Has Paramount doomed HD-DVD?

[JoeSp]

Okay, lets see if I can unravel this -- for accuracy's sake. VC-1 as a compression codec is for video only. So far it is capable of compressing a two hour movie better then any compression codec out there and it can play back using a lower bitrate the movie at a comparable PQ when looking at the other two most used codecs, MPEG2 and MPEG4-AVC which use more space and require a higher bitrate for equal PQ. In the past when talking about HD it has always been shown that while you can get HD at a lower bitrate -- a higher bitrate delivers a better quality picture more consistantly. Has something change here?

However, I keep hearing that increasing the bitrate on VC-1 does not neccesarily mean better PQ. In addtion to this should there not be enough room on the HD-DVD disc for at least one lossless codec in addtion to the movie? With still enough room for some of the extras if not all? Or does the HDi also take up space on the disc thus not allowing space for a lossless codec? For HD-DVD arestudios having to decided between the movie, the audio track, the HDi and the extras when determining what will be on the disc?

All things being equal, I prefer a HD movie with a HD audio track. I did not have extras when I went to the movie theater and I have never bought a movie on DVD or BD for the extras. I think most consumers when they buy a movie do the same thing. Any extras is just frosting on the reason I purchased the movie in the first place -- I like the movie and I want the best representation possible in my home theater.

 

[diogen]

Okay, lets see if I can unravel this -- for accuracy's sake. VC-1 as a compression codec is for video only. So far it is capable of compressing a two hour movie better then any compression codec out there and it can play back using a lower bitrate the movie at a comparable PQ when looking at the other two most used codecs, MPEG2 and MPEG4-AVC which use more space and require a higher bitrate for equal PQ.

Not everybody would agree with this.
Some claim that AVC is better than VC-1 in all but very special cases. One of those cases would be grain preservation.

In the past when talking about HD it has always been shown that while you can get HD at a lower bitrate -- a higher bitrate delivers a better quality picture more consistantly. Has something change here?
...However, I keep hearing that increasing the bitrate on VC-1 does not neccesarily mean better PQ.

Hidef encodes - both, HD and BD - are done using 2-pass VBR (Variable Bit Rate). VC-1 also allows for a third pass where the compressionist can adjust automatically chosen bitrate.
During the first pass the codec establishes "relative" bitrate: if this scene uses X Mbps, the other one uses 2X. Since the peak bitrate is set, this allows the calculation of X. The rest is done automatically.

In addtion to this should there not be enough room on the HD-DVD disc for at least one lossless codec in addtion to the movie?

If the peak video bitrate (chosen to make the encode transparent to the master) is too close to the limit imposed by the standard to audio+video rate - No.
Regardless of how much room is left.

With still enough room for some of the extras if not all?

There can be lots of space left for the extras on the disc, like "Making of...". Those don't need the main feature running while played back...
But this space can't be used for audio tracks, PiP, HDi, etc. - anything that has to run in parallel with the main feature.

Diogen.

 

[teachsac]

Good explanation Diogen.

Transformers main "issue" is two fold: Bandwidth and Space. Streaming video for PiP, commentary, web access while in the film etc. all takes up bandwidth. As for space, Transformers included a DD+ track in three separate languages: English, French, and Spanish. No other disc has done this in either format. If they had chosen to do the standard English and then the other languages in standard DD, there would have been more "space" for the TrueHD track. However, the DD+ track was transparent to the master.

S~

 

[ONUOsFan]

Favorite Blu topic: What about the future?

Countered by the favorite HD argument: The future doesn't matter. We'll figure out a way to make it work by then.


Right?


Won't we?

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.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the point of movies that they... um.... move? Why would you be comparing stills when comparing bitrate? Talking about bitrate/compression issues on DirecTV vs. Dish vs. FIOS, the first thing that comes up is compression artifacts that show up with MOTION. I'm not sure how looking at stills is a fair comparison of bandwidth... but I'm sure you'll have some highly technical argument detailing how I'm showing my ignorance here.

