Now that Blu-Ray has won, can BD fans admit the following?

Dare · 02-27-2008, 11:47 AM

Now that the format war is over, I have no doubt that the subsidies are going to stop ASAP. Then we'll see for ourselves what the real cost is.

Dare · 02-27-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssjLancer

Size still matters with WMA too.

According to actual compressionists, it matters with video aswell.
http://www.highdefforum.com/showthre...ist#post543406

If 98.5% loss is your issue, how is 97.5% loss your answer? How do you account for the fact that there are videos with 98.5% loss that look perfect? The 97.5% loss can't be more perfect.

If you're shooting for more perfect, don't settle for anything less than 75% loss. (which could be lossless)

ssjLancer · 02-27-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dare

If 98.5% loss is your issue, how is 97.5% loss your answer? How do you account for the fact that there are videos with 98.5% loss that look perfect? The 97.5% loss can't be more perfect.

If you're shooting for more perfect, don't settle for anything less than 75% loss.

I just told you with the audio comparison. Even with WMA you can notice a difference.

Dare · 02-27-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssjLancer

I just told you with the audio comparison. Even with WMA you can notice a difference.

Why are you talking about audio? I'm talking about video. We're going to have to get on the same page if you want to have a discussion.

ssjLancer · 02-27-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dare

Why are you talking about audio? I'm talking about video. We're going to have to get on the same page if you want to have a discussion.

Funny you were fine talking about audio when you mentioned MP3 wasnt comparable since its such an old codec. Too bad the same reasoning doesnt apply to WMA huh?

Unless youre a studio compressionist(which you arent) you cant tell me that retaining 2.5% of the source isnt any better than 1.5%. No matter what that still translates to nearly twice the data. If youre gonna say twice the data doesnt make a difference, be prepared to back it up.

Lee Stewart · 02-27-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssjLancer

Funny you were fine talking about audio when you mentioned MP3 wasnt comparable since its such an old codec. Too bad the same reasoning doesnt apply to WMA huh?

Unless youre a studio compressionist(which you arent) you cant tell me that retaining 2.5% of the source isnt any better than 1.5%. No matter what that still translates to nearly twice the data. If youre gonna say twice the data doesnt make a difference, be prepared to back it up.

Do you understand video compression? The reason why I am asking is based on your above statement, I believe that you do not understand VC and it's purpose, which has to do with motion in the frame and it's ability to track and reproduce that motion without artifacts that result in overloading the VC system.

It has nothing to do with resolution or color gamut.

ssjLancer · 02-27-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

Do you understand video compression? The reason why I am asking is based on your above statement, I believe that you do not understand VC and it's purpose, which has to do with motion in the frame and it's ability to track and reproduce that motion without artifacts that result in overloading the VC system.

It has nothing to do with resolution or color gamut.

Thats great.

Dare · 02-27-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssjLancer

Funny you were fine talking about audio when you mentioned MP3 wasnt comparable since its such an old codec. Too bad the same reasoning doesnt apply to WMA huh?

Unless youre a studio compressionist(which you arent) you cant tell me that retaining 2.5% of the source isnt any better than 1.5%. No matter what that still translates to nearly twice the data. If youre gonna say twice the data doesnt make a difference, be prepared to back it up.

You don't have to be a studio compressionist, all you need is a basic kindergarten-level understanding of codecs (which you don't). The issues addressed by audio codecs are totally different, on a different planet, than those addressed by video codecs. Audio compression has less in common with video compression than it does with air compression.

Audio compression finds ways to roughly approximate a linear waveform with as little information as possible.

Video compression takes a three dimensional field of pixels, two dimensions of space and one of time, and approximates it with as little information as possible. You can do amazing things with three dimensions, especially when there is little change in the third dimension. You can eliminate loads of data, very close to all of it actually, that just isn't available to eliminate in audio data.

The two are totally different animals. Talk about one, or talk about the other, but don't try to draw parallels between them. Ones is apples, one is oranges.

Now, I don't know if you have ever tried to compress video, but going from a 66:1 compression ratio to a 40:1 compression ratio isn't going to get you any benefit at all. The fact that AVC and VC-1 can manage a 66:1 compression ratio and still look perfect is already an amazing feat.

And you still haven't commented on what you would be gaining when the 66:1 ratio already looks perfect. Perfect is perfect. It doesn't get better. It looks the same as a 40:1 ratio would, and the same as a 30:1 ratio, and the same as a 20:1 ratio, and a 10:1 ratio. Your video could be 100 GB and it would still look the same. I really don't know what miracles you are expecting from Blu-ray now that HD-DVD is gone. The picture quality isn't going to look any different, even with a stream that maxes Blu-ray's specs.

