Please forgive me for asking

[reiella]

Originally Posted by turboLAZER

So Brian, i have to ask. Why would you choose a format with a 30gb capacity over a format with a 50gb capacity ?

Loaded and framed question.

Same reason someone may buy a 4gb memory stick instead of 6gb SD card.

[JonasK]

Originally Posted by brian lawson

to which someone replied.. "Bit rate don't matter anymore, its an old argument. HD DVD uses the default Bit rate just as the studio films to, so it costs pennies to transfer over to HD DVD where as Blu-Ray's 30 to 48 Mbps would costs them dollars. Studios use 24 Mbps (22 ot 24?) for the movies and thanks to Toshiba's new Firmware update, HD DVD now has the same Bit Rate as studios use for the movies. So transfer is a breeze. Blu-Ray is a different story, Studios always had a hard time transfering movies to 30-48 Mbps which in turn costs dollars instead of pennies."

This paragraph doesn't make sense at all. The bitrate used for encoding is just a parameter in the encoding software. It will not effect the cost. Actually, it's probably cheaper to encode at a higher bitrate, because you don't need to tweak the encoding so much in order to get good quality.

Secondly, any new firmware will not change the allowed bitrate. The maximum bitrate is stated in the standard.

[reiella]

Originally Posted by JonasK

This paragraph doesn't make sense at all. The bitrate used for encoding is just a parameter in the encoding software. It will not effect the cost. Actually, it's probably cheaper to encode at a higher bitrate, because you don't need to tweak the encoding so much in order to get good quality.

Secondly, any new firmware will not change the allowed bitrate. The maximum bitrate is stated in the standard.

Now, you can change the standard. And pretty much piss off the early hardware companies [Toshiba and umm Toshiba...] and the consumers [all 10000 of them world-wide].

[Robmx]

In one way or another HD DVD is always being linked to the word CHEAP.... Costs less for this, costs less for that....... The problem with the word cheap is that its usually linked to the word CRAP !

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by brian lawson

to which someone replied.. "Bit rate don't matter anymore, its an old argument. HD DVD uses the default Bit rate just as the studio films to, so it costs pennies to transfer over to HD DVD where as Blu-Ray's 30 to 48 Mbps would costs them dollars. Studios use 24 Mbps (22 ot 24?) for the movies and thanks to Toshiba's new Firmware update, HD DVD now has the same Bit Rate as studios use for the movies. So transfer is a breeze. Blu-Ray is a different story, Studios always had a hard time transfering movies to 30-48 Mbps which in turn costs dollars instead of pennies."

So who is right?

Wow, what an insanely misinformed comment. (note, not from Brian, but from whoever he was quoting). What in the world does "default bitrate the studio films to" mean? Movies are usually shot on film and have no 'bitrate.' In order to prepare a Blu-ray or HD DVD release, they make a 1080p master tape, which uses intraframe compression at between 400 Mbps - 800 Mbps. They then recompress the video using one of the supported intraframe compression codecs down to a bitrate supported by the format they will be releasing on. The higher the supported bitrate the EASIER it is (and likely cheaper), as the codec has the ability to use more information to describe the frame being rendered. This means that far less manual "tweaking" will be required to get the quality you are looking for. Oh, yeah, and there has never been, and will never be, such a thing as a firmware update that changes the allowable bitrate of either format.

This all begs the question: why are 15-year-old XBox zealots allowed (and even encouraged) by the HD DVD camp to spout complete nonsense at every turn -- when they clearly have no clue what they're talking about.

[brian lawson]

how in the world do you guys know all this stuff....unreal. i feel more educated now but also feel more stupid

[Azumi]

Originally Posted by brian lawson

to which someone replied.. "Bit rate don't matter anymore, its an old argument. HD DVD uses the default Bit rate just as the studio films to, so it costs pennies to transfer over to HD DVD where as Blu-Ray's 30 to 48 Mbps would costs them dollars. Studios use 24 Mbps (22 ot 24?) for the movies and thanks to Toshiba's new Firmware update, HD DVD now has the same Bit Rate as studios use for the movies. So transfer is a breeze. Blu-Ray is a different story, Studios always had a hard time transfering movies to 30-48 Mbps which in turn costs dollars instead of pennies."

So who is right?

There is no such thing as a "Studio's default Bit rate". This concept does not exist.

Most masters are now made out of Digital Intermediates (or DI), who are scanned at either 2K or 4K. This material is digitized in an uncompressed form, at a bitrate that would be tens of times beyond the capacities of any consumer medium in the market today.

