Blu Ray Dissapointing: MPEG-2, 16/48 analog sound... NEED 1080p24 out, 24/48+ digital

[Health Nut]

I'm very dissapointed to hear that Sony is Squandering storage space and bandwidth using MPEG-2 only... I am also dissapointed that the sound is only core DD/DTS as well as standard 16/48 khz multichannel... First, it is ridiculous not to use the better codecs MPEG-4 AVC/VC-1 running at an avergage bandwidth of 15 Mbit/sec instead of MPEG-2 running around 22-24. This is simply a waste of space and bandwidth, particularly when you can gain better picture quality with the newer codecs running at higher rates (but less than MPEG-2). Absolutely absurd. Further, why and the F*** would I buy any player that is not HDMI 1.3 compliant at this point??? HD-DVD sucks, but Blu Ray is starting off uneccessarily porrer quality than neccessary. No Doubt SONY, the KING OF MILKING will re-release these same Blu Ray discs in 2-3 years with MPEG-4 and call then SUPERBIT HD or some BULLS*** when they could just use an advanced codec NOW and run the bitrate so high that you would far exceed the equivalent quality of MPEG-2... Then you have the issue of why 16/48 sound? You could at least do 24/48 multichannel in this day and age... AND what kind of output would this be, ANALOG? I'm so sick of this crap... No wonder, even as much of a technology enthusiast as I am, I'm not buying HD-DVD or Blu Ray until they sort out the 1080p NATIVE issue, HDMI 1.3 issue, and have 24/48+ LOSSLESS quality multichannel included.

Good luck but I'm not buying any of this first generation bullcrap. HD-DVD and Blu Ray can go choke on these first generation bullcrap players. Send me an email around November of 2006 or so if there is any new news... I'm in no hurry this time. Go fn choke on this first gen stuff....

[zombie]

I find it hard not to agree with everything you said. Both formats are failing to provide the very best audio and video quality that's available, at least initially. I'm disappointed as well, but not so let down that I'm going to wait even longer than I already have for HD on disc.

[JTK]

Welcome to first generation early adoption. This is all too typical of the kinds of things we see in consumer electronics.

Unfortuneately, I feel that even early adopter types have become WAAAAAY too forgiving of these sorts of things.

Just because someone may have the money to blow on changing out their 5 figure front projector several times a year doesn't mean ANY company or CE venture should be able to put what are essentially incomplete products and it's simply sluffed off like: "Gosh darn it, it's first gen so ya get what ya get."

This is why I've never early adopted in my life, but isn't that unfortunate? It's too bad that a CE venture of any kind can't be solidified enough where you COULD buy a first gen piece of hardware and then not be s**** outta luck in a very short amount of time.

In this specific case, I'm almost certainly sticking to my original gameplan: Get a PS3, which I would do as a gamer anyways regardless of anything else, and simply use it as my BR stopgap until second or more likely third generation comes along.

I didn't even buy a DVD player until about third generation, so I'm used to this.

But again...it's a pity that I have to be that way, isn't it?

I'd be willing to pay a certain amount of money now, within reason, if I thought I could honestly get a product that I could keep and be confident in for years to come.

[Shadowself]

First, let me apologize up front for the length of this post. Sorry.

There are reasons why virtually all the content will be done in MPEG-2 rather than MPEG-4 Part 10 (aka AVC or H.264) for a while: Experience, available space and licensing fees.

The studios have a great deal of experience dealing with MPEG-2 and can thus tweak the compression variables associated with it in order to get the best output (MPEG-2 is not the "black box" many consumer software makers would have you believe -- and neither is MPEG-4 Part 10). They don't have as much experience with MPEG-4 Part 10. Eventually, as their experience and comfort level grows, they will shift to MPEG-4 Part 10. However, there are some instances where MPEG-2 will output a better image than MPEG-4 Part 10.