 

[JoeSp]

So, is there a way for HD-DVD to increase their bandwith in order to provide both a high quality HD movie along with a HD audio sound track that would included the HDi features when two discs providing 60gb didn't work? If bandwith is going to be the limiting feature what differance would a bigger disc like the announced 51gb make? Why do some of the studios like Universal not have that much of a problem with providing a HD audio codec and Paramount seems to struggle? Is it going to be based on the length of the movie as to what can and cannot be done?

I am having trouble understanding this bandwith problem. No problems with King Kong, Batman Begins and several others to include DolbyTrue Hd but for Transformers bandwith is a problem? This is what I am confused about. My choice for HD movies was based on studio support and the fact that I like the Playstation brand -- hench my support for BD. But in addtion, I don't see why bandwith is a problem for some HD-DVD movies and for others it is not? Reason I am interested is because I have had some interest in a dual player but I usually hold out on a movie in BD if it does not offer me a HD audio track to listen to. That being said I also would not spend money on a HD-DVD movie that did not provide me a HD audio track. There are several BD movies I have not brought because a lossless audio track is not available. I spent alot of money for my HT system (speakers and receiver) and I want to give them a work out. This bandwith situation with HD-DVD sounds too limiting and I guess I am wondering if the HD-DVD forum could consider changing the specs -- if that is possible -- so that all of their movies could provide a lossless audio codec.

 

[teachsac]

Universal has never used an advanced audio codec (True HD). They have only done DD+, which is stil an advanced audio codec. Their first title to use True HD is Bourne Ultimatum. I do believe that Shrek 3 will have a True HD track including the features they want to use. Paramounts first concern was video. Go get yourself an HD-DVD player and watch it. The DD+ track was as good as any PCM BD Track or TrueHD track I have heard.

S~

 

[diogen]

Countered by the favorite HD argument: The future doesn't matter. We'll figure out a way to make it work by then.


Right?


Won't we?

Yes.
EDIT: Not that there is too much to worry about...
First: I don't buy this lossless vs. DD+ crap. I don't hear it. I don't believe you hear it. Most of you don't have the equipment to hear it, and the rest - the ear. I have heard PCM on some BDs that are garbage compared to DD+ on Transformers.
Second: The codecs will improve. Between the first HD DVD "The Last Samurai" and today's Miami Vice VC-1 reportedly improved 20-30%.
Third: Movies are not getting longer.
Forth: Movies are getting cleaner, almost everything is 2.35. Lots of CGI. All this translates into easier encodes...Same for audio...

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the point of movies that they... um.... move?

Exactly. Thanks for making the point! 50% higher bitrate and nothing to show for it!
If it is not noticable on a still, blown up, with mouseover - it won't be a million times on the move...

Diogen.

 

[JoeSp]

Universal has never used an advanced audio codec (True HD). They have only done DD+, which is stil an advanced audio codec. Their first title to use True HD is Bourne Ultimatum. I do believe that Shrek 3 will have a True HD track including the features they want to use. Paramounts first concern was video. Go get yourself an HD-DVD player and watch it. The DD+ track was as good as any PCM BD Track or TrueHD track I have heard.

S~

I have listened to both, and there is a differance in audio separation. Also, the clarity of voice on a lossless track is noticably better then DD+. But why take my word for it, go read a few reviews where the same movie came out on both formats. When one has the lossless codec and the other does not the one without the lossless codec never gets the better review. Every time the reviewer gives the better rating to the lossless codecs and the reasons are the same every time, better seperation, better quality in voice reproduction, better sound field projection. I have never heard a track that was lossy sound as good as a lossless sound track.

After saying that I also must say that the equipment you listen to (speakers, wiring, sound processing, receiver) all come together to make a differance. Some systems are just not good enough to show a differance in the sound tracks -- others are. And some people are more sensitive to certain sounds then others. My son-in-law has some high-end hearing loss and if the tweeters and mids are not pretty good he has a hard time descerning what is being said in a movie. Not all ears are created equal nor do they require the same specs. If you are happy with the DD+5.1 that HD-DVD is offering (and it seems that this is the best for most films that you will be purchasing on HD-DVD) then great. But don't try to convince me a Corvette is as good as a Ferrari (or a Porche if you like)-- I know they are basically the same but there is quite a differance between the two.

