High Definition Media & Technology Thread

[Dangard Ace]

Walmart to Drop HD-DVD

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/15/technology...sion=2008021511

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9873029-7.html

Largest retailer in NA dropping the format.

[Gaijin]

And the final nail to come:

Toshiba Throwing the towel in?:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Tos...rop_HD_DVD/1468

[Penguin]

I got a question, for anyone who's got some technical savvy on film resolution and high-def formats.

I was discussing old films on HD formats with some friends, and the issue came up as to whether there's anything to be gained (picture-quality-wise) by acquiring an older film in an HD format if you've already got the DVD (specifically, someone was holding the HD-DVD of "John Carpenter's The Thing"). The discussion all boiled down to a question none of us had an answer for. The only way we could see any advantage was if the original source for the DVD was finer quality than 480 resolution could produce, in which case the HD formats would be revealing quality that the DVD couldn't. Naturally, modern films that are digitally recorded in a high-def format benefit immensely from HD presentation. As for good old film, it still has a physical/chemical equivalent of a "pixel", in terms of the smallest photo-sensitive unit that can be exposed, which more or less defines the "resolution" the film is capable of.

So, the question is, does the image on conventional film stock (image deterioration due to age notwithstanding) have fine enough detail that your typical DVD does not reveal all the potential picture quality?

This also led into a whole discussion on how much of a scam "upscaling" is as a selling point, since adding pixel density to a 480 image can't create higher quality than the 480 image already has... but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

[eugimon]

I got a question, for anyone who's got some technical savvy on film resolution and high-def formats.

I was discussing old films on HD formats with some friends, and the issue came up as to whether there's anything to be gained (picture-quality-wise) by acquiring an older film in an HD format if you've already got the DVD (specifically, someone was holding the HD-DVD of "John Carpenter's The Thing"). The discussion all boiled down to a question none of us had an answer for. The only way we could see any advantage was if the original source for the DVD was finer quality than 480 resolution could produce, in which case the HD formats would be revealing quality that the DVD couldn't. Naturally, modern films that are digitally recorded in a high-def format benefit immensely from HD presentation. As for good old film, it still has a physical/chemical equivalent of a "pixel", in terms of the smallest photo-sensitive unit that can be exposed, which more or less defines the "resolution" the film is capable of.

So, the question is, does the image on conventional film stock (image deterioration due to age notwithstanding) have fine enough detail that your typical DVD does not reveal all the potential picture quality?

This also led into a whole discussion on how much of a scam "upscaling" is as a selling point, since adding pixel density to a 480 image can't create higher quality than the 480 image already has... but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

okay, a perfect shot in 35mm is supposed to have between 10-20 million pixels. HD has a little over 2 million pixels (1920 x 1080) on screen at any given time. So, as long as the film stock is still in good condition, there werent too many in camera effects done at the time and the studio is willing to invest the time and resources to restore and master, a movie shot on high quality film can be turned into HD content.

[Penguin]

Thanks for the answer, eugimon. I figured film had to have pretty high resolution in order to be projected at a decent screen size and retain quality.

[Sundown]

I don't know if upscaling is a *complete* scam-- it does scale up and filter the output, so it depends on the quality of the filters in your TV. And it does allow you to connect to your TV using HDMI and DVI.

And Penguin, that is the best sig ever.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Upscaling is more or less a benefit if you have a very high fixed resolution display. If you view an unfiltered 480i signal on the newer 1080p LCD or Plasma TVs that picture will look pretty bad. An upscaler basically takes that horrible low res picture and smooths it out, stretches it and takes some of the "ugly" out of it so your old DVDs don't look like complete crap on your new TV.

Kind of as a test I took my old DVD player and my PS3, both hooked into my new 1080p TV (one by old school RCA video cable and the other by HDMI) and played the same DVD (Road Warrior) at 480i and upscaled to 1080p. The upscaled DVD looked appreciably better on the new TV than the non upscaled one. Just to put the issue to bed I then put in my Blu Ray of the same movie (Road Warrior) and played it back at 1080p and it looked even better than the upscaled DVD.

[David Hingtgen]

A quick Wiki check lists typical 35mm movie film at around 6000p equivalent. It'll be a while before any display tech can truly show what 30-year-old film has to offer.

[Warmaker]

I didn't know this. I figured there was nothing to gain from an HD version of an old film. Learned something new

[David Hingtgen]

Most people just have never seen "old films" in anything other than cable TV or VHS. And the DVDs of many of those films are just transfers of the old VHS and thus look no better. But if they go back and make HD masters off the original film, they will have resolution just as good as the newest and best Hollywood blockbuster.

PS--black and white film has inherently higher resolution than color, so think about that...

[eugimon]

Most people just have never seen "old films" in anything other than cable TV or VHS. And the DVDs of many of those films are just transfers of the old VHS and thus look no better. But if they go back and make HD masters off the original film, they will have resolution just as good as the newest and best Hollywood blockbuster.

PS--black and white film has inherently higher resolution than color, so think about that...

yup, but you need to also think about how they shot the film. Take the sound of music, they went so heavy on hazing for close up shots with julie andrews, that HD or no HD, those scenes will always look like hazy and smeary.

[David Hingtgen]

True. Same problem apparently exists with Trek TOS.

[eugimon]

True. Same problem apparently exists with Trek TOS.

haha, shatner, you vain vain man!

[Warmaker]

Are you talking about the episode with the "eyelinered" Kirk?

[David Hingtgen]

Actually, it's more along the lines of "hot chick of the week" had extremely soft focus in their shots.

[VT 1010]

Fixed pixel displays MUST SCALE the video signal to the display's native resolution.

For example, a 720p (or a 768p, 1080i/p, etc.) display cannot natively display a 480i video signal. It first needs to deinterlace the video (fixed pixel displays cannot natively display interlaced video either. Deinterlacing, however, is a whole other subject). The display will then have to upscale the video to the display's native resolution. If it didn't do this, the video wouldn't look right.

The quality of upscaling varies with each display. Sometimes the DVD player does a better job; sometimes the display does better. Upscaling isn't perfect. It can sometimes degrade picture quality. It's generally the last thing you should worry about when considering DVD/HD players and displays. There was a great article explaining scaling, but I can't find the link...

Old films can benefit greatly from HD (keep in mind, current Digital Cinema projectors have an even higher resolution and display more color depth than HDTV). The new HD formats have more advantages over DVD/SDTV than resolution and gimmicky extra features, though.

First is more color. High Definition uses a different color space with more color information. The picture is much more colorful and accurate, without it being overblown. You also get higher bitrates. Even encoded at it's max bitrate (which usually never happened), DVD would often exhibit compression artifacts. HD DVD supports higher bitrates. HD material encoded in MPEG-2 at HD DVD's highest bitrate can have artifacting. To address this problem, more efficient codecs (VC-1 and AVC) were developed. They compress better at lower bitrates, so compression artifacts are less of a problem. Blu-ray, although supporting the same new codecs, has a high enough max bitrate that this is irrelevant (though the use of newer codecs is preferred).

Then there is the most under appreciated advantage: native 24p support. Movies can be stored in progressive scan at their native frame rate of 24fps. This means no inverse telecine/deinterlacing is needed for film. Provided the disc has been properly mastered, there should be no interlacing or deinterlacing artifacts. Shimmer me timbers; the blinds won't flicker anymore!

And most importantly, Edge Enhancement usually isn't as severe on HD Media as it is with the various SD formats. It can still rear it ugly haloed head, but it's normally not as noticeable.

There's also HD audio, but that's another debate.

I can definitely say that from first hand experience, old films look much better in HD. Comparing them to their DVD counterparts (even when upscaled), the HD versions clearly look better, some shockingly so. There is no question that HD Media can provide a dramatic improvement in picture quality.