It may be wise to allow the content suppliers to use what they are good at rather than us buying disks where they are still "experimenting" with the new compression methodologies and thus may be providing an inferior product.

MPEG-4 Part 10 was created/optimized for the best resolution at the lowest reasonable bit rates. It was not optimized for just getting the best image quality. Thus if you can "afford" a higher bit rate (say 50 Mbps or higher) then MPEG-2 may give just as good -- and maybe even better -- quality as MPEG-4 Part 10.

The 50 GB Blu-ray disks give the content suppliers this option. I know of no movie right now (other than maybe some of the old epics which were several ours long) which would require more than 50 GB even at a moderate bit rate for MPEG-2.

Finally, the licensing fees for MPEG-2 are less than the fees for MPEG-4 Part 10. Eventually, the fees for MPEG-4 Part 10 will come down. Until then, for the reasons mentioned above, I don't mind the content providers avoiding the higher fees.

As far as HDMI 1.3 goes... I'm not even sure the "1.3" version is even published as a final standard. My understanding is that virtually all (if not all) of the details have been worked out, but it has not been ratified by the organization nor have the details of the specification of this "1.3" standard been "published". My understanding is that the current version is HDMI 1.2a. The last I checked "1.3" was supposed to be published no later than the end of June. You can't expect SONY or any other organization to commit to shipping products on a standard that is not even available yet. (As an aside note, the last I checked into it, the HDMI organization [HDMI Licensing LLC] still had not decided as to wheter to call this next iteration "HDMI 1.3" or "HDMI 2.0".)

As far as 1080p goes... to what 1080p are you referring? 1080p/24? 1080p/30? 1080p/60? Most film is shot at 24 frames per second and then through shuttering is shown at an effective rate of 48 frames per second, but there is no 1080p/48 standard.

Because of historical reasons, most TVs don't directly support the projection of 24 or 48 frames per second on the screen (what the viewers eye's see not what the internal electronics see). So there is no direct way for the viewers eyes to see what they would see in the theatre.

The new digital cinema standards won't solve this as they are
1080 x 2048 at either 24 or 48 frames per second (fps)
or
2160 x 4096 at 48 fps.
Again neither 24 nor 48 are directly viewed by the consumer when watching their TV.

So what do you want for your 1080p? What standard 1080p standard do you want? What conversion from 24 or 48 fps do you want? Do you want the conversion done in your Blu-ray Disk player? Do you want the content provider to do the conversion?

With regard to sound, we had a rather interesting discussion about sound on another thread in here. You might want to find it and read through it.

[aktonin]

This is my first post on the board, though I have been reading for a while.

What I don't get is, isn't true that some new HDTVs can display 1080p/24 natively? If so, then will it not be possible for a Blu-Ray player to output 1080p/24 to HDTV with 1080p/24 support, thus enjoying the film's original frame rate?

Thanks.

[phloyd]

The simple answer is the more that is new, the more will go wrong and the more delay of launch needed to get it right.

Also the more that is new, the more new equipment you need to support it. Going from DVD you already need to buy a new and expensive TV. The new amps supporting the new formats will be equally expensive.

And sure there could easily be better versions of the first wave of discs further down the line. The same was true with DVDs with no change of format.

It amazes me that this kind of thing makes you so angry - just don't f***ing buy it. Simple. Or start a rival format that does everything you want.

Cheers!

[Health Nut]

MPEG-4 Part 10 was created/optimized for the best resolution at the lowest reasonable bit rates. It was not optimized for just getting the best image quality. Thus if you can "afford" a higher bit rate (say 50 Mbps or higher) then MPEG-2 may give just as good -- and maybe even better -- quality as MPEG-4 Part 10.

I don't mind the content providers avoiding the higher fees.

HD-DVD early discs don't seem to show a quality issue. Each decoder has some quality tradeoffs, but the new advances not only allow for higher efficiency, they can allow for high quality as well. So 'overall' MPEG-2 is not going to outperform the latest codec. Most importantly, you are not going to be able to have peak bandwidths and the kind of headroom you have with MPEG-4. This just isn't a good reason. The latest codecs really are overall better, especially when you look at the whole picture of all considerations together.