 

[diogen]

So, is there a way for HD-DVD to increase their bandwith...

No. The standard doesn't allow it.

If bandwith is going to be the limiting feature what differance would a bigger disc like the announced 51gb make?

None. Unless the bitrate is upped, too.

Is it going to be based on the length of the movie as to what can and cannot be done?

...and complexity, just as important. Fast movements, old footage (grainy), 1.85 as opposed to 2.35, etc. - is harder to encode, i.e. needs higher bitrate...

I don't see why bandwith is a problem for some HD-DVD movies and for others it is not?

See above.

This bandwith situation with HD-DVD sounds too limiting and I guess I am wondering if the HD-DVD forum could consider changing the specs -- if that is possible -- so that all of their movies could provide a lossless audio codec.

Unlikely. The new movies won't be playable on old players.
More likely the codecs will improve, i.e. less bitrate will be needed for video, more will be left for other stuff...

Diogen.

 

[teamerickson]

To answer the title, No!

http://www.satelliteguys.us/hd-dvd-...-hd-dvd-smashes-first-week-sales-records.html

 

[diogen]

Talking about bitrate/compression issues on DirecTV vs. Dish vs. FIOS, the first thing that comes up is compression artifacts that show up with MOTION. I'm not sure how looking at stills is a fair comparison of bandwidth... but I'm sure you'll have some highly technical argument...

I'm happy to oblige...
Not really technical, but this is what a screw-up looks like on satellite. A very minor one, just two frames and none of them a key frame.
On a decent player (standalone or software) you won't see this at all, maybe a hardly noticable hickup, when you know where/when to look.

Morale: still shots tell you more.

Diogen.

 

[berck]

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 -

I'm curious. Do you have any experience developing software / firmware / hardware that uses standards? The bounds do get pushed beyond the standard to try and do a better job in the reproduction. Many times, the creator of the standard doesn't necessarily make the best encoder / decoder. MP3 is a good example of this with LAME versus Fraunhofer.

FYI: Codec = Coder / Decoder; Compressor / Decompressor; Compression / Decompression. A codec is a program or device that can perform both encoding and decoding on a digital data stream

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.

If this is the case, then why does Microsoft do a better job than the studios?

 

[diogen]

I'm curious. Do you have any experience developing software / firmware / hardware that uses standards?

No, I don't. Do you?

The bounds do get pushed beyond the standard to try and do a better job in the reproduction.

Up to a point in time. And then it gets frozen and goes through the standardization process.
What hasn't made into this spec will never be used while encoding because there is no guarantie the decoder can handle it.
If it's not standardized - just like MPEG-4 part2 in the form of DivX/XviD - you have a mess we have now with the DivX DVD players.
Just try a XviD encode using QPel and GMC and you'll see what I mean.

On the PC platform those things can be changed daily.
What goes into hardware players is set in stone. Just look at today's DVD players... What has changed over the last 10 years?

Many times, the creator of the standard doesn't necessarily make the best encoder / decoder. MP3 is a good example of this with LAME versus Fraunhofer.

Very true. Especially after some time when the industry gets comfortable with it. So what?

FYI: Codec = Coder / Decoder; Compressor / Decompressor; Compression / Decompression. A codec is a program or device that can perform both encoding and decoding on a digital data stream

Thanks.
Vista plays MPEG-2. It can't do MPEG-2 encodes. Same about Cyberlink, Intervideo, Nvidia, ATI etc.
x264 is a H.264 encoder. It doesn't play the result. VLC decodes everything and encodes nothing.

If this is the case, then why does Microsoft do a better job than the studios?

They have 5 years of experience working with them. Why did you think?

Diogen.

 

[John Kotches]

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the point of movies that they... um.... move? Why would you be comparing stills when comparing bitrate?

No, they don't. It's called an optical illusion. It's 24 (really 23.9xx) still frames per second. This is exactly how D-Cinema works -- 24 JPG2000s / second.

The "motion" is based on differences between the frames.

Talking about bitrate/compression issues on DirecTV vs. Dish vs. FIOS, the first thing that comes up is compression artifacts that show up with MOTION.

See above. It's also a matter of compressing from a higher quality to a lower quality source.

