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

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

High Definition News & Informative Articles Get the Latest High Definition News & Informative Articles Here! Please post newsworthy information here only! This forum is NOT for your first post. Thank you!

Toshiba in war with Blu-ray again with DVD extension

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-14-2008, 09:34 AM   #61  
We Are Right (WAR) !
 

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Great White North
Posts: 625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
No. To say the HD Discs are just an extension is as false as to say DVD was just as extention to CDs. ------ Bluray is an entirely new format using much, much smaller pits, a different laser "needle" to read those pits, and so on. BD v. DVD is like Cylindrical records v. Disc records. Similar principles but incompatible formats.

This new DVD SRT from Toshiba is simply the old DVD standard with extra bandwidth/processing. That, in essence, is what JVC tried to do with Super VHS (and flopped in the marketplace).

Also:

I don't buy this nonsense about "details hidden between the pixels". I have some old 320x240 games that use similar technology to upconvert them to 640x480 or higher resolutions. Result? It still looks like an older game. Similarly an upconverted DVD-SRT will still look like older technology compared to a true HD Disc.
What you say about the differences between DVD and BD may be true; however, what I say is also true as far as how DVD and BD are perceived by the consumer. Perception is very important. Everyone I know, with the exception of friends on these forms, sees BD as just a form of DVD - doesn't matter if it is actually true or not - its how they see it. In fact many people refer to BD as Blu-Ray DVD! The vast majority (and I do mean vast) of my friends had absolutely no interest in purchasing HD DVD when it existed and have absolutely no interest whatsoever in purchasing BD! They have all seen it projected on my 80" wide screens with either my gamma corrected Sony G90 or my gamma corrected Marquee 8501 LC or on my Samsung 5281F LED LCD. Let me tell you HD DVD and BD looks pretty damn good on any of these setups, but they really don't care that much - they just want to watch the movie. When I mention to those who own HDTVs what SRT is and the possibility of enhancing their DVD collection they all express an interest. I'm not saying SRT will live up to the hype, but if it does, then look out. If its good (I'll keep an open mind until I actually see it) I'll certainly be buying one or two of them and I suspect so will a lot of others. Writing something off before you even see it - well, I think you may miss out on something that could revive your DVD collection - but, hey that's just me.
Deja Vu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 10:08 AM   #62  
Hi-Def Junkie
 
iDarren's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post
I'm not saying SRT will live up to the hype, but if it does, then look out. If its good (I'll keep an open mind until I actually see it) I'll certainly be buying one or two of them and I suspect so will a lot of others. Writing something off before you even see it - well, I think you may miss out on something that could revive your DVD collection - but, hey that's just me.
You do realise that almost all products, marketed by every company, preceding their release, are the BEST THING EVER. Until they are released, and reality kicks in.
iDarren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 10:15 AM   #63  
Administrator
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 16,974
Default

Quote:
I have some old 320x240 games that use similar technology to upconvert them to 640x480 or higher resolutions. Result? It still looks like an older game.
Up conversion is a two dimentional operstion whereas SRT is a three dimentional operation with time (4 frames back and 4 frames forward) being the third dimention. Those who don't visualize in three dimentions can not imagine SRT.

If you are inclined as a math geek, this could be instructive:
Temporal resolution enhancement in compressed video sequences
rbinck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 03:29 PM   #64  
We Are Right (WAR) !
 

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Great White North
Posts: 625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iDarren View Post
You do realise that almost all products, marketed by every company, preceding their release, are the BEST THING EVER. Until they are released, and reality kicks in.
Wasn't BD supposed to be the best thing ever? O.K. you're right. I guess you win. Reality has kicked in.
Deja Vu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 09:10 PM   #65  
Hi-Def Junkie
 
iDarren's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post
Wasn't BD supposed to be the best thing ever? O.K. you're right. I guess you win. Reality has kicked in.
OK, now I will sound like a fanboy.....