Do you really care if a studio pays an extra 25 cents to compress in MPEG4 v10? I'd rather have that cost passed on to ME and have a better disc now than have to re-buy another $35.00 disc in two years. The other consideration is that if you are running the MPEG-2 rate so high, maybe that is why they cut the sound down to 16/48 multichannel... No doubt. Using MPEG-2 does waste space and bandwidth and that has consequences. Also, since when is Sony releasing everything on 50 GB discs? They should release most everything on 50 GB discs and use 24/48+ 7.1 and such... Certainly lossless is the best use of space. In my opinion they should just use DD and DTS Lossless... If you want the higher quality sound, upgrade your processor in the future... MPEG-2 and uncompressed PCM, especially 16/48 isn't what I'd call desireable. Maximum audio and video quality will always be promoted by using an advanced video codec and lossless compressed audio either DD lossless or DTS lossless.

The new digital cinema standards won't solve this as they are 1080 x 2048 at either 24 or 48 frames per second (fps) or 2160 x 4096 at 48 fps. Again neither 24 nor 48 are directly viewed by the consumer when watching their TV.

I'm glad I didn't buy a projector recently. I've had my DWIN HD700 CRT for 6 years now and I'm also happy I didn't donate a dime to DLP, thank-goodness. In any case, I'm very happy that I can sit back and wait to buy a new 1080p projector at my convenience. I'm not worried about any 'TV' since I'll be buying something new for a future Blu Ray player... but it won't be until Sony et al along with the CEMA displays get there act together. I'd prefer not to buy a scaler in this day and age, so I expect a future player to do all internal high quality transcaling and be able to pass the native 1080p24output. You can't have people with older technolgy have their cake and eat it too. These new formats and new displays have to be optimized for 1080p. Certainly PS3 will be outputing games at 1080p60 which is very exciting. 1080p60 should be an ATSC HD Format, but who cares about ATSC anymore. All new displays need to be 1080p60 capable.

As far as HDMI 1.3 goes... I'm not even sure the "1.3" version is even published as a final standard.

Its not my fault Sony et all, including HD-DVD was sitting on their ass this whole time comsumers have been asking for lossless quality audio. DD lossless and DTS Lossless certainly were approved as optional formats. Audio is as important as video. Like the other person said earlier, this first generation stuff sucks, so why make a huge investment in first gen. It is not my fault Sony et others rush players to market... Get it right. First gen doesn't have to suck. All it seems is that these first generation players just get in the way with an initial installed base of players that can't deliver what they should. We already have DVD, we don't need half-assed HD-DVD or half-assed Blu Ray, becasue that is what this is... again, we already have DVD so don't expect us to dish out money for this half-assed first generation crap.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by phloyd

It amazes me that this kind of thing makes you so angry - just don't f***ing buy it. Simple. Or start a rival format that does everything you want.

Cheers!

Quoted for truth and the win.

[marzetta7]

Originally Posted by Health Nut

HD-DVD early discs don't seem to show a quality issue. Each decoder has some quality tradeoffs, but the new advances not only allow for higher efficiency, they can allow for high quality as well. So 'overall' MPEG-2 is not going to outperform the latest codec. Most importantly, you are not going to be able to have peak bandwidths and the kind of headroom you have with MPEG-4. This just isn't a good reason. The latest codecs really are overall better, especially when you look at the whole picture of all considerations together.