D* vs E* vs FiOS also have other variables that don't typically come into play as the relative bandwidths are higher and they don't have to decompress and recompress existing MPEG-2 / MPEG-4 content.

I'm not sure how looking at stills is a fair comparison of bandwidth... but I'm sure you'll have some highly technical argument detailing how I'm showing my ignorance here.

See above.

Cheers,

 

[John Kotches]

FYI: Codec = Coder / Decoder; Compressor / Decompressor; Compression / Decompression. A codec is a program or device that can perform both encoding and decoding on a digital data stream

A codec defines the standards for encoding and decoding.

The encoder and decoders are based on the codec standards. The encoder encodes to standards; the decoder decodes to standards.

This is why we refer to:
Dolby Digital encoders/decoders
DTS "
MPEG-2
MPEG-4

etc etc etc

If this is the case, then why does Microsoft do a better job than the studios?

Since one of my friends works directly on the encoder and with studios... pick any one of these:

1. Studio/Compression house could have an earlier rev of the encoder.
2. Compression house may not have the people resources to spend the time to manually get best results
3. MS can find the issue, code a fix and reencode.
4. The person working on the encoder is an absolute fanatic and is very concerned with getting the best possible results.

Cheers,

 

[ONUOsFan]

No, they don't. It's called an optical illusion. It's 24 (really 23.9xx) still frames per second. This is exactly how D-Cinema works -- 24 JPG2000s / second.

The "motion" is based on differences between the frames.



See above. It's also a matter of compressing from a higher quality to a lower quality source.

D* vs E* vs FiOS also have other variables that don't typically come into play as the relative bandwidths are higher and they don't have to decompress and recompress existing MPEG-2 / MPEG-4 content.



See above.

Cheers,

Oh, wow - movies don't really move? They're just a collection of still pictures? Whaddaya know?

I'm obviously out of my league here, so I'll leave now...

 

[mike123abc]

Oh, wow - movies don't really move? They're just a collection of still pictures? Whaddaya know?

I'm obviously out of my league here, so I'll leave now...

The motion artifacts you refer to are a result of compression. Yes movies are a collection of still frames, but the way compression works is that they try to send as little data as possible to describe the collection. In MPEG-2 for example only 1 out of 14 or so frames is actually sent in its entirety (and it is compressed using a single frame type compression). This is refered to as an "I" frame. The pictures between the I frames are constructed based on changes from the I frame.

Essentially they send a picture (I frame) and then send data like this block of pixels moved on a vector in this direction. Or change these pixels here. The more bandwidth available the more updates can be sent and the more accurate the resulting constructed frame can be. Cut the bandwidth down too much and you end up with macro blocking, items jumping around on the screen, etc.

Digital cinema does not use motion compression. Each frame of the movie is compressed individually (using JPEG-2000).

The key to successful compression is if someone watches a video and cannot tell if it has been compressed or not. In the examples one might get more twinkling of the stars in less compression, or the texture of the rocks is slightly more defined. But, of course if you never saw the original uncompressed frame, you do not know you are missing anything.

 

[ONUOsFan]

I think you missed the sarcasm in my last post, but my point was that even crappy MPEG2 DirecTV HD looks great when there's no motion - it's when there are a lot of changes in the frames that the problems show up. I imagine you could look at still shots of some of those feeds that would also look fine.

But I'm sure I'm missing the point again, and this now has nothing to do with the original intent of this thread, so I don't think we need to go on.

Honestly, I really don't care anymore.

 

[meStevo]

This thread got really high brow and boring

 

[diogen]

Can the LOTR fit on one HD DVD disc per movie?

I have to revise my previous statement

...I don't think it will (if the Extended Edition is used, ~11 hours between all 3 of them).

If this rumour is true and it will be the theatrical version (just like King Kong, to double/tripple dip later)
HD-INSIDER
then they will be close to King Kong (first two - shorter, the last - 14 min longer, all 2.35) and I believe with enough effort can be put onto one HD DVD.
Even if only to prove it can be done (and no, I don't expect a lossless track on those).

When the extended versions shows up few years later, it might fit on one HD DVD as well due to codec improvements...

Diogen.