Lee Stewart · 02-27-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dare

You don't have to be a studio compressionist, all you need is a basic kindergarten-level understanding of codecs (which you don't). The issues addressed by audio codecs are totally different, on a different planet, than those addressed by video codecs. Audio compression has less in common with video compression than it does with air compression.

Audio compression finds ways to roughly approximate a linear waveform with as little information as possible.

Video compression takes a three dimensional field of pixels, two dimensions of space and one of time, and approximates it with as little information as possible. You can do amazing things with three dimensions, especially when there is little change in the third dimension. You can eliminate loads of data, very close to all of it actually, that just isn't available to eliminate in audio data.

The two are totally different animals. Talk about one, or talk about the other, but don't try to draw parallels between them. Ones is apples, one is oranges.

Now, I don't know if you have ever tried to compress video, but going from a 66:1 compression ratio to a 40:1 compression ratio isn't going to get you any benefit at all. The fact that AVC and VC-1 can manage a 66:1 compression ratio and still look perfect is already an amazing feat.

And you still haven't commented on what you would be gaining when the 66:1 ratio already looks perfect. Perfect is perfect. It doesn't get better. It looks the same as a 40:1 ratio would, and the same as a 30:1 ratio, and the same as a 20:1 ratio, and a 10:1 ratio. Your video could be 100 GB and it would still look the same. I really don't know what miracles you are expecting from Blu-ray now that HD-DVD is gone. The picture quality isn't going to look any different, even with a stream that maxes Blu-ray's specs.

But but it has more storage . . .

But but it has a higher bit rate . . .

Good post Dare. Kudos

Hey . . . you want to talk about lossless audio(s) and authoring and the movie itself . . . THEN I understand the importance of more storage. It all has to fit and each takes up a specific amo0unt of storage. The higher bit rate . . ? When BD is looked at as a recordable media, THEN the bit rate (which is really the data transfer rate) becomes important.

Other than that . . . the "it's bigger/faster so it will look better" mindset is wrong as we know . . . the proof is in the image.

PS, if lossless audio is a true copy of the master sound track then I don't care if you use 8 MB per sec, or 800 MB per second . . . lossless is lossless.

ssjLancer · 02-27-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dare

You don't have to be a studio compressionist, all you need is a basic kindergarten-level understanding of codecs (which you don't). The issues addressed by audio codecs are totally different, on a different planet, than those addressed by video codecs. Audio compression has less in common with video compression than it does with air compression.

You should have never replied about it in the first place then. Nice backpedaling.

Quote:

Video compression takes a three dimensional field of pixels, two dimensions of space and one of time, and approximates it with as little information as possible. You can do amazing things with three dimensions, especially when there is little change in the third dimension. You can eliminate loads of data, very close to all of it actually, that just isn't available to eliminate in audio data.

The two are totally different animals. Talk about one, or talk about the other, but don't try to draw parallels between them. Ones is apples, one is oranges.

Now, I don't know if you have ever tried to compress video, but going from a 66:1 compression ratio to a 40:1 compression ratio isn't going to get you any benefit at all. The fact that AVC and VC-1 can manage a 66:1 compression ratio and still look perfect is already an amazing feat.

And you still haven't commented on what you would be gaining when the 66:1 ratio already looks perfect. Perfect is perfect. It doesn't get better. It looks the same as a 40:1 ratio would, and the same as a 30:1 ratio, and the same as a 20:1 ratio, and a 10:1 ratio. Your video could be 100 GB and it would still look the same. I really don't know what miracles you are expecting from Blu-ray now that HD-DVD is gone. The picture quality isn't going to look any different, even with a stream that maxes Blu-ray's specs.

Like you, I dont know anything about the compression process. I can only take the word of actual studios who are using high bitrate AVC releases to make the picture better.
Maybe you are right though, these billion dollar companies need to hire you asap for some consultation cause for some reason theyre wasting money pressing BD50's when they can obviously get the same exact quality using lower bitrates with an SL disc.

ssjLancer · 02-27-2008, 09:08 PM

If you cant tell the difference with 2.5% and 1.5% of the data. I guess that means the difference with .5% of the data is miniscule aswell.

Holy Crap we can fit HD movies on normal DVDs!!! someone inform the studios quickly!!!

See how incomplete your logic is? this is why you should leave the explaining to professionals.

siccivic420 · 02-27-2008, 10:47 PM

actually hd-dvd had wanted to use the new commpresion to put hd on dvd's at really low bit rates.

