Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[SpaceDog]

The Truth!
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001...12921.289.html
is that fud has been around a long time. Ignore it.

[FinalEvangelion]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

The Truth!
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001...12921.289.html
is that fud has been around a long time. Ignore it.

That was a good article for laughs. And reading the comments was funny too. It's the same with DVD / Blu-ray now. "VHS is good enough, why change?" lol.

Let's not forget how much people said that HDTV would never take off. Look at it now.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by FinalEvangelion

That was a good article for laughs. And reading the comments was funny too. It's the same with DVD / Blu-ray now. "VHS is good enough, why change?" lol.

You could change names around a bit and that could pass for some of the bunk thats been posted the last four years.

[KarstenSch]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but DVD does not have 720 discrete pixels per line.

No, but nnonetheless the horizontal resolution of DVD is 540 lines, which is more than the double resolution of the old VHS format!
If you don't believe me: simply look at http://hometheater.about.com/cs/tele...ideoresa_2.htm .
The beauty of the horizontal line is, that t6his is a measured value. It is a simple count of the lines that you can recognize in the resulting picture.
Concerning the compression: There was no luck involved in the use of the compression, but the compression algorithm was designed according to the optical capabilities of our eye and mind. In fact you obviously don't really understand how the compression really works.
The 8x8 blocks has more to do that you use a stable wave function for the real compression, and that the calculation power of the encoders was rather limited.

In fact there was a fundamental difference in the design of the DVD and the Blu-ray. When they designed the DVD, they were unsure if the format can really gain momentum. It was generally expected that the DVD would first win many computer customers due to the higher capacities. The movie standard itself was designed to be cheap. So the DVD was limited to restriction of 10 MHz processors, that were even cheap when the format was designed.
When the Blu-ray was designed they were convinced, that they were deigning a new winner. So no technical restrictions were really observed instead politics played a major role. So we have several severe design flaws in the format itself.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Objectively speaking BD is a big improvement over DVD and DVD is a realy small improvement over VHS.

This is simply WRONG!

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but DVD does not have 720 discrete pixels per line. The disk cannot hold it, it is compressed. If you created the same thing as the test to determine Horizontal resolution for analogue and one column of black pixels followed by white..... all the way to the end once compressed in order to play back off of a disk you will not have 720 vertical lines, and if you did that same test horizontaly lines to get vertical data you will not get 480. The nature of DVD means you can't have 480x720 discrete data in a frame, and since mpeg 2 can only do pixels of 1 or blocks of 8x8 and not a row or a column, that means you won't have all the values, now luckily in movies you don't tend to have too many rows or colums and things tend to be blobs.

Well you could say the same thing about Blu-ray couldn't you (1080 lines versus 480 obviously). Most BD discs utilize MPEG-4/AVC which is an improvement over MPEG-2 but its still a lossy compression technique. BD does not support lossless AVC.

And I think your confusing whats meant by an 8x8 marcoblock, what a discrete pixel is, and what chroma subsampling is.

Hell, just as a challenge I think I'll encode a static image of black & white lines in MPEG-2 and post it somewhere.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't care what people buy, someone said that DVD was a big improvement over VHS which I pointed out was false, he also said that the difference was not there for BD. Now if the guy wernt blind between buying a DVD and a BD, how does that affect anything. Objectively speaking BD is a big improvement over DVD and DVD is a realy small improvement over VHS.

VHS only supports 240 lines of resolution. DVD is a huge improvement over it. And just like analog TV broadcasts it doesn't actually have discrete pixels.

Actually you can throw out technical specs here. Just use your eyeballs. I remember when I first bought a DVD player noticing a startling PQ improvement, and that was on an interlaced 27" CRT. That said Bluray to DVD was also an obvious PQ improvement, even on my 42" 720p plasma.

A quick screen comparison I found, many others out there: http://www.stompshow.com/DVD_vs_VHS.html

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by KarstenSch

No, but nnonetheless the horizontal resolution of DVD is 540 lines, which is more than the double resolution of the old VHS format!
If you don't believe me: simply look at http://hometheater.about.com/cs/tele...ideoresa_2.htm .
The beauty of the horizontal line is, that t6his is a measured value. It is a simple count of the lines that you can recognize in the resulting picture.
Concerning the compression: There was no luck involved in the use of the compression, but the compression algorithm was designed according to the optical capabilities of our eye and mind. In fact you obviously don't really understand how the compression really works.
The 8x8 blocks has more to do that you use a stable wave function for the real compression, and that the calculation power of the encoders was rather limited.

In fact there was a fundamental difference in the design of the DVD and the Blu-ray. When they designed the DVD, they were unsure if the format can really gain momentum. It was generally expected that the DVD would first win many computer customers due to the higher capacities. The movie standard itself was designed to be cheap. So the DVD was limited to restriction of 10 MHz processors, that were even cheap when the format was designed.
When the Blu-ray was designed they were convinced, that they were deigning a new winner. So no technical restrictions were really observed instead politics played a major role. So we have several severe design flaws in the format itself.

1) everything is limited to what exists at the time. there was VHS, S-VHS and D-VHS, yes there was a bit more then player capabilities involved but still a lot more could have been done with a tape then VHS originally did. As a fact if someone had a S-VHS player, they could buy VHS tapes and use them for S-VHS content (though the image would degrade faster, but if it was to tape and watch it was a lot cheaper and easier then getting S-VHS tapes)

2) the 540 is wrong for DVD, simple as that and based on two false assumptions
a) that every DVD is 720x480 full frame and I know many are wide screen (i.e. 720/4*3=540 so a square is 540x480 but on a wide screen it would be 720/16*9= 405)
b) that you can reference each and every pixel in DVD which is IMPOSSIBLE, in each frame there has to be some compression. It would need over 8Mb for that one frame, and even though the other frames won't need anywhere near as much (if we assume they are constant for several seconds) the 9.8 ceiling is too low (and in a movie some of that space will be taken up by audio).

3) even if one assumes DVD = VHS in vertical (which it is) and double in horizontal (which it is not) that still makes twice the amount of data between DVD and VHS while BD has 6x the data of DVD and that is before we add compression, once that is added then BD has an even bigger difference since it does not need to be as over compressed as DVD

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Well you could say the same thing about Blu-ray couldn't you (1080 lines versus 480 obviously). Most BD discs utilize MPEG-4/AVC which is an improvement over MPEG-2 but its still a lossy compression technique. BD does not support lossless AVC.

agree, I never said otherwise, that is one of the jokes, people look at the #'s and don't care what they mean.

And I think your confusing whats meant by an 8x8 marcoblock, what a discrete pixel is, and what chroma subsampling is.

so please inform us.

Hell, just as a challenge I think I'll encode a static image of black & white lines in MPEG-2 and post it somewhere.

OK, go for it, one that is 480x720 and can work for a DVD.

VHS only supports 240 lines of resolution. .... And just like analog TV broadcasts it doesn't actually have discrete pixels.

no one is questioning that, the issue is that one can't describe going from 240 x 480 -> 405 x 480 ads a huge improvement while saying 405x480 ->1080x1080 as a small one.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

no one is questioning that, the issue is that one can't describe going from 240 x 480 -> 405 x 480 ads a huge improvement while saying 405x480 ->1080x1080 as a small one.

One can something to that effect, though.

I agree that BD is a big improvement over even upconverted DVD but I also think it's pretty clear that in practice those improvements can often be pretty subtle.

This whole sidebar got started by people suggesting that the jump from DVD to BD doesn't always have the same 'wow' factor that the jump from VHS to DVD did and I think that case can be reasonably made.

I find dvds hard to watch now but I did not get there overnight and I consider myself a fairly discriminating viewer.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by octagon

This whole sidebar got started by people suggesting that the jump from DVD to BD doesn't always have the same 'wow' factor that the jump from VHS to DVD did and I think that case can be reasonably made.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as the "wow factor" issue is subjective. To me DVD always looked more or less like VHS-on-a-disc, very dreary standard def stuff, yes somewhat clearer and with a mock (anamorphic) 16:9. I've always thought the move from analogue SD to digital SD was subtle, the jump from SD to HD enormous. I suspect people who don't see this may have the "will to believe" otherwise owing to a heavy personal investment in DVDs, bought rather inopportunely just as standard def was going obsolete. But more generally it is a fact that some people are insensible to the beauties of hi-def.

[GeorgeGear]

Originally Posted by suntory_times

the only thing that could replace vinyl in terms of sq for me would be blu-ray audio. Nice and lossless. :d

+1:-)

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by Sammy

It will go the way of wax cylinders, reel to reel, 8-track, vinyl, cassette, VHS, lasar disc, just like DVD is doing right now... Eventually. Applying Murphy's Law, it won't last as long as DVD is lasting. Until then, enjoy.

For now, I am still buying.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

This whole sidebar got started by people suggesting that the jump from DVD to BD doesn't always have the same 'wow' factor that the jump from VHS to DVD did and I think that case can be reasonably made.

Yes if by wow one describes using them to play ultimate Frisbee, a disk is much better then a rectangular box to be used as a Frisbee and there is no improvement between BD and DVD. But the guy talked about picture quality, and comparing picture quality can be done objectively by comparing how far the three images are from the original. The issue is that if someone says DVD has WOW and BD does not then it is not about the quality of the picture. What happens is VHS was analogue and DVD is digital, DVD has a bit better picture (closer to the original film element), but what it also has is a lot of DNR and EE. DNR kills the fine detail which makes everything look smoother, but it also blurs the image then EE is added to make it look sharp. This artificial destruction and sharpening creates a -for lack of a better word- colour book effect that some ignorant people describe as looking better. Even though someone is allowed to like it better (wow) the PQ is deteriorated because it makes it more distant then the original. Now I am also not saying that BDs don't have DNR or EE or compression, but it does have 6x the resolution and because of the much higher BW and capacity DNR, EE and compression don't need to be applied as much and you can see more of the film grain and details that where in the original.

[steve1971]

When DVD came out it was a major improvement over VHS in so many ways. So many ways I could write a back about the improvements. Is Blu a major improvement over DVD? Watch a movie on dvd then on Blu ray. You would have to be blind not to see the major difference. Blu ray and HDTV is the best thing going today, period!

[KarstenSch]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

2) the 540 is wrong for DVD, simple as that and based on two false assumptions
a) that every DVD is 720x480 full frame and I know many are wide screen (i.e. 720/4*3=540 so a square is 540x480 but on a wide screen it would be 720/16*9= 405)

Sorry, this calculation is invalid! The DVD image always had 720 x 480/576 pixel. That's the main problem that some people have. When the image became anamorphic only the pixel dimensions changed!
This was no problem with a CRT, because CRT's were not really pixel based (there native pixel dimensions were much bigger than resolutions of the NTSC/PAL standards, in fact in many cases NTSC and PAL Displays contained the same CRT!).
The 540 lines were MEASURED resolutions! How many lines can be displayed till it is no longer possible to differentiate the single lines.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

b) that you can reference each and every pixel in DVD which is IMPOSSIBLE, in each frame there has to be some compression.

Not quite! You obviously don't really understand that in fact the compression is frequency based. Some patterns can be compressed quite effectively. In fact in a lot of images where the differences between the original and the decompressed image can be zero, many images have slight color differences (mainly due to the fact the the color difference images have half of the luminance resolution) and only a few images have really obvious difference images.
The 9,9 Mbps only had the foundation that a lot of the manufacturers demanded that the standrad works with a 10 MHz processor, while the image pupils demanded a ceiling of 16 Mbps. The compromise was the burst mode that allows the transfer and buffering of critical framesin the remaining space of previous difference images.

You can argue what you want, DVD was quite perfect for the real capabilities of the TVs of its time.

The first Flat screens on the other hand had quite a lot of problems. One of its biggest: Their inferior color capabilities and suddenly the slight color differences between some pixels were gigantic. In fact even many of todays displays have problems to match the color distribution of our eyes or of old CRTs.

Some of the differences between DVDs and Blu-rays is, that the mastering of Blu-rays was always targeted toward the strength and weaknesses of the Displays that are currently in use. Upscalers really have to do some wizardry to get more or less around these differences.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

BD has 6x the data of DVD and that is before we add compression, once that is added then BD has an even bigger difference since it does not need to be as over compressed as DVD

Not quite the Blu-ray has about two times more resolution (while this means four times as much data, sensory systems work on logarithmic scales. You can add an additional By disabling the overscan but you don't get around the problem that many people still use 40 inch displays while they sit more than threee meters from their display. But what would you expect? Even many HD TV distributors use 720p. Not really a very big difference to 576p that a DVD can manage. Instead people are shocked when they suddenly see a Blu-ray and 24p is not active. Most europeans notice the NTSC Jitter at once and ask what this junk is. Without 24p this would have been the killer for the complete HD market!
From a european perspective it is quite obvious that the jump from VHS to DVD was much bigger than the jump from DVD to BD.

[Caesu]

There seems to be another thread with topics no different, so I'll just copy my reply on there to here as well,

If physical media for movies were to ever disappear, every Canadian will be screwed. We have some of the worst internet policies that I know of with the constant threat of low usage caps with very high overage fees. Right now, the government sided with the public. Canada is run by the corporations though in the end.

A few full HD movies from Netflix would be very hard to do. That and our speeds are across the board low. The fastest speeds are rolled out in very, very small areas. So the majority of people on high speed here are running at a maximum 5-10mbs (which is no where near as advertised for many).

If blu-ray as a physical media were to ever go, Im screwed.

I'll add more to my reply though, digital media requires a whole new infrastructure of delivery. It's like having electric cars wanting to become the norm, though you need to have the power grid to support it.

If digital media is the way of the future (not a chance that I want it to be, I prefer physical media 100%. I dont even download from Steam, I go to EB games still...), then the method of delivery will have to be that much efficient.

Then you have all the major issues, up here in Canada the internet is controlled by companies who also provide Cable/Sat TV as well as their own streaming services.

It's not easy, especially for us here, we have no real competition to open the market and drive the technology forward.

The U.S. may be lucky, we are not.

So as I said earlier, Id be screwed into the wall hard if they ever get rid of physical media before offering the infrastructure towards delivery.

I think the industry recognizes this, so I dont see blu-ray going anywhere anytime soon, especially with the players dropping in price to 70.00 for generic brands.

Movies can be had for less then 10.00 a piece. Blu-ray has never been more affordable and will be more so as the years go by.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by KarstenSch

Sorry, this calculation is invalid! The DVD image always had 720 x 480/576 pixel. That's the main problem that some people have. When the image became anamorphic only the pixel dimensions changed!

Actually, all DVD's are anamorphic, in other words their pixels are not square. All NTSC DVD's are 720x480 (an AR of 1.5), and all PAL DVD's are 720x576 (an AR of 1.25). 4x3 NTSC DVD's, are stretched to 720x540 then scaled up, whereas PAL 4x3 DVD's are slightly stretched to 768x576 before being scaled up. Scaled up only on a monitor of greater resolution than DVD that is of course.

[Canada]

Actually, all DVD's are anamorphic, false and no Blu ray's are anamorphic

[mredman]

Blu Ray will live long and now with 3D blu ray it is only getting better for Blu Ray. There will always be people who want physical media over digital. digital is overrated and it would take very long time to download a HD movie of 45 GB which blu ray discs is now and what about the extra material studios is making. Not to mention you can't even download legal HD movies yet.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by KarstenSch

Sorry, this calculation is invalid! The DVD image always had 720 x 480/576 pixel. That's the main problem that some people have. When the image became anamorphic only the pixel dimensions changed!
This was no problem with a CRT, because CRT's were not really pixel based (there native pixel dimensions were much bigger than resolutions of the NTSC/PAL standards, in fact in many cases NTSC and PAL Displays contained the same CRT!).

I don't get your point, if it is 720 pixels for a 16:9 image how is 405 wrong and 540 right? Now if you say for a 45:3 it is right, then yes, but that was one of the advantages of DVD, we where not stuck in 4:3 mode like standard VHS.

The 540 lines were MEASURED resolutions! How many lines can be displayed till it is no longer possible to differentiate the single lines.

they are calculated, not measured and if someone calculated off of 16:9 which is the proper AR to use for wide screen then the number would have been 405. If someone would measure and strictly enforced the rules for horizontal lines then the number would be much lower (actually 1/8 for what ever AR you use)



that is the issue with horizontal line measurements, they tend to under represent the true definition of an image.

Not quite! You obviously don't really understand that in fact the compression is frequency based. Some patterns can be compressed quite effectively.

I agree, but that is not the discussion. We are talking about a very precise test pattern, one where we create equal width alternating B&W vertical lines and then see at what approximate value they are consistent (i.e. equal width top to bottom on each line). Since a block in Mpeg 2 is an 8x8 rectangle, for this test to work at 1 pixel width DVD would need to not compress one bit of the frame, if it does then there would be blocks somewhere which will be 8pixels wide and so it will fail the image being correctly represented.

In fact in a lot of images where the differences between the original and the decompressed image can be zero, many images have slight color differences (mainly due to the fact the the color difference images have half of the luminance resolution) and only a few images have really obvious difference images.

wow man how much of the Kool aid have you drunk. Yes in a simple test with no movement like the one before, the i-frame can have a lot of info since the b has very little, but in the real world the b's need a lot more BW since if they did not it would be a painting. You sound just like the retard HD-DVD fan boys where every image is supposedly "visually lossless" because Amir said so.

If this was true then why does a downscale BD to SD only on available BW look better then DVD?

The 9,9 Mbps only had the foundation that a lot of the manufacturers demanded that the standrad works with a 10 MHz processor, while the image pupils demanded a ceiling of 16 Mbps. The compromise was the burst mode that allows the transfer and buffering of critical framesin the remaining space of previous difference images.

so, it was limited to what was possible at the time, that is true for everything. If there where blue lasers and AVC and processors that could handle it we would have had BD and with VHS later there was S-VHS and W-VHS and D-VHS over the years. We are discussing VHS vs DVD and how much better the image was. But since you said I was wrong to say that DVD is SD like VHS and the image is a little better compared to the difference between BD and DVD you did very little more then make excuses why it does not matter.

You can argue what you want, DVD was quite perfect for the real capabilities of the TVs of its time.

agree, and VHS was quite perfect in the 80's, and there will be a time when BD won't be enough. what is your point?

Not quite the Blu-ray has about two times more resolution (while this means four times as much data, sensory systems work on logarithmic scales.

where does the 4x and 2x come from? DVD is 480x720 and BD is 1080x1920 that makes 6x. Even if one uses PAL then it is 576x720 it is still 5x. And if we compare DVD which is 480(576)x405 (to compare apples to apples) with VHS 480 (576)x240 we get 1.7 which is less then the 2 that I have no idea where it came from.

but you don't get around the problem that many people still use 40 inch displays while they sit more than threee meters from their display. But what would you expect? Even many HD TV distributors use 720p. Not really a very big difference to 576p that a DVD can manage. Instead people are shocked when they suddenly see a Blu-ray and 24p is not active. Most europeans notice the NTSC Jitter at once and ask what this junk is. Without 24p this would have been the killer for the complete HD market!
From a european perspective it is quite obvious that the jump from VHS to DVD was much bigger than the jump from DVD to BD.

wow so from what I understand after all this back and forth is that the difference between formats should be evaluated by the "perfect set-up". Where perfect set-up= a person that is so blind that watching a TV that is too small from too far away that also downscales the BD image there is so little difference he can see that he can pretend DVD added more to the picture quality then BD did. Don't get me wrong 40" is not too small and 3m is not too far away, even if it is down converted to 720p anyone with relatively good eyesight (after glasses if needed) will see the big difference BD brings to the table.

Now I get my mistake, when saying picture quality of the format the actual difference in quality of the picture on the format is irrelevant, we just use what the most insane test availablefor the desired outcome. Why even bother turning on the TV.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Canada

Actually, all DVD's are anamorphic, false and no Blu ray's are anamorphic

Explain what your saying in the first part? No DVD displays at its source aspect ration.

Your second statement is false. BD does support 1440x1080 anamorphic (not sure any exist though). Not to mention it supports NTSC and PAL anamorphic resolutions (just like DVD), which are used for many supplemental features etc.

Originally Posted by mredman

Blu Ray will live long and now with 3D blu ray it is only getting better for Blu Ray. There will always be people who want physical media over digital. digital is overrated and it would take very long time to download a HD movie of 45 GB which blu ray discs is now and what about the extra material studios is making. Not to mention you can't even download legal HD movies yet.

Uhh, yes you can. I know Apple offers legal HD downloads, even some in 1080p I think. Edit: never mind only trailers are available in 1080p.