Profiles. Deinterlacing

[djOS]

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

I agree 100%. People need to start looking at profiles as features. The higher you go the more features you get. Any piece of electronics (or just about anything consumable) does exactly this.

BS, Profiles only exist because the BDA was 12 months behind the DVD forum in developing Blu-Ray! Trying to pass them off as anything else is is just fan boi talk - especially seeing as the BDA have not tried to hide this fact!

[Dogdvr]

^^^
Dude,
seriously! go back over the history of the format war. While it can be stated that hd-dvd came out first, we must remember why they came out first.
They pooh-poohed the idea of any new disc structure. Then they took the authoring format (HDI) that was passed over (by most of the major studios). The BDA listened to the studio's and went with BD-J. They also listened to to studio's regarding DRM, you may not like it but the studio's do, and they have the content!

The final spec that the BDA implemented took so long because, they listened to the CE manufacturers and the studios. This was a very important reason why they won the war.

Stop being so short sighted

Brent

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by djOS

BS, Profiles only exist because the BDA was 12 months behind the DVD forum in developing Blu-Ray! Trying to pass them off as anything else is is just fan boi talk - especially seeing as the BDA have not tried to hide this fact!

Speaking of fan boi talk...why were there 1080i only players on the "DVD forum" created format? I could easily call that a profile 1 player and the 1080p player a profile 2 player. Just because they used model numbers to select features does not mean it isn't the exact same thing....

[TheRealBob]

Originally Posted by djOS

BS, Profiles only exist because the BDA was 12 months behind the DVD forum in developing Blu-Ray! Trying to pass them off as anything else is is just fan boi talk - especially seeing as the BDA have not tried to hide this fact!

I believe they said that they should start positioning them as features, not that that was always the case.

Profile 1.1 is very complete, only missing an Ethernet port and some extra storage. As the players stabilize and there is less need for firmware upgrades, then this will be all most people need or want.

For the online stuff, you can go with Profile 2.0. Personally, I couldn't care less about this feature and certainly wouldn't pay a dime for it, as the last thing I want to do is encourage the studios to put less on the discs, dump stuff online, and let you unlock it with the discs. If it's important enough to be a part of the movie's BD release, then put it on a BD, because I do not want to see a "downloading..." progress bar when I try to access a feature.

I personally think Bill Hunt made a big mistake in insisting on Profile 2.0 for everyone.

[djOS]

Originally Posted by Dogdvr

^^^
Dude,
seriously! go back over the history of the format war. While it can be stated that hd-dvd came out first, we must remember why they came out first.
They pooh-poohed the idea of any new disc structure. Then they took the authoring format (HDI) that was passed over (by most of the major studios). The BDA listened to the studio's and went with BD-J. They also listened to to studio's regarding DRM, you may not like it but the studio's do, and they have the content!

The final spec that the BDA implemented took so long because, they listened to the CE manufacturers and the studios. This was a very important reason why they won the war.

Stop being so short sighted

Brent

Im not disputing that at all.

[djOS]

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

Speaking of fan boi talk...why were there 1080i only players on the "DVD forum" created format? I could easily call that a profile 1 player and the 1080p player a profile 2 player. Just because they used model numbers to select features does not mean it isn't the exact same thing....

C'mon read up on converting progressive HD source material to interlaced for transmission and then get back to me when you know something about it!

Oh and while you are at it explain to me why the first gen BD players like the Sammy 1000 internally interlaced progressive video before sending it to a de-interlacing chip for output?

I tell you what, i'll explain it to you - chipset limitations of the day!!

[djOS]

Originally Posted by TheRealBob

I believe they said that they should start positioning them as features, not that that was always the case.

Profile 1.1 is very complete, only missing an Ethernet port and some extra storage. As the players stabilize and there is less need for firmware upgrades, then this will be all most people need or want.

For the online stuff, you can go with Profile 2.0. Personally, I couldn't care less about this feature and certainly wouldn't pay a dime for it, as the last thing I want to do is encourage the studios to put less on the discs, dump stuff online, and let you unlock it with the discs. If it's important enough to be a part of the movie's BD release, then put it on a BD, because I do not want to see a "downloading..." progress bar when I try to access a feature.

I personally think Bill Hunt made a big mistake in insisting on Profile 2.0 for everyone.

I dont understand why the BDA didn't go straight from profile 1.0 to 2.0, imho 1.1 is complete waste of time and as pointed out by others, will merely confuse and piss off consumers.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the BDA or an OEM gets slapped with a lawsuit in the US by a bunch of average Joes complaining that no one told them their $400 BD player couldn't access the fantastic new content advertised on XYZ blockbuster movie.

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by djOS

C'mon read up on converting progressive HD source material to interlaced for transmission and then get back to me when you know something about it!

Oh and while you are at it explain to me why the first gen BD players like the Sammy 1000 internally interlaced progressive video before sending it to a de-interlacing chip for output?

