HD DVD + BD combo discs from Warner?

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by JTK

Today's Wall Street Journal really did a slam bang, objective analysis of this, the dual player situation and what's expected over the next couple of years.

The problem I have with the WSJ's report is their statement that you can get 2.2 hours of high quality HDTV on a single 15GB HD DVD disk. (For people that can't do simple math this implies you can get about 4.4 hours on a 30GB disk.) This requires the kind of idiocy that hmurch used to put forth. Yes, you can do it if you limit the total data stream to 12 Mbps but no one does that. Typical total data rates are over 20 Mpbs total even using VC-1 or AVC (see benes' great thread).

Pushing the total data rate down to 12 Mbps or less results in crap. Period. You won't get 4+ hours of high quality 1080p and audio onto a 30 GB disk for the forseable future. You'll be lucky if you get 3 hours -- and that probably will be pushing it.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

The problem I have with the WSJ's report is their statement that you can get 2.2 hours of high quality HDTV on a single 15GB HD DVD disk. (For people that can't do simple math this implies you can get about 4.4 hours on a 30GB disk.) This requires the kind of idiocy that hmurch used to put forth. Yes, you can do it if you limit the total data stream to 12 Mbps but no one does that. Typical total data rates are over 20 Mpbs total even using VC-1 or AVC (see benes' great thread).

Unless you transcode (which would lower the quality) the source of OTA and cable HDTV recordings would be ATSC MPEG-2. At 19.4Mbps, that's 8.5GB per hour.

Unfortunately, most stations steal some of that bandwidth for multicasting. So, it would seem 2.2 hours is a reasonable average for many current real world ATSC broadcasts.

Gary

P.S. 2.2 hours is the magic number where N GB storage == N MBps bit-rate, so 15GB -> 15Mbps

[TallCoolOne]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070104/...arner_dvd_dc_1

perhaps this will settle the "war" now?

[TallCoolOne]

sorry title should have been Total HD..oops

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Unless you transcode (which would lower the quality) the source of OTA and cable HDTV recordings would be ATSC MPEG-2. At 19.4Mbps, that's 8.5GB per hour.

Unfortunately, most stations steal some of that bandwidth for multicasting. So, it would seem 2.2 hours is a reasonable average for many current real world ATSC broadcasts.

Gary

P.S. 2.2 hours is the magic number where N GB storage == N MBps bit-rate, so 15GB -> 15Mbps

Gary,

I don't believe anyone who buys a HD DVD disk or Blu-ray disk is going to accept as high quality the OTA or cable ATSC files/data streams. I certainly won't. Additionally these don't have high quality audio either.

OTA/satellite/cable are acceptable for one time viewing because it is there. If I'm going to buy a disk I want a much higher quality -- both audio and video.

I'll stand by my statement that 12 Mbps for everything (video and audio) is unacceptable for the forseeable future.

[Deciazulado]

I'm in agreement with Shadowself.


20-30 Mb/s video rate for me minimum, please. AVC.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

I don't believe anyone who buys a HD DVD disk or Blu-ray disk is going to accept as high quality the OTA or cable ATSC files/data streams. I certainly won't. Additionally these don't have high quality audio either.

Maybe I got your statement incorrect. Did WSJ say you get 2.2 hours of quality HD movies on a 15GB disc, or quality HDTV (which is what you said)?

Gary

[Shadowself]

First, IIRC the WSJ did not differentiate. They just said video.

Second, when talking about PQ and AQ, personally, I tend not to differentiate between HDTV (some might say ATSC at the 720p/1080i/1080p display modes) and movies. It's a personal quirk. To me quality is quality and independent of source. Just because someone takes a picture with ASA 3200 film with a point and shoot 35mm camera and another person takes it at ASA 25 film in a 4x5 camera does not justify (to me anyway) that the final image (print) from the ASA 3200 is grainier and thus as poorer visible quality.

Third, IIRC, ATSC has two supported data rates 19.39 Mbps and 38.78 Mbps. From personal experience the 19.39 rate can be noticeably poorer than the 38.78 rate. Unless things have changed recently (I admit I haven't kept track of it much lately) many cable companies use the 38.78 rate, yet people in this forum have clearly stated that they prefer what they get off Blu-ray disks to what they get over cable.

Fourth, even using the OTA rate of 19.39 Mbps you won't get 2.2 hours on a 15GB HD DVD (even assuming there is absolutely no overhead, which there certainly is).

My main point is that OTA HDTV quality is *not* what I want to see if I purchase a disk. I don't mind it when watching the evening news or such. Those talking heads don't need much detail or great sound quality. However, I want much better when I purchase a disk for playback of anything.

Even if I were to purchase a TV show like B5 (which, IIRC, was shot at 1.778:1 to match the aspect ratio of HDTV and thus fill the screen with no columns or bars) I'd want the PQ and AQ to be much better than I'd get for OTA ATSC. I'm purchasing the disks and thus I want the best possible. OTA ATSC quality just does not cut it for me.

Thus even using VC-1 and AVC I'd want a higher video rate than 12 Mbps and a higher audio rate than ATSC gives.

[rant]
True, this is just my personal opinion -- and YMMV -- but it bugs me when organizations pull out those numbers that HD DVD has been proclaiming for quite a while. Some proponents of HD DVD have even gone so far as to claim all of each of the epic movies can easily fit onto a single sided, double layer HD DVD disk. Articles like the WSJ claiming 2.2 hours can fit onto a 15GB disk just make people believe the BS when HD DVD fanbois try to convince them HD DVD will hold everything they will ever want on a single HD DVD.

OK. I'll get down off my soap box now.
[/rant]

[onanie]

Dual format disc?

I'm not entirely sure what purpose it is meant to serve. To the consumer, it may be a sort of insurance against buying the wrong format (great for HD DVD :P). Is it an appeal to the undecided consumer (who is indeed the majority)?

But dual format licensing on one disc? Dual effort to stamp? There will be a premium for this, with no immediate benefit to the buyer. And what price premium would compensate for Warner's costs per disc, when they already have the option of selling discs separately in either format? It will have to be close to 2x the price of a single format disc.

I briefly pondered on whether this would negate the need for dual players - well, Warner is a dual releaser anyway, so it does not change the studio support situation.

I wouldn't buy one, personally.

[D-Block]

Originally Posted by KenThompson

Who needs it . Just give us Universal and the format war is over, as simple as that.

Word is bond man. All sony has to do is try to convince Universal to make movies for blu-ray and HD-DVD goes bye-bye. But you probably won't see a change anytime soon if this did happen. Also Sony needs to create an improved version of the PS3 with the new cell 6 GHZ chip and improved RSX graphics card based on the 8800 GTX instead of the 7800 GTX. If Sony does this Xbox 360 is finished, unless they also create an improved version with built in HD-DVD, hdmi 1.3 inputs, a new graphics card based on the R600, and a quiet fan.

[D-Block]

A smart way of doing things with the PS3 is to create ( graphics card, cell, etc) Hardware upgrades.

[Zvi]

Why not, you will get bugs from both format and as a bonus bugs created by coexistance of dual formats on the single medium, and player too.

[saljr]

I'm confuse, I just read in the disney web site that Blu-Ray player are backwards compatible with DVD.


http://www.disneybluray.com/ Click: Skip Intro/About Blu-Ray/Complete Compatiblility


Is HD-DVD 1080i or 1080p?

[mbslrm]

Originally Posted by saljr

I'm confuse, I just read in the disney web site that Blu-Ray player are backwards compatible with DVD.


http://www.disneybluray.com/ Click: Skip Intro/About Blu-Ray/Complete Compatiblility


Is HD-DVD 1080i or 1080p?

Blu ray players can do DVD.

As of now, HD DVD does up to 1080i.

[Spankey]

The price advantage for HD-DVD is now completely gone. These combo discs are going to retail for $34. The combo player is $1200. How is this good for the HD-DVD cheapskates? Yawn..HD-DVD is still right where it was. No titles, a flaky Toshiba player. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Eight months in, and this lie is still being reported.

Gary

Received an e-mail back from the writer of the article and this line has been fixed.

Hi Steven, yes, that was terrible error (I won't go into the details) but I had it removed from the web version as of yesterday
morning and there should be a correction in the paper, best rs

Now the article reads.

However, among its perceived advantages, HD-DVD players are less expensive.

Originally Posted by mbslrm

As of now, HD DVD does up to 1080i.

XA2 came out yesterday - now for $999 they can do 1080p.
The DVI 480p cap issue still stands, but Toshiba should be issuing a firmware upgrade "in the near future"

[dialog_gvf]

Despite all their bravado about HD DVD beating BD, mostly the HD DVD zealots were worried about HD DVD losing.

What I find most amusing is how the "cost of disc production" argument gets totally thrown out the window by Warner. So much for the studios choosing to go the CHEAPEST route. Warner has chosen to go MORE expensive than either format separately!

Perhaps every disc sold in the future by Warner will carry the dual-format premium in its production cost. The grand cost savings the HD DVD zealots have pounded on for years as the reason HD DVD would win, would be gone.

I really hope Warner can convince Universal and Paramount. They can put them in blue boxes and label them with red strip to indicate they also have HD DVD compatibility. Solves the box colour issue. Halves the shelf space. Ends the war.

Gary

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

The problem I have with the WSJ's report is their statement that you can get 2.2 hours of high quality HDTV on a single 15GB HD DVD disk. (For people that can't do simple math this implies you can get about 4.4 hours on a 30GB disk.) This requires the kind of idiocy that hmurch used to put forth. Yes, you can do it if you limit the total data stream to 12 Mbps but no one does that. Typical total data rates are over 20 Mpbs total even using VC-1 or AVC (see benes' great thread).

Pushing the total data rate down to 12 Mbps or less results in crap. Period. You won't get 4+ hours of high quality 1080p and audio onto a 30 GB disk for the forseable future. You'll be lucky if you get 3 hours -- and that probably will be pushing it.

^^ Thanks for catching that.

A good bunch of you have more of the hardcore technical knowledge down pat than I do, so I'm glad some of you saw this article besides just me.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Received an e-mail back from the writer of the article and this line has been fixed.

Good work.

I'm curious where they came up with the 150K add-ons number. Extrapolating the 42K Nov. sales?

Gary

[Deciazulado]

That's what I did!
See my numbers here:

decicalculations


What I'd like to know is how he got the numbers for BD players