Do you really care if a studio pays an extra 25 cents to compress in MPEG4 v10? I'd rather have that cost passed on to ME and have a better disc now than have to re-buy another $35.00 disc in two years. The other consideration is that if you are running the MPEG-2 rate so high, maybe that is why they cut the sound down to 16/48 multichannel... No doubt. Using MPEG-2 does waste space and bandwidth and that has consequences. Also, since when is Sony releasing everything on 50 GB discs? They should release most everything on 50 GB discs and use 24/48+ 7.1 and such... Certainly lossless is the best use of space. In my opinion they should just use DD and DTS Lossless... If you want the higher quality sound, upgrade your processor in the future... MPEG-2 and uncompressed PCM, especially 16/48 isn't what I'd call desireable. Maximum audio and video quality will always be promoted by using an advanced video codec and lossless compressed audio either DD lossless or DTS lossless.

I'm glad I didn't buy a projector recently. I've had my DWIN HD700 CRT for 6 years now and I'm also happy I didn't donate a dime to DLP, thank-goodness. In any case, I'm very happy that I can sit back and wait to buy a new 1080p projector at my convenience. I'm not worried about any 'TV' since I'll be buying something new for a future Blu Ray player... but it won't be until Sony et al along with the CEMA displays get there act together. I'd prefer not to buy a scaler in this day and age, so I expect a future player to do all internal high quality transcaling and be able to pass the native 1080p24output. You can't have people with older technolgy have their cake and eat it too. These new formats and new displays have to be optimized for 1080p. Certainly PS3 will be outputing games at 1080p60 which is very exciting. 1080p60 should be an ATSC HD Format, but who cares about ATSC anymore. All new displays need to be 1080p60 capable.

Its not my fault Sony et all, including HD-DVD was sitting on their ass this whole time comsumers have been asking for lossless quality audio. DD lossless and DTS Lossless certainly were approved as optional formats. Audio is as important as video. Like the other person said earlier, this first generation stuff sucks, so why make a huge investment in first gen. It is not my fault Sony et others rush players to market... Get it right. First gen doesn't have to suck. All it seems is that these first generation players just get in the way with an initial installed base of players that can't deliver what they should. We already have DVD, we don't need half-assed HD-DVD or half-assed Blu Ray, becasue that is what this is... again, we already have DVD so don't expect us to dish out money for this half-assed first generation crap.

To answer your question in bold,...

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...Ultraviolet/35

Sony has announced their second Blu-Ray disc title to debut simultaneously with its standard DVD release.

On June 27, the studio will unleash the recent Milla Jovovich action-thriller 'Ultraviolet' in a new Unrated Director's Cut. No supplemental features or disc specs have yet to be released, though the film will be presented in its original 2.35:1 theatrical aspect ratio, and as with all of Sony's current Blu-Ray releases, will be encoded on an BD-50 dual-layer disc at full 1080p video resolution.

The release is the second day-and-date with DVD Blu-Ray release, following 'Underworld: Evolution,' which Sony will debut on June 6.

Sony has priced the disc at its new release MSRP of $38.95. The latest details for 'Ultraviolet' have been added to our comprehensive Blu-Ray Release Schedule.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by phloyd

It amazes me that this kind of thing makes you so angry - just don't f***ing buy it. Simple. Or start a rival format that does everything you want.

Cheers!

Originally Posted by JTK

Quoted for truth and the win.

I agree 100%.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by JTK

Welcome to first generation early adoption. This is all too typical of the kinds of things we see in consumer electronics.

Unfortuneately, I feel that even early adopter types have become WAAAAAY too forgiving of these sorts of things.

Just because someone may have the money to blow on changing out their 5 figure front projector several times a year doesn't mean ANY company or CE venture should be able to put what are essentially incomplete products and it's simply sluffed off like: "Gosh darn it, it's first gen so ya get what ya get."

This is why I've never early adopted in my life, but isn't that unfortunate? It's too bad that a CE venture of any kind can't be solidified enough where you COULD buy a first gen piece of hardware and then not be s**** outta luck in a very short amount of time.

In this specific case, I'm almost certainly sticking to my original gameplan: Get a PS3, which I would do as a gamer anyways regardless of anything else, and simply use it as my BR stopgap until second or more likely third generation comes along.

I didn't even buy a DVD player until about third generation, so I'm used to this.

But again...it's a pity that I have to be that way, isn't it?

I'd be willing to pay a certain amount of money now, within reason, if I thought I could honestly get a product that I could keep and be confident in for years to come.

exactly...and I will only have a player as I'll have the PS3...

but I won't get a real player until at least late 2007 probably...and I didn't get a DVD player until mid-1999...

[Health Nut]

I agree 100% as well. Which is why I'm not going to buy a Blu Ray player until they incorporate DD Lossless/DTS lossless capability. Thanks for posting the good news on the use of 50 GB discs from the start, that is great to hear, but only part of the battle. Looks like they got the 50 GB part worked out, now all Sony has to do is get rid of the dumb idea of using 16 bit/48 khz multichannel PCM for movies and also use VC-1 or MPEG-4 part 10, but that is a poor movie studio decision not a player problem per se...

Well there are several issuse here of which include: The players, the software, and movie studios. The first thing is the player. There is no reason to buy a Blu Ray player that does not support DD Lossless/DTS Lossless (DTS HD/DD HD or whatever the current name is). One of the biggest advantages to this new format is the increase in sound quality and the elimination of lossy encoding once and for all. DD and DTS lossless will promote the use of the highest quality sound available, identical to master capability, partly because you cut the storage and bandwidth useage of PCM by around 50% or more with a movie soundtrack). Storage and bandwidth are still precious and only using both the advanced audio and video codecs will you promote the highest quality. Sure a receiver or surround sound processor might not have that capability, but as long as the Blu Ray player can output 1080p24 and the new DD/DTS Lossless then at least the player is fine. It is just a matter of upgrading your surround processor, which you would need to do anyway to get HDMI support.

Many of us fought hard to put pressure on the studios as well as the BDA to provide lossless audio whether some appreciate that or not is a different story, but several of us fought hard behind the scenes, several of which I had published. To many, the sound is every bit is important as the video, and that means not just the use of lossless compression, but the development of new channels such as a discrete tactile channel. The bottom line here in regards to Blu Ray players is that I and others should refuse to buy any Blu Ray player that does not support the new audio codecs. Some processors are already available that support the advanced codecs or will be available shortly and the new codecs are the future, not just for movies but for HD music videos. The point is simply to make sure you get a Blu Ray player with full support of the new DD/DTS codecs. Thankfully, I believe Sony has delyed the release of their initial player for this purpose. If this is not the case, then that is Sony's error and nobody should spend $1,000.00 on that unit. The good news is that other companies, I believe are releasing players that will have full HDMI (1.3/2.0) support and will have full DD/DTS lossless support.

Now we are talking about software/studios next: I know for a fact that certain movie studios, not Sony are indeed working on using VC-1 encoding for release of movies with Blu Ray. Sometimes I forget to remind myself of Sony's stupidity for wasting space with MPEG-2 and 16/48 PCM which is absurd. Who wouldn't take 16 Mbit/sec VC-1 (or MPEG-4 v10) over 22-24 Mbit/sec MPEG-2 any day of the week? The advanced codecs are not just more efficient, they have better tools and smaller block sizes. Overall, the use of advanced codecs allows for more headroom with compression and promotes better quality than use of MPEG-2. Audio masters are generally 24/48 khz to 24/96 hHz, not 16/48 as Sony tried to claim. Nobody works with 16 bit for a long time. My point is that it is silly to waste space on a multichannel 16/48 audio track when you can provide DD or DTS lossless which INCLUDES full LEGACY DD/DTS. In other words, the 16/48 track isn't doing anyone any favors since the DTS track, even the core DTS track uses 24 bit dynamic range. Point being is that we can use full DD at 640 and 1.5 Mbit DTS core until we get receiver/surround processor upgrades for the new DTS HD/DD Lossless codecs. Instead, Sony is going to keep re-releasing the same damn movie in three different versions when they have the capability to do it correctly form the start.

So, besides the format war itself, the problem may not be about buying a Blu Ray player, but petitioning/boycotting certain studios movies until they get the movie correct with lossless audio and advanced video codecs. Assuming that one of the upcoming Blu Ray players is fully compliant with the new lossless DD/DTS HD codecs, I would have no problem purchasing such a player. Then the point might be more like which movie studio NOT to purchase the Blu Ray movies from until they get it correct. You might say, "You know, this upsampling capability of this DVD is actually really good, I think I'll hang on to this version and not blow $35.00 on this movie until they get it correct..." As an owner of 1000+ DVDs, I'll gladly use the Blu Ray player to upsample DVD's I own and only purchase the Blu Ray version when they utilize on of the advanced video codec and provide DD/DTS LOSSLESS.

[KC-Technerd]

My understanding is that the first generation players will output 24bit/96kHz, or 24bit/192kHz linear PCM. They will be capable of decoding DD and possibly DTS lossless, and although they cannot output the lossless bitstreams directly to an amplifier, they will convert the losseless bitstreams to multi-channel linear PCM at the bitrate/sampling frequencies mentioned above.

[Health Nut]

My understanding is that the first generation players will output 24bit/96kHz, or 24bit/192kHz linear PCM. They will be capable of decoding DD and possibly DTS lossless, and although they cannot output the lossless bitstreams directly to an amplifier, they will convert the losseless bitstreams to multi-channel linear PCM at the bitrate/sampling frequencies mentioned above.

You need to make sure any Blu Ray player you purchase is capable of DD/DTS Lossless (hard to keep up with everytime they change the name). I also have heard that they will convert to PCM in the player. I am not sure if it will always be this way or not... I think there are advantages to doing it both ways. As a Meridian 861 owner, I need to think about this issue. Regardless, as long as the player supports the latest advanced lossless audio codecs, you should be fine.

As you mentioned, 24/96 and 24/192 PCM output is necessary for DVD-Audio, so that is excpected, however, the question is how many channels of each? If conversion to PCM occurs in the player in all cases before being sent thru HDMI... well, I need to think about that one. I also need to talk to Meridian and some other companies about HDMI and whether or not the DD lossless/DTS lossless can be sent to the processor and then decoded/processed. If you think about it, DD lossless is MLP (DVD-Audio). Meridian claims that jitter is eliminated by the use of transmission of the smaller data packets and RAM buffer. In any case, this is a subject to further evaluate. One thing is for sure, 16/48 khz is plain stupid by Sony in terms of a movie studio... They should provide DD Lossless/DTS Lossless and not waste space with a useless PCM track... 24/48 PCM multichannel would be fine, but the point is they are wasting space on the Blu Ray disc storing it as uncompressed PCM, and it is only 16 bit... I'd much rather use the DTS core 1.5 Mbit/sec track which uses 24 bit sampling of the master, until I can upgrade my processor and then enjoy DTS lossless or the DD lossless track of that same disc in the future.

[KC-Technerd]

Where did you see the info for Sony using 16/48khz on Blu-ray discs?

I haven't seen that. All I saw was that Sony was intending to do LPCM on some discs initially. I'd like to read up on it. Trying to keep up on all this.

[GTP]

Originally Posted by Health Nut

You need to make sure any Blu Ray player you purchase is capable of DD/DTS Lossless (hard to keep up with everytime they change the name). I also have heard that they will convert to PCM in the player. I am not sure if it will always be this way or not... I think there are advantages to doing it both ways. As a Meridian 861 owner, I need to think about this issue. Regardless, as long as the player supports the latest advanced lossless audio codecs, you should be fine.

