|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray?
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 01-18-2008 08:16 PM
quote: Joe Redifer
First of all, no receiver that I know of can receive Dolby Trooo HD or DTSHDMA over an optical cable. They have to go across HDMI. Both Dolby Tr00 HD and DTSHDMA will core up and go out the optical as regular-ass Dolby Digital or DTS. If one has HDMI, then that's fine if it gives multi-channel LPCM. If one has the receiver, they can get Dolby trOoO HD as well as DTSMAMDAGHGJAD all over the HDMI cable (once the PS3 supports DTSHAIUHD that is).
So basically what you are trying to claim as a disadvantage is not an issue at all.
Actually, that's not the case. I'm not bashing on the PS3 for not being able to bitstream hires audio, because I don't expect a game console to do so. Personally, I think that the audio should be decoded inside the player as that will allow the audio streams to be mixed as the spec for both formats was intended. Via bitstreaming, only the primary audio stream can be sent since no mixing is done beforehand. Once the PS3 gets DTS HD MA decoding for LPCM output, I would consider its featureset in that realm to be complete (which it is without a hardware replacement).
You are correct in that optical and coaxial digital audio connections can do no better than Dolby Digital and DTS. This is a limitation of receivers and processors.
I did some shopping for a PS3 tonight, as we had to go run some errands at the local shopping mall. I had two options for stores: Gamestop and Sears.
There were way too many teenagers to even get into the Gamestop, so I didn't even try. They had empty boxes stacked up at the door with $499.99 stickers on them for the 80GB units, and they might have had something against the wall for demos, but the kids were too thick to see.
So, to Sears I went. After finally finding the locked glass cabinet where the PS3's were kept, there were no prices. When I finally found a clerk to help me, the prices were the standard $399 and $499, so no surprise there. I asked about their return policy as I was unsure how suitable it was for my application and for my kids as a game system. She said that I had 30 days to return it, but if it was opened, there would be a 15% fee. No display for the PS3, or for the Sony and Samsung Blu-ray players that were on a shelf back in the TV section.
Tomorrow, I'm planning on going to the local A/V specialty store where I've historically purchased most of my equipment. I know the salesman that I work with there pretty well, and Sony is there this weekend demonstrating their line, including their Blu-ray players. I don't expect them to have a PS3 (since it's a game system), but who knows? I do expect to ask the Sony reps why I can't buy a Bonus View/BD-Live capable player from them this weekend, as I'm very sure that the BDP-S300 and BDP-S500 aren't capable of Bonus View much less BD-Live.
Going to these stores to look at a PS3 just felt wrong. I felt too old to be looking at a game system, which is all it really is marketed as. The other features are just added bonuses. I'm probably just not convinced in my mind that it's a good choice for me and my situation. Who knows, maybe that feeling will diminish... or I'll just buy online so I don't have to deal with the teenagers when trying to buy my "Blu-ray player."
quote: Bobby Henderson
I think it's obvious Blu-Ray's additional 10GB of data capacity per layer is why high bandwidth audio tracks are more feasible on BDs.
No, there's actually a difference between bandwidth and storage space. The extra 10GB per layer doesn't have anything to do with why some HD DVD titles were created without lossless audio. While storage space can be a factor, my impression is that bandwidth often comes into play more often when audio codecs are being chosen.
The bandwidth I'm referring to is the total bandwidth of all the audio and video data that is streaming off the disc at one time. In both formats, all audio and all video data must be interleaved on the disc so that they can be accessed when needed by the player. The amount of data that the drive can feed (transfer rate in CD ROM parlance) and the speed at which the processing unit inside the player are the limiting factor. The spec for HD DVD is 36.55Mbps vs. Blu-ray's 54Mbps, according to one reference I found.
Since Dolby TrueHD (and most likely DTS HD MA) can have spikes in its bandwidth consumption, that spike must be accounted for by lowering the video bitrate to compensate. Since HD DVD has a lower total bitrate capability, something has to give. Either the encoding package needs to be smart enough to dole out bits intelligently, or audio tracks need to be dropped, or audio bitrate needs to go down, or video bitrate needs to go down to make sure that the max. bandwidth isn't exceeded. That's the situation as I understand it, but I stopped getting that nitty-gritty about such fine minutia years ago.
As to the hope that video quality of Warner releases will get so much better now that they're not "constrained" by the 30GB limitations of HD DVD encoding (their Blu-ray and HD DVD encodes were the same), one can hope that will be true, but I'm not holding my breath. I can't think of any Warner transfer that was poorly reviewed, and the encode was blamed. Some people have taken Batman Begins to task for some softness issues, but some insiders that talked to the encoding engineer said that was how the source looked that he was given. We'll never know for sure if that was the case.