[Beltane70]

huh, woops... I never noticed toshiba brand TVs... my bad. Well, it's not like sony was/is turning a profit on each PS3 sold, yet they still did multiple bundle sales at differing major big box stores.

Haha. It happens to everyone. I was going to comment on Toshiba TVs, myself,as I currently own a 3-year old 32" Toshiba TV. Next year I'm finally going to upgrade to a HDTV.

[Alpha OTS]

the fire sale has started, deepdiscount.com selling off a bunch of titles for 13 bucks:

http://www.deepdiscount.com/viewcategory.h...e&count=500

I added a few titles to my cart, but when I go to check out, this message is next to each of them:

"This item is currently not in stock and will ship to you on 02/18/2008."

What the heck does that even mean? I know DDD has a reputation for selling things they don't have in stock, so I'm hesitant to place an order.

[eugimon]

Reuters is reporting that Toshiba has suspended production of HD-DVD players.

SO I guess that's it then. Wars over. I guess now we can all wait for michael bay to come out and publicly gloat over his precognitive powers and his followers swung the war in Blu-Ray's favor.

[chowyunskinny]

he already did:

"Am I thrilled? It really wasn't my fight, but remember what I said in the press? I was kind of saying HD [DVD]'s going to lose... No one believed me." He then slammed a trophy he was receiving to the floor, pointed to the packed room, and yelled, "In your face, HD DVD!"

[Dangard Ace]

At this point I'm just glad I'll soon be able to pick up certain HD DVD exclusives on Bluray when Paramount and Universal switch over. Hell according to CC employee (w pics) Transformers BD is already in their system. http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=37276&page=7

Checklist:

King Kong

Transformers

The Thing

Bourne Trilogy

Heroes S1

Shaun of the Dead

er....I'm sure there's a few others...

[eugimon]

I wonder what's going to be on that transformers 2 disc set? Besides lossless audio...

[JsARCLIGHT]

I wonder what's going to be on that transformers 2 disc set? Besides lossless audio...

A video of Michael Bay rubbing one of the Blu Ray discs on his junk and moaning.

[eugimon]

A video of Michael Bay rubbing one of the Blu Ray discs on his junk and moaning.

uhm... happy for you?

[Dangard Ace]

A video of Megan Fox rubbing one of the Blu Ray discs on her junk and moaning.

Fixed it for you.

[eugimon]

Fixed it for you.

okay, I'd pay 30 bucks for that.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I actually can't wait for someone to get a BD Transformers and compare it to the HD DVD. I have this strange feeling that the video will look nearly if not identical. You know they are just going to use the same transfer to hasten it's release into the market... then I wonder what will Bay say to that? Because after all, it was that shoddy HD DVD technology that ruined his beautiful picture quality.

[eugimon]

I actually can't wait for someone to get a BD Transformers and compare it to the HD DVD. I have this strange feeling that the video will look nearly if not identical. You know they are just going to use the same transfer to hasten it's release into the market... then I wonder what will Bay say to that? Because after all, it was that shoddy HD DVD technology that ruined his beautiful picture quality.

other than BD fanboys, I don't know anyone who can honestly carry that "BD just looks better" torch and run very far with it. Hell, most of the new blu-ray discs are done with the same VC-1 encode anyways.

Disc 2 would have to have some pretty spectacular extras to make rebuying worth it. Lossless audio is tempting, but not 30 bucks tempting.

[Gaijin]

Fat lady is starting to sing...she should be done in a week. Finally over. Now where's my Serenity Blu-ray??

[mikeszekely]

Fat lady is starting to sing...she should be done in a week. Finally over. Now where's my Serenity Blu-ray??

If/when they release a Serenity Blu-ray, I hope that they include the extras from the newer version of the DVD.

[eugimon]

If/when they release a Serenity Blu-ray, I hope that they include the extras from the newer version of the DVD.

I have three versions of serenity so far... DVD, DVD SE, HD-DVD... I think I'll pass on the BD version... unless there's some new content. I'm just a sucker for that movie.

