Does Blu-ray HAVE to equal high definition?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Verner Delleholm

All movies and TV shows ect. on Blu-Ray is high definition, 720p or 1080p, right? Does it HAVE to be high definition? For example, it would be very convenient to put all 24 episodes of a TV show in standard definition on a single BD, instead of 3-4-5 DVDs. I know it could create a little confusion, on whether the product you're buying is HD or not, but this should be solvable with a sticker on the box exclaiming what resolution the video is in.

Alternatively, you can put SD content in extremely high bitrate on Blu-Rays.

So what I'm really asking, is there any hope for ever seeing non-HD stuff on Blu-Rays?

they are 1080p and 1080i, don't know of anything that is 720p. But to answer the main questions. No it does not, for example some extras are SD. But I can't imagine anyone putting a lot of SD material on one BD instead of 4-5 DVDs., at least not until DVD becomes obsolete.

[joenostalgia23]

I wish they put the Wizard of Oz SD documentary on a BD. I hate flipper-discs... I didn't care if it was SD or not, I just don't feel safe handling flipper-discs.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

Blu-Ray can only do lossless 480p with no color depth, even with the "easiest" definition of 480p, being 640x480 at 24 fps.

640 x 480 x 24 is 7,372,800 pixels per second. At a rate of 40 Mbps for picture that only gives you 5 bits per pixel representation, and you aren't getting much out of 5 bits.

Lossless compression would help, but it would take a LOT of compression to get to a more typical bit/pixel ratio.

Save your breath next time. The fact that I used the word "lossless" and not "uncompressed" should have clued you in to the fact I was talking about lossless compression.

Why do people think lossless and uncompressed are the same thing?

[lobosrul]

The h.264 spec does support lossless video encoding. I'm not sure if BD does however, I don't think so. However, 2-3Mbps or so with h.264 is plenty for 480p. 40Mbps would be "de facto" lossless. Except for a smaller colorspace.

Afrobean hit the nail on the head, the studios won't release a 20+ episode TV season on 1 disc because to the average joe consumer that will seem like a lesser value than a box set of 6 discs.

Not all BD's are 1080p, I've seen several that are 1080i, mostly BBC releases that are 50Hz to 60Hz conversions. Never seen a 720p BD though.

Something like Seinfeld would work well at 720p. Even remastered I don't think 1080p would add much to it. An entire 24 episode season would fit easily into a BD-50 at 720p. But, it will probably be released at 1080p over 4 BD-25's.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by blu_sharpy

Doesnt that then defy the point of HD and Blu-ray Discs. I know by putting everything on one disc you wouldnt have to 'swap' discs but by putting them on there in SD defies the point of BD, you might aswell just stick with the DVD.
720p and 1080i are all HD resolutions its just 1080p is preferred.

I disagree, BD has 40mbps while DVD is 9.8 mbps, BD can use AVC DVD is limited to MPEG2. DVDs are way over compressed and having the content less compressed will make, even SD, look better.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

The h.264 spec does support lossless video encoding. I'm not sure if BD does however, I don't think so. However, 2-3Mbps or so with h.264 is plenty for 480p. 40Mbps would be "de facto" lossless. Except for a smaller colorspace.

can we stop with Amirisms? if the colour space is restricted then you don't end up with bit for bit what you started from after decoding. You cannot call it lossless.

[Elandyll]

The big problem (besides the confusion), and has already pointed out by Afrobean, is the perception of value.

Even if it was possible to fit 24 x 45mn episodes on a single BD50 with a good quality and a few bonuses, how could you justify the cost of an entire season (and let's be honest here, $40ish for more than 1000 minutes of sometimes high quality production, it's rather cheap) with only 1 disc?

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Save your breath next time. The fact that I used the word "lossless" and not "uncompressed" should have clued you in to the fact I was talking about lossless compression.

Why do people think lossless and uncompressed are the same thing?

Considering I actually mentioned lossless compression in the exact post you quoted, perhaps YOU should save your breath next time.

*EDIT* I don't know why I'm bothering, but the entire reason I did the math was to show just how much compression it would take to get a lossless compressed signal. Lossless audio only gets about a 2:1 compression ratio. You are blithly blowing me off by assuming that lossless video can get a 7:1 compression ratio (or 5:1 if you only use 24 bits/pixel)? Lossless video of 480p, short of black and white or still frames, is not happening on a Blu-Ray.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

Lossless audio only gets about a 2:1 compression ratio. You are blithly blowing me off by assuming that lossless video can get a 7:1 compression ratio (or 5:1 if you only use 24 bits/pixel)? Lossless video of 480p, short of black and white or still frames, is not happening on a Blu-Ray.

I don't know where your getting that 2:1 compression from. I've encoded many of my CD's to FLAC (which is lossless) and the encodes are usually about 4 times smaller than the source.


How did we get to this argument anyways? Its not as if 1080p on BD is lossless. And BD's maximum data rate is certainly not enough for lossless 1080p.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

I don't know where your getting that 2:1 compression from. I've encoded many of my CD's to FLAC (which is lossless) and the encodes are usually about 4 times smaller than the source.

FLAC's own numbers state that they get a 57% average compression. Yeah, it's better than 2:1. A different web page I was reading says it goes from 30%-70%, so I just halved the difference to get 2:1.

*EDIT* Source: http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html

[Terjyn]

Oops, rereading that 57% is slightly less than 2:1, not slightly more.

[aphex]

Anyways.....

I think it wouldn't be that bad of an idea for certain things. Like if they one day released a Simpsons Complete series for a few hundred bucks, and had seasons 1-19 on single 50gb blu-ray discs identical to their 4 dvd discs.

I mean for something like that where it's not even done in HD. I would definitely want it.

[Atreyu]

I do agree with many of the other posts here. It would confuse people and yes they need to perceive they are getting more if they pay high price. Only way I think this would be feasible is if in the future there are no more standard dvds and you label the blus as being in standard definition.

[bogdan]

Putting a whole TV series on a BD would make less profit than... like 3-4 DVD boxsets. And again, a lot of people would be confused.

[Headface]

I have to disagree, I think there would be a massive demand for television series on BD in SD. While it may not be extremely successful at being marketed towards the individual, it would be huge if it were marketed at companies such as Netflix and Blockbuster online. Most people only are able to receive 2-3 discs per mailing cycle, which means you will need to wait if you happen to have a marathon. No waiting means happier customers.

There would be confusion on which definition you are buying, naturally; however most people can't really tell the difference anyway, especially when you sit across the room, and even more so by the sort of person that wouldn't understand a box stating it was in SD.