So now that all the convenient excuses are gone, are we going to see a more aggressive release schedule from Warner, and from the other Blu-ray studios? I don't think we will, but it would be nice. I'm a big enough fan of movies to put the past aside and look forward to the future. Unfortunately, I don't think that the skies will always be clear and there will be milk and honey pouring down the hills just because Warner has gone Blu-ray exclusive.
Are we going to see higher video and audio quality rankings from reviewers? (They're going to have to create more stars for that to happen) I suppose it's possible, but when you save a high resolution JPG in Photoshop in 100% quality mode, and when you save it in 90% quality mode (Save for Web terms), can you really tell the difference between the two?
The de facto HDM standard has a long and steep road ahead of it to success. It might not even get there before it gets overtaken by the next greatest thing. I would like to see people who have been blaming HD DVD for all of HDM's problems to start applying some pressure to the studios to release high quality product and more of it, and for hardware manufacturers to step up their game and provide us more than what is available now.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-18-2008 10:03 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
Personally, I think that the audio should be decoded inside the player as that will allow the audio streams to be mixed as the spec for both formats was intended.
I don't mind internal decoding within the movie player, but viewers should have the option of sending the undecoded bit stream out of that player to external decoders of much higher quality.
As to the output quality of "lossy core" Dolby Digital and DTS tracks from Dolby True-HD and DTS-HD MA streams, those lossy tracks are leaving the player at 640kb/s and 1509kb/s respectively. Those bit rates are superior to the 448kb/s and 754kb/s bit rates of DD and DTS tracks on most DVDs.
quote: Scott Jentsch
No, there's actually a difference between bandwidth and storage space. The extra 10GB per layer doesn't have anything to do with why some HD DVD titles were created without lossless audio.
I understand the issue of data bandwidth. Even there, Blu-Ray has a pretty big advantage:
Blu-Ray maximum data bandwidth: 54 megabits per second.
HD-DVD maximum data bandwidth: 36.5 megabits per second.
That's a 17.5 Mbit/sec advantage in favor of Blu-Ray.
Overall disc/layer capacity is still a factor, especially if the disc is packed with bonus features. Those high res audio tracks can eat up quite a bit of space, even lossless compressed ones.
quote: Scott Jentsch
So now that all the convenient excuses are gone, are we going to see a more aggressive release schedule from Warner, and from the other Blu-ray studios? I don't think we will, but it would be nice.
Once HD-DVD is defunct, studio support for Blu-Ray will become much more aggressive (if it doesn't happen pretty soon despite what Paramount and Universal do).
Anyone remember how slow things were when "Open DVD" was battling DiVX? Once Circuit City and that Hollywood entertainment law firm gave up on DiVX the "Open DVD" format took off in popularity big time. It also helped that DVD-V players that supported DTS output, RSDL dual layer discs and seamless branching were becoming much more commonly available.
By the end of this year, I think Blu-Ray players are going to be very popular. That will be especially true if this summer's crop of big event movies turn in a few winners.
quote: Joe Redifer
You can even surf for porn on your PS3's built-in web browser.
Really!?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 01-31-2008 12:11 AM
Interesting C.NET article here below:
"Dear CNET members,
Wow, I didn't know the format war between HD DVD and Blu-ray ended already. OK, it's not really over yet, but with the recent announcement of Warner Bros. dropping the HD DVD format entirely (by the end of May 2008) and exclusively going to the Blu-ray format has to hurt big time! And after reading things like "HD DVD's ship is sinking fast," "HD DVD: Buy, sell, or hold?," and this "Sales of HD DVD players plunge after Warner move"... Even as a person who has absolutely no stake or side in either of the format camps--I'll admit it looks mighty grave for HD DVD. But heck, it's not really over until the fat lady sings, right? (Wait, what's that I hear faintly in the background... ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
So given Warner Bros.' announcement, which leaves HD DVD with only 2 studios (Paramount and Universal) supporting them, do you think there's any chance HD DVD will survive? Sure, Toshiba has slashed prices on their entry-level HD DVD players, but is this their last attempt at a comeback--but what good is player when your many of your favorite high def flicks are in the other party's format? Well, the good news is that even if you own a HD DVD player and the format does fold, you can still always use your HD DVD player as an upscaling player, right?
In our latest Screening Room discussion, we asked our members whether you think HD DVD will make it through the summer? And is now the time to go Blu-ray, or should buyers still wait? From the lips of HD DVD fans to the folks who are doing the wait and see game--read what they have to say. And when you're done reading, let loose and chime in with your two cents. Bottom line is, will HD DVD survive this latest round of bad news? And when you're done speaking up--weigh in on this week's poll to feel out what our readers believe. Thanks all! "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic