD DVDs always looked better than the top rated BD's. But I never made any adjustments on my HDTV for the PS3 - HD Sat. & OTA and HD DVD look great the way it's adjusted now, I wasn't about to change anything to make the PS3 happy.



Well, your theory is dead wrong. A quick check at HDDVDstats.com & sorting by Audio reveals over 50 titles with TrueHD. In looking over the titles, a couple that I have and can confirm the TrueHD was a noticeable improvement include Happy Feet (the BD only got DD), Letters from Iwa Jima (again, DB was deprived), Matrix Trilogy, Poseidon (dreadful movie, but sounded great!) TMNT, and We Are Marshal, to name a few. But then there's Top Gun - it had TrueHD 5.1 and DTS ES 6.1. I tried both, and even though my 6.1 capable Onkyo 605 is only connected to a 5.1 speaker system, I preferred the DTS ES audio track - better dynamic range & separation of channels.

Well, my Transformers arrived from Amazon today, so I have a great popcorn flick to watch this evening. I'll let you know how that 'crappy' lossy audio sounds - if I didn't live on 10 acres, my neighbors could probably give you an opinion too.

So the real reason there is no Lossless Codec on Transformers is that the Discs space is too small and the Bandwith cannot handle it on HD-DVD? Yeah right -- Paramount is just not doing Lossless Codec -- period!

I congradulate you on noticing that TrueDolbyHD DOES make a differance. So maybe you would like to see a Lossless Codec on more of HD-DVD's releases?

And while I do not own a Samsung I have had Samsungs in the past -- everyone of their DVD's crushed whites and blacks. Their first BD player did the same -- I have had two Samsungs and while I love the LCD HDTVs I will never own another Samsung player.


And here is the main differance between a Lossless Codec and a Lossy Codec -- you do not have to turn up the volume to hear everything. With the right speakers and the right amp you can even hear things more clearly then you did in the theater. So go right ahead and crank up your sound -- volume does not make for a great sound track -- definintion between the sounds does and that is where a Lossless Codec delivers!

 

[Sapient]

This really goes to show how stupid this war has become. We are going to measure the superiority of one format over the other by comparing audio formats that almost no one cares about and even fewer could differentiate between?

 

[navychop]

Something like that. But people always want "better" even if it really doesn't matter.

Greater space and bandwidth is future proofing. And the future is already here.

 

[ONUOsFan]

Something like that. But people always want "better" even if it really doesn't matter.

Greater space and bandwidth is future proofing. And the future is already here.

Agreed. Can you guys honestly say that you're not worried that HD-DVD is already having space/bandwidth concerns this early in the HD format's life cycle?

 

[teamerickson]

Agreed. Can you guys honestly say that you're not worried that HD-DVD is already having space/bandwidth concerns this early in the HD format's life cycle?

I can honestly say I don't know! Do we know the specs on how much a movie fills the disc? King Kong didn't seem to have a problem and it was almost 3 hours and looked great.

 

[ONUOsFan]

I can honestly say I don't know! Do we know the specs on how much a movie fills the disc? King Kong didn't seem to have a problem and it was almost 3 hours and looked great.

Fair enough, but it doesn't seem like demands on the bandwidth and/or space will be going down in the future...

 

[teamerickson]

Fair enough, but it doesn't seem like demands on the bandwidth and/or space will be going down in the future...

Probably compression upgrades in the codecs should help that problem. That's why I really like the VC-1 codec. Seems to be the most efficient with video and audio.

 

[diogen]

Agreed. Can you guys honestly say that you're not worried that HD-DVD is already having space/bandwidth concerns this early in the HD format's life cycle?

I'm just wondering what effect the lack of space (sorry, Bandwidth, whatever...) will have on future releases...

Which is completely beside the point. The point is why they even had to make the choice not to include the lossless track - because they don't have enough space - and what that means for future HD-DVD releases.

Exactly the point... the argument isn't whether they were able to get quality on this disc that was just as good as a lossless track could have been, it's why did they have to make the choice, and what does that mean for future releases?

Favorite Blu topic: What about the future?

As has been noted few times on AVS (don't have link handy), the average length of the movie (by decade, 90s, 80s, 70s) is going down.
If the history of MPEG-2 is of any indication, its efficiency over its lifetime doubled (i.e. half the bitrate gets the same quality or same quality allows for twice the footage).
So, we are left with soundtracks and PiP (extras not only can, but should go on a second disc so I can through them out right away).
Those have to be loaded at once and can create grief...

The best what HD DVD is capable off today is probably King Kong (3.3 hours): perfect (or very close to) PQ and AQ (let's drop the lossless madness, at least for now, please?) and all that within 30GB. And VC-1 can only get better, i.e. require less space/bandwidth in the future.

If you want to talk about the future, whatever is considered missing - lossless diehards, talking heads galore (PiP), another 10 languages, etc. - can be downloaded (we're talking about the future, remember) using the mandatory (!) network connection. And that is already outside the space/bandwidth constraints.

So, to summarize, you can get 3h movies today in King Kong quality (both, audio and video). If you have ear bleeding of the artifacts - download another soundtrack.

Unless every director/producer gets the Jackson bug and starts making 4h epics, I don't see any "future" problems with HD DVD.

Diogen.

 

[ocnier]

diogen, Can the LOTR fit on one HD DVD disc per movie? I am not being a smartass, I just want your opinion ( I hope it can). This is the movie that will break the level playing field for HD DVD. They have to get it right. It's this generations "Star Wars" triliogy by far. I truly want HD-DVD to succeed (mainly because Sony is getting more gestapo like by the day). Thanks

 

[diogen]

I thought the last sentence of my last post answered that.
OK, I'll answer it straight - no, I don't think it will (if the Extended Edition is used, ~11 hours between all 3 of them).
This will be a case of not enough storage. And because it is Jackson, I'm not sure 2 disks will be enough.

Yes, I do believe it will be a big title. Amir on AVS hinted work is going on for a while. I think Microsoft is involved.

If you ever read doom9 (the Alternative Codec section), you noticed that a bunch of European professional compressionists hang out there. Like anything doom9, it's very quantitative, almost as anti-MS as slashdot and very opinionated talk.

One of them (from France) openly states that VC-1 is an inferior codec but admits that if the encoding is done by MS, it is benchmark quality and he bought them all (as an insider, he knows them all, although MS denies involvement in any capacity except consulting).

King Kong. Miami Vice.
LoTR will be done by MS as well, I think.
And I hope they don't include a lossless track...

Diogen.

 

[John Kotches]

Probably compression upgrades in the codecs should help that problem. That's why I really like the VC-1 codec. Seems to be the most efficient with video and audio.

That's odd because VC-1 is only a video codec.

I suppose one could refer to that as amazing efficiency -- look everyone -- audio takes up no additional space with VC-1

 

[berck]

One of them (from France) openly states that VC-1 is an inferior codec but admits that if the encoding is done by MS, it is benchmark quality and he bought them all (as an insider, he knows them all, although MS denies involvement in any capacity except consulting).

Any time that a 'standard' has to be done by the creator to make it work better is not saying much of it as a 'standard'. This speaks volumes that the creator is doing something outside of the bounds of the standard to get it to work better.

 

[diogen]

Any time that a 'standard' has to be done by the creator to make it work better is not saying much of it as a 'standard'. This speaks volumes that the creator is doing something outside of the bounds of the standard to get it to work better.

I think you misunderstand what "standard" means here...
The decoder is standardized, not the encoder.
The decoder then gets implemented in software/hardware and whatever you do with the stream to encode -
nobody cares, as long as it is properly decoded (i.e. complies with the standard), has the best quality and takes least space.
You can't do anything "outside of the bonds" - Broadcom and Sigma chips have to decode the stream!
And they manufacture their chips based on the VC-1 standard (Sigma has as good a relationship with MS as Sony does).

This was true for over 10 years for MPEG-2 and is true for VC-1 and AVC today.

The encoder part is where the companies compete to offer the best implementation.
Of course, Microsoft, having created the codec some 5 years ago, has the most experience here.
But as a standard, VC-1 is as open as MPEG-2 or AVC and more open than DD or DTS in all its variations.

To get a sense what variables the VC-1 codec has, download Zambelli's WMV Power Toy (he's heading the WMV testing team at Microsoft).
I've been using it for over 3 years (as a hobby; encoding satellite hidef). You can never say "I know how it works":
the number of variables in the codec and variations in the source make for an infinite number of possibilities...

Diogen.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot the link
Windows Media Video Tools
According to Ben Wagonneer (he's heading the team that writes the codec), the WMV encoder available
from MS in few different incarnations, is the same as the studios/post-houses use. The workflow is different.
Both, Zambelli and Ben, post on doom9 and AVS.

 

[JoeSp]

That's odd because VC-1 is only a video codec.

I suppose one could refer to that as amazing efficiency -- look everyone -- audio takes up no additional space with VC-1

JOhn if that is the case, then should any studio using VC-1 be able to include one of the lossless codecs on the disc for the movie without reducing the space available for the picture?

 

[diogen]

For those interested in what bandwidth (bitrate) is needed to do the picture justice, have a look at this thread
Nature's Journey - BD & HD DVD *PIX* + Reviews - AVS Forum

Blu-ray uses 50% higher bitrate! Same codec! Should be a no-brainer, right?
The differences in stills (screenshots) when analyzed in Photoshop using difference filter is just a few percent.

Try your eyes to find differences between the shots and identify who's who...
And then lets talk again about BD's storage/bandwidth superiority...

Diogen.

EDIT: This is what you have to do to see the difference
Nature's Journey | BD vs HD | Image 1 (200%)
(mouseover; look at the stars on the night sky).

 

[diogen]

...should any studio using VC-1 be able to include one of the lossless codecs on the disc...

A joke:
A four star General was visiting a reasearch facility with the latest equipment, technology and smartest brains in the field.
After listnening for hours about their achievements, the General said:
"I've just one question. If you are as smart as you claim you are, why don't you march on the street...?"



Diogen.

 

[John Kotches]

JOhn if that is the case, then should any studio using VC-1 be able to include one of the lossless codecs on the disc for the movie without reducing the space available for the picture?

That was a smartass response to someone else.

But to answer your question the answer is X. Where X can be yes, no or maybe.

Would I like to see lossless on every disc? Of course. Will we see it? Unknown.