High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource > High Definition DVDs & Movies > High Definition Media
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

High Definition Media A place to discuss BD, HD DVD and D-VHS and things that affect adoption of HD Media RSS - High Definition Media

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

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-27-2008, 12:47 PM   #106
I moon you.
 
Dare's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 4,521
Default

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
Dare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 12:51 PM   #107
I moon you.
 
Dare's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 4,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post
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)
__________________
LG GGC-H20L Super Multi Blue Blu-ray & HD DVD ROM Drive
58 Lost count
Dare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 12:53 PM   #108
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare View Post
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.
ssjLancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 12:54 PM   #109
I moon you.
 
Dare's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 4,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post
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.
__________________
LG GGC-H20L Super Multi Blue Blu-ray & HD DVD ROM Drive
58 Lost count
Dare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 01:01 PM   #110
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare View Post
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.
ssjLancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 02:19 PM   #111
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 36,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post
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.
Lee Stewart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 02:23 PM   #112
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
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.
ssjLancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 03:54 PM   #113
I moon you.
 
Dare's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 4,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post
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.
__________________
LG GGC-H20L Super Multi Blue Blu-ray & HD DVD ROM Drive
58 Lost count
Dare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 04:23 PM   #114
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 36,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare View Post
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.

Last edited by Lee Stewart; 02-27-2008 at 04:31 PM.
Lee Stewart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 04:50 PM   #115
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 10:08 PM   #116
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,968
Default

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.
ssjLancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 11:47 PM   #117
HD video game god
 
siccivic420's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DENVER,colorado
Posts: 416
Default

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
siccivic420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2008, 12:13 AM   #118
Former Super Moderator - RIP
 
PFC5's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mass
Posts: 38,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by siccivic420 View Post
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.
__________________
Denon AVR-887
Klipsch RP-5 Pwred Towers (mains) (525 watts peak each 12"Subs)
All Klipsch RC-25(ctr),(2)SS1(surr),(2)SS1(rearSurr)
Toshiba (2)HD-A20,PS3,BD35
For SACD/DVD-A Samsung HD-841
Panny 50pz80u plasma
SETTINGS
RCA HD50LPW162 50"DLP w/HD2+
SA 3250HD
47" LCD+Yamaha5790+HD-A1(bedroom)
Harmony 680 + (2) 670s (amazing remote/support)
Game room with Onkyo receiver & B&W Speakers
The_Cable_Game
Take the high ground and be happier
PSN: PFC5
PFC5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2008, 02:11 AM   #119
HD-DVD--for movie lovers
 
HiramAbiff's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Age: 32
Posts: 1,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post
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.
__________________
My HD DVD and DVD collection.

My favorite movies.

Mitsubishi WS-55315
HiramAbiff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2008, 01:03 PM   #120
I moon you.
 
Dare's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 4,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssjLancer View Post
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.
__________________
LG GGC-H20L Super Multi Blue Blu-ray & HD DVD ROM Drive
58 Lost count
Dare is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource > High Definition DVDs & Movies > High Definition Media
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

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 02:11 AM
Paramount and Dreamworks Go HD DVD Exclusive! Lee Stewart High Definition Media 698 03-13-2008 08:01 PM
Analyst says consumers didn't end Hi Def format war Super XP High Definition Media 41 02-28-2008 06:35 AM
Blu-ray Sales Slide Following Warner Backing MidnightWatche High Definition Media 42 02-14-2008 12:26 AM
Perhaps I will buy blu-ray in 2009...Warner classics set for that year... preFUR High Definition Media 100 02-09-2008 05:18 AM
So what was it like here when Warner went Blu..? VHSHD High Definition Media 25 01-27-2008 07:41 AM
Blu-Ray Bill Hunt - At It Again - Part 3 Lee Stewart High Definition Media 48 06-13-2007 08:32 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:58 AM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2004 - 2008, High Def Forum