Most of the time the hype is false (my point)

But in the case of BD it wasn't
iDarren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 12:09 PM   #66  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
tvine2000's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: vermont
Posts: 1,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post
What you say about the differences between DVD and BD may be true; however, what I say is also true as far as how DVD and BD are perceived by the consumer. Perception is very important. Everyone I know, with the exception of friends on these forms, sees BD as just a form of DVD - doesn't matter if it is actually true or not - its how they see it. In fact many people refer to BD as Blu-Ray DVD! The vast majority (and I do mean vast) of my friends had absolutely no interest in purchasing HD DVD when it existed and have absolutely no interest whatsoever in purchasing BD! They have all seen it projected on my 80" wide screens with either my gamma corrected Sony G90 or my gamma corrected Marquee 8501 LC or on my Samsung 5281F LED LCD. Let me tell you HD DVD and BD looks pretty damn good on any of these setups, but they really don't care that much - they just want to watch the movie. When I mention to those who own HDTVs what SRT is and the possibility of enhancing their DVD collection they all express an interest. I'm not saying SRT will live up to the hype, but if it does, then look out. If its good (I'll keep an open mind until I actually see it) I'll certainly be buying one or two of them and I suspect so will a lot of others. Writing something off before you even see it - well, I think you may miss out on something that could revive your DVD collection - but, hey that's just me.
i respect what your saying,but i'm always amazed when someone says things like ''perceived by consumers''.how does one really know,what consumers really perceive? unless you stand outside walmart,or bb,or cc and ask consumers what they perceive,you don't know.i don't trust polls and survey's,because they can say anything they want good or bad.they can fudge the numbers,avold things in the poll that would give a truer sense of the poll.if one wants to make bd look bad in sales,they can,or good.i know polls and surveys give you a sense of whats maybe going on,but how true they are is anybodys guess
tvine2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 10:38 PM   #67  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
No. To say the HD Discs are just an extension is as false as to say DVD was just as extention to CDs. ------ Bluray is an entirely new format using much, much smaller pits, a different laser "needle" to read those pits, and so on. BD v. DVD is like Cylindrical records v. Disc records. Similar principles but incompatible formats.

This new DVD SRT from Toshiba is simply the old DVD standard with extra bandwidth/processing. That, in essence, is what JVC tried to do with Super VHS (and flopped in the marketplace).
That BD is different technology than DVD doesn't make one bit (no pun intended) of difference to consumers. They never care how it's done, just what it does. They haven't a clue how DVD works and they are just as clueless as to how BD works. Do you really think consumers care what color the laser is or how small the pits are?

And there's nothing wrong with that. Why should they care? It's not important to them and there's no reason it should be. Any more than they care how an electronic fuel injector or a drive-by-wire throttle works on their car.

DVD was not perceived as an "extension" of CD because CD's played music and DVD's played video. They did something different. To consumers, BD doesn't do anything different that DVD, it just does it better. It's not like cylindrical versus disc records, because consumers readily perceived cylinders were big and bulky and discs were not nearly so and could be stored much easier in much smaller space.

Comparing "SRT is to DVD" as "SVHS is to VHS" is completely apples and oranges. You needed a more expensive SVHS player and more expensive SVHS tapes to benefit from SVHS. SVHS wasn't intended to improve your existing VHS tapes and there was never a significant library of pre-recorded movies on SVHS.

What you really pointed out is "BD is to DVD" as "SVHS is to VHS". BD gives you a better picture than DVD (just as SVHS gave you a better picture than VHS), but you need to buy a more expensive player and more expensive media to benefit from BD and there isn't a significant library of pre-recorded movies on BD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
Also:

I don't buy this nonsense about "details hidden between the pixels". I have some old 320x240 games that use similar technology to upconvert them to 640x480 or higher resolutions. Result? It still looks like an older game. Similarly an upconverted DVD-SRT will still look like older technology compared to a true HD Disc.
Do some research before calling something nonsense. If you understood SRT, you'd know that digitally generated images (like video games or CGI) don't have the aliasing patterns in them that vary from frame-to-frame which are used to deduce the Hi-res details that caused them. Study sampling theory and Nyquist limits as they apply to digitally scanning an image (like a film frame) which contains finer details than the resolution of the scanner/image sensor or digital processing can capture accurately.

Last edited by BobY; 06-15-2008 at 10:44 PM..
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2008, 11:01 AM   #68  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 181
Default

To most people, if it is 1) Digital, 2) Video and 3) a Disk, it's a DVD. I don't know that it is a good use of Sony's time and energy to push a distinction between BR and DVD.
QuantumIguana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2008, 09:28 AM   #69  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY View Post
That BD is different technology than DVD doesn't make one bit (no pun intended) of difference to consumers. They never care how it's done, just what it does
Blu-ray does upto 1920x1080p.