I tell you what, i'll explain it to you - chipset limitations of the day!!

Sure why don't you be a little more specific about what you want to discuss. No way are you going to convince me that 1080i = 1080p especially if you are going to rely on your TV to do it since most of them don't do it properly (but you should take it outside of this thread).

You really don't want to bring up limitations....the "DVD forum" format had a lot of them...

[djOS]

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

Sure why don't you be a little more specific about what you want to discuss. No way are you going to convince me that 1080i = 1080p especially if you are going to rely on your TV to do it since most of them don't do it properly (but you should take it outside of this thread).

You really don't want to bring up limitations....the "DVD forum" format had a lot of them...

Look im not saying HD DVD was perfect, but it did have one consistent stable HW platform from which to work from, sure the original players were only 1080i and FW upgrades were constant but at the end of the day they had a single finished HW spec.

The BDA should make Profile 2.0 mandatory is all im saying, when I bought my s300 (only a week or so after it launched in the US) I knew what i was getting into, as I've been following both formats since their original paper launches.

Here is some info on Weave De-interlacing for you - note that this applies only to the digital realm (HDMI & HD-SDI) - if you are de-interlacing an analogue 1080i signal then you will prolly loose PQ info.

Weave De-interlacing

As the name implies weave de-interlacing looks at both the odd and even line successive interlaced fields and weaves them back together into a single frame. This works very well for any material that was originally shot on film at 24 frames a second (the international standard for film or drama production). The reason being that in the case of 24 frames a second film sources, the odd and even line fields are from the same original film frame. All you have to do is put them back together and hey presto you have full resolution! If done correctly material that was originally transmitted as 1080i can be properly de-interlaced to 1080p with no loss of vertical resolution.

However (and this is a big however!) this only works for film based material, or anything originally shot at 24, 25 or 30 frames a second. This method of de-interlacing cannot be applied to anything that was shot on interlaced video. Why? Interlaced video is shot at 50 or 60 individual fields a second, that don't form complete frames, and this means that each field is from a “different moment in time”. If you attempt to use weave de-interlacing on 50i or 60i video, it will be combining fields that simply don’t belong together, and result in an effect called combing or mouse teeth. To combat this most displays or video processors will simply fall back on bob de-interlacing for interlaced video sources, and if clever enough, will use better weave de-interlacing for film sources. This is done through a process called “cadence detection” which in simple terms means the video processor is clever enough to differentiate between the origin of various source footage.

Note that in the USA and other 60hz markets, there is also a process called 3:2 pull-down which must also be applied as part of the weave de-interlacing process for good results. This process converts 24 frames a second to 60 frames a second to match their 60hz fresh rate.

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by djOS

Look im not saying HD DVD was perfect, but it did have one consistent stable HW platform from which to work from, sure the original players were only 1080i and FW upgrades were constant but at the end of the day they had a single finished HW spec.

The BDA should make Profile 2.0 mandatory is all im saying, when I bought my s300 (only a week or so after it launched in the US) I knew what i was getting into, as I've been following both formats since their original paper launches.

Here is some info on Weave De-interlacing for you - note that this applies only to the digital realm (HDMI & HD-SDI) - if you are de-interlacing an analogue 1080i signal then you will prolly loose PQ info.

This is my last response in Paid's thread, if you want to discuss it further start your own thread...

HD DVD had one consistent hardware platform because it ONLY had ONE CE! Toshiba! That's it, no one else built an HD DVD player. BD spec is also complete, but features are always added and I hope more come in the future! Why would you want to cap development on your "new future" format????

So you agree with me that 1080i is inferior to 1080p...I guess HD DVD owners that bought the 1080i model should be pissed at the "DVD forum" for releasing two different "profiles" (but just chose to use model numbers to distinguish between them).

The BD should not make it mandatory...if you want it, buy a 2.0 player. If someone else doesn't why should they pay for those features? Just like the 1080i player is cheaper than the 1080p player.

[djOS]

Believe what you want MatrixS2000, clearly you are clueless.

PG, sorry for banging on in your thread but clearly some folk around here have a very poor understanding of video basics. I'd love for you to put your perspective on the table.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by djOS

Believe what you want MatrixS2000, clearly you are clueless.

Originally Posted by djOS

if you are de-interlacing an analogue 1080i signal then you will prolly loose PQ info.

http://loseloose.com/

Arguments are stronger when they're spelled correctly.

In any case, natively sending a 1080p signal is ALWAYS preferable to any kind of conversion to interlaced and back again. It's that simple.

[djOS]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

http://loseloose.com/

Arguments are stronger when they're spelled correctly.

In any case, natively sending a 1080p signal is ALWAYS preferable to any kind of conversion to interlaced and back again. It's that simple.

Lol, I'll cop that.

Agreed, preferable but not necessarily better (unless we are talking 60p vs 24p or displays using Bob de-interlacing to "reconstruct" the picture).