As you mentioned, 24/96 and 24/192 PCM output is necessary for DVD-Audio, so that is excpected, however, the question is how many channels of each? If conversion to PCM occurs in the player in all cases before being sent thru HDMI... well, I need to think about that one. I also need to talk to Meridian and some other companies about HDMI and whether or not the DD lossless/DTS lossless can be sent to the processor and then decoded/processed. If you think about it, DD lossless is MLP (DVD-Audio). Meridian claims that jitter is eliminated by the use of transmission of the smaller data packets and RAM buffer. In any case, this is a subject to further evaluate. One thing is for sure, 16/48 khz is plain stupid by Sony in terms of a movie studio... They should provide DD Lossless/DTS Lossless and not waste space with a useless PCM track... 24/48 PCM multichannel would be fine, but the point is they are wasting space on the Blu Ray disc storing it as uncompressed PCM, and it is only 16 bit... I'd much rather use the DTS core 1.5 Mbit/sec track which uses 24 bit sampling of the master, until I can upgrade my processor and then enjoy DTS lossless or the DD lossless track of that same disc in the future.

You know not of what you speak....the four hd dvd's with dd tru hd are 16 bit only.
In no way are they superior to pcm linear 5.1.

Mpeg-2 has still not been bettered by any hd dvd to date....just see I Robot, Man on Fire or X Men 2 on d-vhs for absolute factual proof.

Need proof on an optical disc...check out Tears of the Sun, Good Night and Good Luck for examples.
Tears is over 2 hours long with pcm 5.1.....so the FUD stops here.

Anyone who actually believes that VC-1 is superior to MPEG-2 for P/Q has just had far too much FUD shoved down there throat followed by the hd dvd Koolaide
Yes VC-1 is more effcient....but not the end all of codecs just yet....and most likely the main reason for all the skipping/freezing issues on the crappy Toshiba players with there outdated processers that aren't keeping up with the power required to use VC-1.

[PurpleAardvark]

Originally Posted by GTP

You know not of what you speak....the four hd dvd's with dd tru hd are 16 bit only.
In no way are they superior to pcm linear 5.1.




Anyone who actually believes that VC-1 is superior to MPEG-2 for P/Q has just had far too much FUD shoved down there throat followed by the hd dvd Koolaide
Yes VC-1 is more effcient....but not the end all of codecs just yet....and most likely the main reason for all the skipping/freezing issues on the crappy Toshiba players with there outdated processers that aren't keeping up with the power required to use VC-1.

100% Agree thank you for summing it up. Here is a good one for you, hey did I just take a crap in a box? No it is the new improved toshiba Hd XA1!!! All you avs people and people who don't own blu-ray or HD dvd player stop taking bong hits and talking about stuff you have no experence with, and have no reason to complain about. Really to get pissed off about something so stupid. If you have a blu- ray playerand have a problem then take bong hits and piss and moan, get it right.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by GTP

You know not of what you speak....the four hd dvd's with dd tru hd are 16 bit only.
In no way are they superior to pcm linear 5.1.

Mpeg-2 has still not been bettered by any hd dvd to date....just see I Robot, Man on Fire or X Men 2 on d-vhs for absolute factual proof.

Need proof on an optical disc...check out Tears of the Sun, Good Night and Good Luck for examples.
Tears is over 2 hours long with pcm 5.1.....so the FUD stops here.

Anyone who actually believes that VC-1 is superior to MPEG-2 for P/Q has just had far too much FUD shoved down there throat followed by the hd dvd Koolaide
Yes VC-1 is more effcient....but not the end all of codecs just yet....and most likely the main reason for all the skipping/freezing issues on the crappy Toshiba players with there outdated processers that aren't keeping up with the power required to use VC-1.

Health Nut, see GTP sayed it to you! Better read this attentively!

[JTK]

We're going to be seeing titles before year's end that meet the critera of this thread title, unless I'm really misinformed...

[zombie]

Originally Posted by JTK

We're going to be seeing titles before year's end that meet the critera of this thread title, unless I'm really misinformed...

Yes but I wonder if some of the new replies are paying attention to the OP's post date... May 3!! Obviously things have changed a lot since then... please keep that in mind.