Hands-On First Impressions: Samsung (Man Room review)

[zombie]

http://dvd.themanroom.com/dvd-newsview.php?id=0151

[Dr Kain]

It seems like that guy also misread the page 8 information about the single SIDED disc message.

Anyway, I'm starting to wonder if converting from supporting HD-DVD was a good thing...

[zombie]

Originally Posted by Dr Kain

It seems like that guy also misread the page 8 information about the single SIDED disc message.

Yup, afraid so.

Anyway, I'm starting to wonder if converting from supporting HD-DVD was a good thing...

I already support HD DVD and plan on supporting BD as well. That said, I'm starting to have second thoughts about getting a BD player now. If the discs are as bad as the reviews suggest then we'd all be better off waiting till dual layer BDs are available or until Sony wises up and uses a better codec.

[Dr Kain]

Originally Posted by nyg

I already support HD DVD and plan on supporting BD as well. That said, I'm starting to have second thoughts about getting a BD player now. If the discs are as bad as the reviews suggest then we'd all be better off waiting till dual layer BDs are available or until Sony wises up and uses a better codec.

That's what I'm starting to wonder.

It isn't teh codecs I care about, it is the video quality. However, I just don't know about HD-DVD. I owned some movies, never opened them, so I took them back since it is/was impossible to find a player. Hell, I've yet to see a player at all. Then I decided I'd rather get a BR player because they have more movies coming out that I want (or so I thought, as of right now, WB says they are supporting both, but I only see HD-DVD titles from them), but now, I don't know. I want Fifth Element and Underworld Evolution, but there will be an EE of UE in teh fall, and who knows if that will come out to BR. As for Fifth Element, there are so many complaints about the picture quality, but I'm not sure if it would be too bad for someone like me who is not all picky.

If I do get the Samsung though, I'm definitely getting the 4 year warranty on it, this way, if it sucks, when the Sony comes out, and if the Sony does end up being better, I'll exchange my Samsung for the Sony (saying my Samsung is defective).

[zombie]

Originally Posted by Dr Kain

As for Fifth Element, there are so many complaints about the picture quality, but I'm not sure if it would be too bad for someone like me who is not all picky.

I feel the same way. I'm not overly critical like many seem to be, I'll know when I see it if it's good enough for me. That's the reason why I haven't cancelled any of the many movies I have preordered, at least not yet.

[AV_Integrated]

It is all about the CODEC or the DL issue. More though, there is something specific going on with the encoding. This IS HD that we are talking about and the quality is far below that of broadcast HD and even looks worse than DVD. This is completely out of the ordinary and doesn't make sense. Watching part of XXX made me shrug - it looked horrible. But, when I went into the menu and the credit videos, etc. they looked phenomenal.

I am a supporter of Blu-ray specifically because of their industry support. These first few hiccups are very annoying, but I don't believe are at all reflective of what the product is capable of. Blu-ray needs the new CODECs, it needs dual-layer discs... Most of all it needs a level of quality control that puts the product head to head with HD-DVD and at the very least - hits the ground as the equal to HD-DVD.

If Blu-ray matches HD-DVD for image quality, comes out with some players that are competitively priced fairly quickly, and gets the studios on board to actually produce movies of the highest quality... Then it seems to me that Blu-ray has a near slam dunk in this format war.

But, if they remain slow, with a higher priced, lower quality product... Then why bother? Get more people working on the software and hardware issues that matter right now: Better disc creation (encoding/codecs/etc) - Dual layer disc production.

[Dr Kain]

Actually, I think there is one benefit for me going into BR now, I have never seen what a true HD image looks like. I have only seen demos on the TVs at BB and CC, but never a movie in HD. As such, I don't think the "lackluster" video is going to be a big deal for me.

It is the movies I care more about, and as long as WB is planning to release their movies on BR soon, BR has about 20 more titles I want than HD-DVD.

[marzetta7]

Hey guys,

Take a look at this article...

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,126112,00.asp

An interesting point of interest I found was this...

The rival media's physical storage constraints have the potential to be a greater issue in this struggle than many observers have considered up until now. Before HD DVD's launch, I had privately heard rumblings of studio concerns about HD DVD's lower capacity.

Now that I've taken a closer look at the first eight HD DVD movies I received from Warner Brothers and Universal, I can understand why. None of the eight titles could fit on a 15GB single-layer HD DVD, and half came within a mere 5GB of maxing out a 30GB dual-layer disc--even though all relied on the latest, more efficient video codecs (VC-1 and MPEG-4 AVC). The movies were The Last Samurai (which topped out at 27.3GB), Mel Brooks's Blazing Saddles (25.4GB), The Phantom of the Opera (24.8GB), Jarhead (24.7GB), The Bourne Identity (22.7GB), Serenity (19.6GB), The Fugitive (18.2GB), and Doom (16.5GB).

Granted, this is a small, random sampling, but the results nonetheless surprised me, considering that I had for so long heard HD DVD supporters say that even 15GB would be roomy for high-def content. Instead, it seems that HD DVD content is, in many cases, barely squeezing onto 30GB discs today--and the tight space leaves little breathing room for the interactive-video future that Hollywood's creative minds will dream up down the road. All of the titles I saw are first-generation; not surprisingly, their menus and level of interactivity are basic and do not reflect the complexity I expect to see from both formats in the near future. Plus, the existing extras don't take full advantage of the formats, nor were they created natively in high-definition, with high-def, wide-screen presentation in mind. And the soundtracks are more limited, typically only today's 5.1-channel sound, with just one audio commentary instead of multiple commentaries and elaborate features.

I think it is quite possible the the initial Blu-ray offerings had to sacrifice video quality in order to fit the content on the SL 25 GB discs given that HD DVD is barely squeezing in content when using the advanced codecs like H.264 (MPEG4) and using compressed audio on 30 GB discs.

I think the move into the HD market for Blu-ray is purely one to keep HD DVD getting to much of a foothold. I think the real quality will be seen once DL media is realized this summer. I for one, want advanced codecs being utilized as well as HD extras included. I think PCM for audio is just fine, as thus far, it has been getting great reviews. In any case, hopefully the extra storage capable on Blu-ray will help realize its full potential.

Has anyone heard what title will be the first DL movie? Wasn't Underworld Evolution supposed to be DL release?

[rgb]

I agree. Whoever has the most movies will win. Let's just try to keep the price somewhat comparable with HD DVD...

[hmurchison]

The movies were The Last Samurai (which topped out at 27.3GB), Mel Brooks's Blazing Saddles (25.4GB), The Phantom of the Opera (24.8GB), Jarhead (24.7GB), The Bourne Identity (22.7GB), Serenity (19.6GB), The Fugitive (18.2GB), and Doom (16.5GB)

Interesting. Serenity is among the highest rated HD DVD movie in quality and it's sub 20GB. What this tells me is that it's easier to take recent movies and maintain high quality at low bitrate. Older movies are going to take a bit more work and perhaps bitrate to maintain the same level of quality.

The King Kong HD DVD demo was only 18Mbps avg yet it looks GREAT. But to be fair it's a new movie. I think you see this trend with both platforms.

[zombie]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Interesting. Serenity is among the highest rated HD DVD movie in quality and it's sub 20GB. What this tells me is that it's easier to take recent movies and maintain high quality at low bitrate. Older movies are going to take a bit more work and perhaps bitrate to maintain the same level of quality.

Yup, as I stated in another thread, even Doom which takes up so little space on an HD DVD looks quite good.

[Sony1]

Man I hope I am not the only one but Doom was a terrible movie

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Sony1

Man I hope I am not the only one but Doom was a terrible movie

I haven't seen it yet but games normally don't translate into stellar movies IMO. Amazing that they got good quality and good sound in only 16GB of data.

Things will improve and VC-1 and AVC encoders get better and more featured.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Interesting. Serenity is among the highest rated HD DVD movie in quality and it's sub 20GB. What this tells me is that it's easier to take recent movies and maintain high quality at low bitrate. Older movies are going to take a bit more work and perhaps bitrate to maintain the same level of quality.

The King Kong HD DVD demo was only 18Mbps avg yet it looks GREAT. But to be fair it's a new movie. I think you see this trend with both platforms.

this means the original star wars series would benefit more on BD.....