[JB0]

I'd just like to take this moment to remind everyone that BetaRay is jsut another proprietary Sony format doomed to join a long list of proprietary Sony formats that no one ever used.

God DAMN, but I'm glad I can stuff that in the fanboys' faces now!

...

Even though I preferred HD-DVD due to the fact that they had a complete format from day 1 instead of BR's rushed incomplete 1.0 and updated 1.1 that wont' work on everything and further 2.0 that's even less supported. Also, red boxes > blue boxes.

Though I admit BR is the technically superior format.

Edited February 17, 2008 by JB0

[Uxi]

The main title will always play on older format players.

Course, I have a hard time understanding why anyone wouldn't just want a PS3. People too set in their ways, I suppose.

I have the Serenity HDDVD. I'll buy another if it's an extended cut and hopefully has a PCM track. Going to be a long time before we see remasters optimized to Blu-ray's superior bitrates.

[Uxi]

other than BD fanboys, I don't know anyone who can honestly carry that "BD just looks better" torch and run very far with it. Hell, most of the new blu-ray discs are done with the same VC-1 encode anyways.

You don't know many people in the know, then? jk. At least wrt PQ, it's only in very difficult material/scenes that the average mortal is going to notice an increase from 20mbps to 30mbps. 20 to 40 it starts to be come more evident, especially on a larger 1080p set. Remember, HDDVD's total MUX maxed out at 30Mbps or thereabouts, whereas Blu-ray can do up to 40Mbps for video alone. 48Mbps for combined audio/video and 54Mbps total mux. The practical application of this saw Blu-ray with lossless audio on 67%, or 310 of it's 486 titles currently in release while HDDVD managed 23% or 93 of it's 406 currently released titles. Lossless audio doesn't mean much to some people, but to me it's just as integral a part of the high definition experience.

Most Blu-rays use AVC more than anything. Right now it's 37.9% AVC, 33.8% Mpeg2, and 28.3% VC1. Unlike many people, I think MPEG2 is sufficient at Blu-ray bitrates and titles like Kingdom of Heaven, Crank, and Blackhawk Down show what that old codec is capable of. Which is GREAT Picture and sound!

Great source for stats on both formats:

http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php

http://www.hddvdstats.com/index.php

[eugimon]

You don't know many people in the know, then? jk. At least wrt PQ, it's only in very difficult material/scenes that the average mortal is going to notice an increase from 20mbps to 30mbps. 20 to 40 it starts to be come more evident, especially on a larger 1080p set. Remember, HDDVD's total MUX maxed out at 30Mbps or thereabouts, whereas Blu-ray can do up to 40Mbps for video alone. 48Mbps for combined audio/video and 54Mbps total mux. The practical application of this saw Blu-ray with lossless audio on 67%, or 310 of it's 486 titles currently in release while HDDVD managed 23% or 93 of it's 406 currently released titles. Lossless audio doesn't mean much to some people, but to me it's just as integral a part of the high definition experience.

Most Blu-rays use AVC more than anything. Right now it's 37.9% AVC, 33.8% Mpeg2, and 28.3% VC1. Unlike many people, I think MPEG2 is sufficient at Blu-ray bitrates and titles like Kingdom of Heaven, Crank, and Blackhawk Down show what that old codec is capable of. Which is GREAT Picture and sound!

Great source for stats on both formats:

http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php

http://www.hddvdstats.com/index.php

I won't argue that HD-DVD suffers from lack of space and thus, a lack of HD audio. But there have been more than a few comparisons between the same movie in AVC versus VC-1 with little/no difference. And there are examples of mpeg-2 just not cutting it. dead man's chest being a big example. That show got the 2 disc treatment and yet it still has artifacts in many scenes and noticable even on my mere mortal of a 46" screen.

Anyways, I just don't see former HD-DVD studios taking the time to learn new compression schemes when VC-1 has proven itself. I think we'll just be seeing straight video transfers with the addition of lossless audio tracks (hopefully).