The video in both Blu-ray and HD DVD (or in HD broadcasts) is always compressed, and there is no such thing of a magic formula that says that 22 or 24 is the perfect number.

The secret - if there is one - lies in the talent of the compressionists, who determine the right capacity through trials and errors, based on their direct knowledge of movies, the complexity of the scenes, the visual language that the director and cinematographer were trying to achieve, and clearly the running time of the film and the number of audio tracks that must be included in the disc.

Disney recently said that one of the reasons why they chose Blu-ray lies in the high bandwidth of the medium. From their standpoint, a high bitrate was absolutely necessary to provide an optimal experience, and I think that we may see the result when Cars and Ratatouille come out.

Video compression is a very interesting concept, and I think that you might want to ask some questions to Paid and Penton in the Insiders thread. They can give you a direct insight on Hollywood's views in this matter.

Finally, I think that the idea is also political. The question that we need to ask ourselves is if a low bitrate has been made to provide "more freedom" to the movie people... or if it's just a tool that serves the best interests of a software company and a CE manufacturer.

In the end, who do you trust the most to preserve the integrity of movies: Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino, or a couple of salesmen from Microsoft?

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by Patranus

Even a $500 bottle of Dom can go bad but that does not mean that I will stop buying it.

But I heard that the Chinese were developing 'champagne' that's just as good as Dom Perignon that would sell for $199. And it will come with 5 free champagne flutes after mail in rebate. Apparently, they've renamed a section of China that used to be the world leader in lead paint production to 'Champagne' in order to use the name. And, as we all know, $199 is the price Joe 6 Pack (clearly named for his love of fine champagne) would pay for a stellar bottle. [/end sarcasm]

BTW, it's good to know there are still other people with taste out there... at least in the Blu-ray camp.

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

With TL51 now HD DVD has enough. But, it sure took enough time, and we don't know whether it will actually get used.

With TL51, one has to think that HD-DVD is "maxed out". This doesn't bode well for the future. Saying if in a few years time, a high bit rate encode of a movie and interactive features on a single disc might push a 100gb (it might happen!). How does HD-DVD plan on cramming another layer in there?

Blu-ray has specs to go way beyond a 50gb disc. It is the closest thing to being future proof.

HD-DVD just played the last hand it had... it has even less of a future now than ever.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

But I heard that the Chinese were developing 'champagne' that's just as good as Dom Perignon that would sell for $199. And it will come with 5 free champagne flutes after mail in rebate. Apparently, they've renamed a section of China that used to be the world leader in lead paint production to 'Champagne' in order to use the name. And, as we all know, $199 is the price Joe 6 Pack (clearly named for his love of fine champagne) would pay for a stellar bottle. [/end sarcasm]
...

I heard the same thing, only it will be $1.99, and that's for a magnum. They're calling it "shampagne".

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Jack Torrance

With TL51, one has to think that HD-DVD is "maxed out". This doesn't bode well for the future. Saying if in a few years time, a high bit rate encode of a movie and interactive features on a single disc might push a 100gb (it might happen!). How does HD-DVD plan on cramming another layer in there?

Blu-ray has specs to go way beyond a 50gb disc. It is the closest thing to being future proof.

HD-DVD just played the last hand it had... it has even less of a future now than ever.

Maxed out ... as if they were ever maxed in! (As Steven Wright would say.)

For data storage this TL51 is a non-competitor against BD50s and BD100s (which were at prototype last year). It involves extra cost for absolutely no extra features.

And if a movie is ever actually released on a TL51, I'll eat my PS3.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by Teazle

I heard the same thing, only it will be $1.99, and that's for a magnum. They're calling it "shampagne".

Yeah, but I hear Walmart won't sell the 'shampagne' variant. Something about the free flutes being made with lead paint.

[Robmx]

Originally Posted by brian lawson

how in the world do you guys know all this stuff....unreal. i feel more educated now but also feel more stupid

Is it any surprise that the people who know all this demand the best format...... The words "good enough" or "its fine" don't come out or OUR mouths..... We demand the best and only open our wallets for it ! If everyone took the time to really learn everything behind both formats like I did 2 months ago..... They would also choose BLU like I did last month !

[ToonyLoons]

Originally Posted by reiella

Hmm, where's your source on that for Halo 3? Last I understood, Bungie said Game Disc 2 was interactive bonus content authored as an 360 disc.

Sorry Reiella, but I cannot find info or a source to back up or deny my claim. When the retail images were first released for Halo 3, i am pretty sure that it showed two disc and one said something to the effect of single player and the other multiplayer. Since I browse and read multiple sources of info and cannot find something to back my claim, I will call it hear say. Safest thing would be waiting until it hits retail, but I don't plan on buying it. So I will have to look at a friends copy.

[Sielle]

to which someone replied.. "Bit rate don't matter anymore, its an old argument. HD DVD uses the default Bit rate just as the studio films to, so it costs pennies to transfer over to HD DVD where as Blu-Ray's 30 to 48 Mbps would costs them dollars. Studios use 24 Mbps (22 ot 24?) for the movies and thanks to Toshiba's new Firmware update, HD DVD now has the same Bit Rate as studios use for the movies. So transfer is a breeze. Blu-Ray is a different story, Studios always had a hard time transfering movies to 30-48 Mbps which in turn costs dollars instead of pennies."

OMFG, who ever said this was confusing bit-rate and frames, in which default is 24 frames per second, and toshiba did just recently release a firmware to support /24.

[brian lawson]

Originally Posted by Robmx

Is it any surprise that the people who know all this demand the best format...... The words "good enough" or "its fine" don't come out or OUR mouths..... We demand the best and only open our wallets for it ! If everyone took the time to really learn everything behind both formats like I did 2 months ago..... They would also choose BLU like I did last month !

i hear you, and agree. unfortunately, better doesnt always win. i guess the hd-dvd goal is to muddy up the water so much so that noone but guys at your level really know what's the better value. i would suspect that everything here is greek to most, which is why i feel the only important thing is studio support. superior format it is but means nothing without the studios....imho

[Merlins]

Pure technological aspects:

* More space per layer (15GB for HD-DVD and 25GB for Blu-ray)

* Higher bitrate (Total 36Mbps (29.4Mbps for video) for HD-DVD and Total 54Mbps (40Mbps for video) for Blu-ray).

* Easier technology to produce burners for. This makes Blu-ray to the new standard high capacity storage medium. Toshiba has yet to release a burner that can handle even 30GB. Blu-ray have many that handles 50GB and with much higher speed.

* Possible to have more layer per disc. This increase the storage on the discs to 200GB while HD-DVD stops at 51GB (which they yet have to produce while prototypes of 200GB already exists).

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by brian lawson

... i would suspect that everything here is greek to most, which is why i feel the only important thing is studio support. superior format it is but means nothing without the studios....imho

Not even. Studio support is a means to an end. Consumers want movies, not studios. At the point of sale almost no one thinks about which studio released which movie.

The studio support issue reduces to the actual slates of releases -- which format has the most and best titles ("best" in the opinion of the consumer who's buying the disc).

[reiella]

Originally Posted by ToonyLoons

Sorry Reiella, but I cannot find info or a source to back up or deny my claim. When the retail images were first released for Halo 3, i am pretty sure that it showed two disc and one said something to the effect of single player and the other multiplayer. Since I browse and read multiple sources of info and cannot find something to back my claim, I will call it hear say. Safest thing would be waiting until it hits retail, but I don't plan on buying it. So I will have to look at a friends copy.

Well, there was a scare at one point, even on these forums about that.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/08/bu...ition-debacle/

Is one article explaining away the confusion.

I didn't mean to directly attack you if it was construed that way, just wanted to clarify the situation with Halo 3 [I agree alot with the sentiment of the message, MGS and FF13 come to mind as titles that will exploit the disk space advantage].

[lch]

Originally Posted by brian lawson

to which someone replied.. "Bit rate don't matter anymore, its an old argument. HD DVD uses the default Bit rate just as the studio films to, so it costs pennies to transfer over to HD DVD where as Blu-Ray's 30 to 48 Mbps would costs them dollars. Studios use 24 Mbps (22 ot 24?) for the movies and thanks to Toshiba's new Firmware update, HD DVD now has the same Bit Rate as studios use for the movies. So transfer is a breeze. Blu-Ray is a different story, Studios always had a hard time transfering movies to 30-48 Mbps which in turn costs dollars instead of pennies."

what is 'default bit rate' ?
if there such a thing, the 'default bit rate' will be the raw picture of each and every single frame uncompress with a resolution of 4k and multiply by 24 frame/sec.
Some studio use your lower bit rate of 24Mbps such as warner so that they can fit the movie to both medium to save their time from encoding 2nd time and save money. but this starve some of the movie such as some fast action sequences. and although hd 'interactive' spec is so well define, they don't have enough bandwidth to implement it in HD.