DVD with SRT does not. The source is still only 720x480i. (I don't want that. I already have all my favorite episodes of Trek in that 480i reslution. I'm ready to jump to a higher res and only Bluray makes that possible.)

Super VHS:

The reason I used this as comparison is because consumers have a long, long history of rejecting extensions. They continued using VHS, not S-VHS. When hard drives arrived for the PS2, few consumers bought them, and only 2-3 games used it. (Ditto earlier with the Nintendo64 and Genesis CD.) Back in the distant past of the 80s, consumers ignored the Commodore 64's sequel, the Commodore 128. It may have had more memory and better graphics, but consumers still clung to their C64s.

Consumers will ignore DVD+SRT as well, and continue clinging to their of plain-jane DVDs.
Quote:
SVHS wasn't intended to improve your existing VHS tapes and there was never a significant library of pre-recorded movies on SVHS.
Except that it did. VHS played back on a Super VHS machines looks way better.

Also I see your point about Bluray. If BD is considered a "DVD extension" and possibly doomed to fail (according to you), then DVD+SRT has no chance of survival.

Last edited by electrictroy; 06-17-2008 at 09:38 AM..
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2008, 09:11 PM   #70  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
Blu-ray does upto 1920x1080p.

DVD with SRT does not. The source is still only 720x480i. (I don't want that. I already have all my favorite episodes of Trek in that 480i reslution. I'm ready to jump to a higher res and only Bluray makes that possible.)

Super VHS:

The reason I used this as comparison is because consumers have a long, long history of rejecting extensions. They continued using VHS, not S-VHS. When hard drives arrived for the PS2, few consumers bought them, and only 2-3 games used it. (Ditto earlier with the Nintendo64 and Genesis CD.) Back in the distant past of the 80s, consumers ignored the Commodore 64's sequel, the Commodore 128. It may have had more memory and better graphics, but consumers still clung to their C64s.

Consumers will ignore DVD+SRT as well, and continue clinging to their of plain-jane DVDs. Except that it did. VHS played back on a Super VHS machines looks way better.

Also I see your point about Bluray. If BD is considered a "DVD extension" and possibly doomed to fail (according to you), then DVD+SRT has no chance of survival.
I don't have a dog in this fight. It doesn't matter to me whether SRT "fails" or not, but I would like an SRT player to get the best out of my library of over 100 DVD's, only three of which are available on Blu-Ray.

Toshiba wouldn't care if consumers stuck with DVD or opted for SRT DVD--they get the royalties in either case and they are already planning on developing SRT technology for their displays and STB's, so they are not relying on the success of SRT DVD players to pay the bill.

Of course Blu-Ray would be the choice for people who want the best HD currently available and are willing to pay for it even though the library is limited and more expensive. SRT would be for people who either don't see much of a difference between BD and DVD on their particular HDTV, or who don't think the difference is worth the cost.

SRT DVD players may "fail" to cause people to upgrade their players (I imagine few consumers would dump a perfectly good DVD player to get an SRT DVD player), but SRT could still become as ubiquitous as upconverting DVD players are now. It wasn't like there was a great consumer demand for upconverting DVD players that led CEMs to make them, it was just a logical and ultimately inexpensive extension to DVD, just like Component Video outputs and Progressive scan. In that sense, feature "extensions" of DVD players have been very successful.

Oh, and if they get their SRT working like others have, it will turn a 480i DVD into a true HD image with real HD details that you don't get with upconverting. BD will be better, but SRT will still produce an HD image according to the CEA definition of HD ("around 768 lines").

Last edited by BobY; 06-17-2008 at 09:18 PM..
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 02:15 PM   #71  
Just a average Joe
 
JoeRoscoe's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Age: 69
Posts: 161
Default

Well put again BobY...I'm in pretty much the same situation,rare old movies are my passion, which may never reach Blu-Ray & even if they do they may not be significantly better than their SD counterpart's.
A big reason why the SRT/DVD 2.0 intriques me so, I'll go Blu, but for now I've adopted a wait & see position.
JoeRoscoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 05:08 PM   #72  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY View Post
I would like an SRT player to get the best out of my library of over 100 DVD's, only three of which are available on Blu-Ray. Toshiba wouldn't care if consumers stuck with DVD or opted for SRT DVD--they get the royalties in either case...
That's true, but I thought SRT only worked with DVDs encoded with the SRT data? That means your current collection of DVDs will look no different.

If you want SRT-enabled, you'd have to replace your old DVD library with new DVD-SRTs. My view: Rather than upgrade to DVD-SRTs, I'd rather upgrade to Blurays.
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 06:04 PM   #73  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
That's true, but I thought SRT only worked with DVDs encoded with the SRT data? That means your current collection of DVDs will look no different.

If you want SRT-enabled, you'd have to replace your old DVD library with new DVD-SRTs. My view: Rather than upgrade to DVD-SRTs, I'd rather upgrade to Blurays.
No, no, that was a total misconception on the part of the press, which doesn't understand something, then tries to simplify it for their readers.

The SRT "data" is simply the aliased interference patterns caused by undersampling of higher-resolution details in the original image. If you only look at one frame, you won't notice anything, but if you look at the differences in multiple frames, you can accurately deduce the original high-resolution detail that caused the aliases in the first place.

SRT would work on any existing DVD that was scanned at a lower resolution than the original image.
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 07:33 PM   #74  
Administrator
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 16,974
Default

A lot has to do with people that really don't grasp how SRT works. Further once they get a glimpse of it they don't think it is possible for a processor to accomplish it in real time. And that has yet to be shown.

As far as the basics of how SRT works, consider this figure of 4 simple frames with the shaded dot being a moving detail that is captured on a DVD image. The red lines are intended to be representative of the horizontal row of pixels the SD camera would capture.

Notice some of the detail is captured by two rows in frame one, by one row in frame 2, in two row in frame three and by one row in frame 3. By using this information it would be possible to reconstruct the bottom of the detail in frame 2 that was missed (between capture rows) by looking back to frame 1 and forward to frame 3.

Not only would it be possible to recreate the missing detail between frames this way, but create whole frames in between the captured frames to better convert 24 fps to 30 or 60 fps.

Obviously this is simplified to the Nth degree, but hopefully will help those that are truly interested.
rbinck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 09:17 PM   #75  
HD Elitist
 
hatt's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL
Age: 44
Posts: 6,300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck View Post
A lot has to do with people that really don't grasp how SRT works. Further once they get a glimpse of it they don't think it is possible for a processor to accomplish it in real time. And that has yet to be shown.

As far as the basics of how SRT works, consider this figure of 4 simple frames with the shaded dot being a moving detail that is captured on a DVD image. The red lines are intended to be representative of the horizontal row of pixels the SD camera would capture.

Notice some of the detail is captured by two rows in frame one, by one row in frame 2, in two row in frame three and by one row in frame 3. By using this information it would be possible to reconstruct the bottom of the detail in frame 2 that was missed (between capture rows) by looking back to frame 1 and forward to frame 3.

Not only would it be possible to recreate the missing detail between frames this way, but create whole frames in between the captured frames to better convert 24 fps to 30 or 60 fps.

Obviously this is simplified to the Nth degree, but hopefully will help those that are truly interested.
Doesn't the simple act of compressing the DVD video destroy many of the fine details SRT is suppost to enhance? SRT has to have something to work with since it doesn't "make up" data. While it no doubt should sharpen up the video just like a current upscaler; HDM may have detail that does not even exist on a DVD and therefore impossible to recover. Just throwing out questions here, but it looks like the heavy compression would take a toll on what SRT could do.
hatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
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


to Toshiba in war with Blu-ray again with DVD extension
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Super Resolution Coming To DVD Players (960P) Lee Stewart High Definition Media 3121 01-01-2009 06:03 PM
Now that Blu-Ray has won, can BD fans admit the following? HiramAbiff High Definition Media 180 03-06-2008 08:59 AM
Paramount Shifts Focus to Blu-ray samcan07 High Definition Media 39 07-29-2007 12:36 AM
A few facts that you might not know howzz1854 High Definition Media 7 02-17-2007 02:55 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:11 AM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands