Please forgive me for asking

[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.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by lch

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 stuff some of the movie. and although hd 'interactive' spec is so well define, they don't have enough bandwidth to implement it in HD.

In addition, re: the silly part about it somehow costing more to encode at a higher bit rate -- compressing video is not like writing pulp fiction where you are paid by the word. Encoders do not invoice by the bit.

[Anthony P]

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.

not at all, most of the HD DVD supporters are there to make sure HD does not win and we don't move to it. MS (for example) has said many times the only thing they are interested in is having multimedia PCs in all the living rooms with HDDs that have low quality downloaded content. The whole raison d' être of HD DVD is to last long enough so people start thinking, like SACD and DVD-A, that quality disked content is not going anywhere and they look else where.

[TauRus]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not at all, most of the HD DVD supporters are there to make sure HD does not win and we don't move to it. MS (for example) has said many times the only thing they are interested in is having multimedia PCs in all the living rooms with HDDs that have low quality downloaded content. The whole raison d' être of HD DVD is to last long enough so people start thinking, like SACD and DVD-A, that quality disked content is not going anywhere and they look else where.

Excellent point, Anthony!

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by TauRus

Excellent point, Anthony!

This is the crux of the matter. Unfortunately I also think there's a tendency to root for the underdog in our culture but that's dangerous when the underdog just doesn't deserve to win for very good reasons.