Archived: Insiders Thread

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

Paidgeek,

I know that the 31 Oct. deadline is quickly approaching for mandatory Profile 1.1, but as you can see even from the few responses on here, people are not happy with this revelation that only SD PiP is mandatory. To the best of my knowledge, the only two decoders forthcoming that will handle PiP both support HD secondary video streams correct? So, would it not be possible for the BDA to call an emergency meeting to amend the Profile 1.1 spec. and make it mandatory for all hardware to do HD secondary streams, or is too late in the game?

This is not going to happen, but as I asked Dave, even if we tried to argue for it, what is the application? PiP is well and fine, but HD PiP means we are going to suck up significant disc space and bandwidth for what purpose?

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by desmond

paidgeek,

what's the point of having 1080p PIP if the bandwidth is still 48Mbps? why limit the bitrate of the main feature? i always thought that pip would be used for the extra content not the main feature.

thanks.

The specs are a little unclear on this point. We will probably do some experiments to verify what the limits are.

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

I believe it has been suggested elsewhere on these forums (perhaps even in this thread), that a 'killer application' for dual HD streams could be true 3-D video. What are your thoughts on this?

EDIT: Argh, Gary beat me to it.

The specs make no provision at all for dual stream decoding with two full rasters. There is only one output buffer, so I don't know how having dual streams will help accomplish 3D. It would be easier to use some older tricks like using a 1280 60p or 1920 60i encode and using every other field or frame for the alternate eye.

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

This is not going to happen, but as I asked Dave, even if we tried to argue for it, what is the application? PiP is well and fine, but HD PiP means we are going to suck up significant disc space and bandwidth for what purpose?

Well, I think requiring the hardware to handle it is different from allowing the studios to decide when or if to use it, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps some secondary content could be HD and some not, on a case by case basis, depending on availability of bandwidth and disc space, etc. The ability would be there in every player, so the content providers wouldn't have to worry about it, but now, they would.

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

Well, I think requiring the hardware to handle it is different from allowing the studios to decide when or if to use it, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps some secondary content could be HD and some not, on a case by case basis, depending on availability of bandwidth and disc space, etc. The ability would be there in every player, so the content providers wouldn't have to worry about it, but now, they would.

The hardware companies pay attention to arguments for features versus product costs. This has been the basis for many "mandatory" versus "optional" features.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

The specs make no provision at all for dual stream decoding with two full rasters. There is only one output buffer, so I don't know how having dual streams will help accomplish 3D. It would be easier to use some older tricks like using a 1280 60p or 1920 60i encode and using every other field or frame for the alternate eye.

But, that wouldn't be 2D compatible. And maintaining 2D compatibility would allow for easier introduction.

The thinking is not that the current spec or players would be able to do 3D, but rather that being dual HD now insures the SoC would be capable in the near/mid future. Little brand new would need to be introduced into the BD spec to support a 3D profile.

If SD is all the spec requires, and SD is all the content uses, cost reductions could see dual HD disappear or never arrive. That would make introducing 3D much more difficult.

3D could be the big thing that drives consumer adoption to the next-gen. Especially if the studios follow through on their stated plans to introduce a lot more theatrical 3D.

Gary

[Frode]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

Dave,

I don't agree that this is a big deal. The format was not dumbed down, it just does not mandate dual HD streams. Is there really a killer application for this? Movies are linear...

You don't necessarily need to think of movies only, but extras as well. That way the bandwidth restrictions become more palatable.

One suggestion I have for HD PiP is for something like the storyboarded scenes in Paprika. They're in HD, but you can only view one of them at a time. Freedom had a very good implementation of this, but of course with it being HD DVD they were restricted to SD only. Another possibility for live action movies is for comparing green-screen work or FX shots with the final product. Some adult movies have been using it to show content from multiple cameras at the same time (not user controllable, but the basic idea is the same).

It's a case of "if you build it, they will come." People will come up with different applications and uses no one's thought of before, as long as the capability is there to begin with. Give a director two cameras and ask him what he'd do .

-
As far as 3D goes - you'd need a specialized player anyway that's not in today's spec so I don't really see how not supporting that from the get go is a problem. You'd need a new modified spec specifically targeted at 3D applications. Is there even a good 3D display technology out there right now which would take advantage of it?

[LeoneFan]

OK is there anything else we need to know as far as late implementations go? It seems like everyday the BDA takes 1 step forward but 2 steps back. I don't really care about PiP but this gives the HDDVD tards another opportunity to talk continuous crap. It's amazing with all the companies involved in Blu-ray they couldn't get this stuff standardized and ready to go from the beginning. I think there is a phrase for this... oh wait that's right it's called "dropping the ball".

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Frode

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=12353
As far as 3D goes - you'd need a specialized player anyway that's not in today's spec so I don't really see how not supporting that from the get go is a problem. You'd need a new modified spec specifically targeted at 3D applications. Is there even a good 3D display technology out there right now which would take advantage of it?

Moving discussion out of here, I've responded to you in this thread.

[Smackos]

Question for PaidGeek:

Thanks for answering this in advance mate, with what you've seen so far of BD-Java implentation do you think that the Neutral Studio's such as warner will just straight forward copy they're IME functionality into they're BD titles such as what they've put into Matrix etc or do you think they'll do things different with how BD-Java works from what you know with how it's coming along so far?

Also, just to say thanks to you guys for all your hard work not just in helping answering our questions but also in what your doing in your line of work to get us some absolutely fantastic Blu-ray films out there.. your kicking asse..

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by Smackos

Question for PaidGeek:

Thanks for answering this in advance mate, with what you've seen so far of BD-Java implentation do you think that the Neutral Studio's such as warner will just straight forward copy they're IME functionality into they're BD titles such as what they've put into Matrix etc or do you think they'll do things different with how BD-Java works from what you know with how it's coming along so far?

Also, just to say thanks to you guys for all your hard work not just in helping answering our questions but also in what your doing in your line of work to get us some absolutely fantastic Blu-ray films out there.. your kicking asse..

This is an interesting question.

You can already see from titles in the market that BDJ can do a lot more than has been demonstrated with HDi, but WB seems to base their product plans on HDi capabilities. I think eventually they will use BDJ to the fullest extent, but I don't know when they will make that change. Perhaps not until HD-DVD becomes an insignificant business compared with BD.

[PeterTHX]

You can already see from titles in the market that BDJ can do a lot more than has been demonstrated with HDi, but WB seems to base their product plans on HDi capabilities.

So basically you're saying anything that they have done with IME/HDi to date can easily be accomplished with BD-J? Amir & the rest love to imply it cannot.

So other than lazy programming the Warner titles (if and when they come) should match their HD DVD counterparts feature for feature with no compromise (with the exception of the web connection content).

[richteer]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

So other than lazy programming the Warner titles (if and when they come) should match their HD DVD counterparts feature for feature with no compromise (with the exception of the web connection content).

I don't even see why the web connection stuff should be exempt. Sure, HD DVD mandates that each player has an Ethernet port, and Profile 1.1 makes this optional, but who says that every player with an Ethernet port is hooked up to the net? I don't have CAT 5e cables going to my TV cabinet (even though it is in several other rooms), and I bet I'm not alone...

[BStecke]

A little break from all the PIP talk and everything . . . with this being the weekend for ComicCon, is there any word of the Warner animated Superman/Doomsday direct to video release coming to Blu/HD DVD?

[AlaskaDon]

Paidgeek,

I just wanted to take a minute to thank SPHE for the great job with the Fifth Element exchange program. I was figuring that it would be a good while before my replacement showed up, and I can't tell you how happy I was when it was waiting at my door yesterday after work. Thanks for some GREAT customer service, and please pass this along to everyone involved

[dazbug]

paidgeek,

2 more quick ones- (since it got lost int he whole Pip debate)

1.So T3 will have either TrueHD or PCM?

2.Any word on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (j. Depp version)? will it be this year?

thanks for ur contributions

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by dazbug

paidgeek,

2 more quick ones- (since it got lost int he whole Pip debate)

1.So T3 will have either TrueHD or PCM?

2.Any word on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (j. Depp version)? will it be this year?

thanks for ur contributions

paidgeek works for Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, not Warner. Those two titles you mentioned are Warner's.

paidgeek, I hope that you guys start experimenting on HD PiP and figure out what is the best bitrate and codec to use for it. Let us know about how hard or easy for you to encode the streams.

Two more questions: are you satisfied with the seamless branching feature on the CE3K? Will other SPHE movies going to come out with this, especially movies with director's cut and theatrical cut? Spider-man 2 theatrical and expanded version comes to mind.


fuad

[thebluemax]

Originally Posted by gandley

if thats the case its pretty dumb. now we have to figure out which players will do the PIP in HD and which do the pip in Sd.

honestly this whole profile issue has been a disaster for BD. its the only reason people hold off buying stanalones, and now it seems that wont end the confusion even with profile 1.1

yeah very dissapointing. looks like little incentive for studos to do HD PIP if they know half there audience will never see it.

missed opportunity.

I really want to know? Who gives a crap about pip? SD, HD who cares? This whole discussion in my opinion is pointless, as long as there is some sort of pip to satisfy Warners I'll be happy.

[BStecke]

I really don't want to get too off topic, but I agree with the above . . . if BD was only capable of PIP with stick figures drawn by hand, I couldn't care less if it got Batman Begins released.

Sorry Josh for the OT post . . . move it if you'd like.

[darinp2]

I know there are bound to be false rumors about studios going neutral and mistakes with which format titles will be on, so can any insiders give us any insight into whether there is any truth to the Weinsteins planning on releasing Grindhouse on Blu-ray as spelled out in this thread:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=12627

I know the Weinsteins aren't as big as some of the other studios, but seems like there would be more hoopla about this if it was true. On the other hand, I predict that the sales ratio for 300 between the Blu-ray version and the HD DVD version even with advantages on the HD DVD version should give the Weinsteins a good idea that Grindhouse would probably sell better on Blu-ray if they released it on both formats. Might be a good way for them to make some of the money on it they expected to. And I would like to see them release 1408 on both formats also.

--Darin