I'm not the biggest star wars fan...but this series is pretty much the trump card for either format and one to pay close attention to....

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by marzetta7

Hey guys,

Take a look at this article...

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,126112,00.asp

An interesting point of interest I found was this...

Running some quick, "back of the envelope/napkin" calculations, the numbers look rather scary for HD DVD and not too good for BR even at dual layer.

The highest compressed rate is 140 MB per minute of movie. The lowest compressed rate is 244 MB per minute.

If we extrapolate these to long movies (say The Lord of the Rings series) then the extended versions (the ones people are very likely to want) come to 29.1, 31.2 and 35.1 GB even at the highest compression rates. A very bad sign for HD DVD. If the other extreme is required they come to 50.8, 54.4 and 61.3 GB which won't even fit on dual layer Blu-ray disks.

If the compression rate is somewhere in between (very likely) then they will fit on dual layer Blu-ray disks but will certainly not fit on HD DVD disks.

While the LOTR series is probably the extreme example. It points up that even with the advanced codecs movies will very likely require more than the 30 GB HD DVD disks can provide.

[hmurchison]

LotR EE should by default come with two discs.


The movie itself should be on one disc maximising the audio and video for as close to total transperancy as possible.

Then put the extras on a second disc. Our great movies deserve premium treatment and consumer like the extra packaging and dual discs that favorite titles command.

This whole "put it all on one disc" stuff is for the rank and file. The videophiles are going to want their favorite movies done up a little better.

[Psiweaver]

that was the whole movie he was talking about not he special features. With this comparision though we begin to see that blu-ray in the long run will be the better format because it'll be a lot easier to just add another layer or 2 to it because its set up for that. Wether or not the early consumer models will support that is another issue but in the long term i'll be shocked if we don't see blu-ray movies on 4 layer 100 gig discs.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

LotR EE should by default come with two discs.


The movie itself should be on one disc maximising the audio and video for as close to total transperancy as possible.

Originally Posted by Psiweaver

that was the whole movie he was talking about not he special features. With this comparision though we begin to see that blu-ray in the long run will be the better format because it'll be a lot easier to just add another layer or 2 to it because its set up for that. Wether or not the early consumer models will support that is another issue but in the long term i'll be shocked if we don't see blu-ray movies on 4 layer 100 gig discs.

The rough calculations I did are just for the movies themselves, e.g., I used the 251 minute run time for the LOTR:ROTK. I had assumed that the extras (invterviews/commentaries/etc.) could be on a separate disk.

Historically, I've always assumed 180 MB per minute as a nice "middle of the road number" for 1080p movies. Seems like that is right in the ballpark of what has been done (between the extremes of 140 and 244 MB per minute). At 180 MB per minute the 251 minute extended edition LOTR:ROTK will come out to about 45.2 GB. Again supporting the idea that HD DVD does not have the volume necessary for the longest movies, but enough for most movies (167 minutes max at 180 MB per minute).

Admittedly all these rough calculations should be taken with a very large grain of salt. As they say, "Your mileage may vary."

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Psiweaver

that was the whole movie he was talking about not he special features. With this comparision though we begin to see that blu-ray in the long run will be the better format because it'll be a lot easier to just add another layer or 2 to it because its set up for that. Wether or not the early consumer models will support that is another issue but in the long term i'll be shocked if we don't see blu-ray movies on 4 layer 100 gig discs.

Easier? Sony just delayed their player by another two months. 50GB discs are nowhere to be found. Every layer that you add compounds the complexity of making the disc. 100GB may happen some day but you're not going to like the price. Frankly I'll be shocked if we ever see a commericial 100GB 4 layer disc. I'm not holding my breath.

It's important to understand that today's discs are worst case. Serenity may take 16Mbps to maintain it's quality but in a few years compressionists will have mastered the codecs better and you'll see VC-1 and AVC producing better quality than today at bitrates of 12-14Mbps.

[hmurchison]

If LOTR EE was compressed at an avg bitrate of 14-16Mbps it would have room for the full 4 hours of video with a bit of space left over. I venture to say that shipping a 30GB and 15GB disc would still be cheaper than one DL 50GB BD-ROM.