PFC5 · 02-27-2008, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siccivic420

actually hd-dvd had wanted to use the new commpresion to put hd on dvd's at really low bit rates.

That was at the very, very beginning, but if they had, we probably would have had HD movies on disc much sooner if they had. It wouldn't look as good as both formats do now, but we would have gotten there sooner, possibly much sooner.

HiramAbiff · 02-28-2008, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssjLancer

You should have never replied about it in the first place then. Nice backpedaling.

Like you, I dont know anything about the compression process. I can only take the word of actual studios who are using high bitrate AVC releases to make the picture better.
Maybe you are right though, these billion dollar companies need to hire you asap for some consultation cause for some reason theyre wasting money pressing BD50's when they can obviously get the same exact quality using lower bitrates with an SL disc.

You can't respond to facts so you respond with opinion...somebody else's opinion. Need I cite expert opinion that disagrees with your expert opinion? I could but I do not think it's very productive to throw opinions around when facts will do.

Dare · 02-28-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssjLancer

You should have never replied about it in the first place then. Nice backpedaling.

Like you, I dont know anything about the compression process. I can only take the word of actual studios who are using high bitrate AVC releases to make the picture better.
Maybe you are right though, these billion dollar companies need to hire you asap for some consultation cause for some reason theyre wasting money pressing BD50's when they can obviously get the same exact quality using lower bitrates with an SL disc.

Have you ever seen an HD-DVD with a flawless image? Answer carefully, because if you proceed down this path, you're going to blow yourself out of the water.

Like Lee said, the proof is in the image. Perfect is perfect. It doesn't matter how many more bits you throw at it, you won't improve on perfect. Don't change the subject by saying 'well, if you reduce the bits to zero, it won't look good anymore.' You are trying to weasel out of this by clouding the issue.

The only thing you can say that makes sense is, "Picture quality will not change after the industry migrates to Blu-ray." If you can't bring yourself to admit that, we can continue to drill some more.

02-27-2008, 11:47 AM	#106
Dare I moon you. Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 4,523	Now that the format war is over, I have no doubt that the subsidies are going to stop ASAP. Then we'll see for ourselves what the real cost is. __________________ LG GGC-H20L Super Multi Blue Blu-ray & HD DVD ROM Drive 58 Lost count

02-27-2008, 10:47 PM	#117
siccivic420 HD video game god Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: DENVER,colorado Posts: 416	actually hd-dvd had wanted to use the new commpresion to put hd on dvd's at really low bit rates. __________________ Main home theater Room [b] KURO PDP-6020 1080p[b]onkyo TX-sr875 receiver,Harmony 1000,xbox 360,Playstation 3 500gb, Emotiva ERC-1 cd player Panasonic BD35 Blu-ray player,OPPO dv-980 sacd/dvd-audio,Definitive Technology Mythos ST towers,Mythos 8 center,Mythos 1 towers and SVS pb12 ultra subLiving RoomPioneer KURO PDP-5080 768p plasma,Harmony 880,Denon 3803 receiver,Playstation 3 320gb,Axiom m60 towers ,Axiom 150,Axiom m22 bookshelfs ,Def.tech supecube reference sub Blu-ray's:66

Similar Threads to Now that Blu-Ray has won, can BD fans admit the following?
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
CNet's Top Five Most Wanted Gadgets	kamspy	High Definition Media	171	04-05-2008 01:11 AM
Paramount and Dreamworks Go HD DVD Exclusive!	Lee Stewart	High Definition Media	698	03-13-2008 07:01 PM
Analyst says consumers didn't end Hi Def format war	Super XP	High Definition Media	41	02-28-2008 05:35 AM
Blu-ray Sales Slide Following Warner Backing	MidnightWatche	High Definition Media	42	02-13-2008 11:26 PM
Perhaps I will buy blu-ray in 2009...Warner classics set for that year...	preFUR	High Definition Media	100	02-09-2008 04:18 AM
So what was it like here when Warner went Blu..?	VHSHD	High Definition Media	25	01-27-2008 06:41 AM
Blu-Ray Bill Hunt - At It Again - Part 3	Lee Stewart	High Definition Media	48	06-13-2007 07:32 AM

02-27-2008, 09:08 PM	#116
ssjLancer High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,968	If you cant tell the difference with 2.5% and 1.5% of the data. I guess that means the difference with .5% of the data is miniscule aswell. Holy Crap we can fit HD movies on normal DVDs!!! someone inform the studios quickly!!! See how incomplete your logic is? this is why you should leave the explaining to professionals.