Video Compression? - Blu-ray Forum

imgod22222 · 04-10-2006, 05:20 PM

When God said: Let there be DVDs, people said: in MPEG2 format.
Then (some) of us people found the light, and changed to DivX
The industry had made DIVX and failed miserably.

Then God said: Let there be HD-DVDs and BDs! People then said: (Your answer here)

---Sorry if using the name God in this thread/post has angered anyone. No offense, really.---

thunderhawk · 04-10-2006, 06:21 PM

LoL, no problem here mate

Erm... In H.264 AVC, VC-1 and MPEG-2 format please.

Marwin · 04-10-2006, 06:33 PM

I don't really care as long as it looks great

imgod22222 · 04-10-2006, 10:45 PM

But why would we keep mpeg-2 format?!?!?
Have we learned nothing?!?!?!
Do we prefer to have a half hour of TV waste over 700MB of space, or would we EVER be more progressive and keep things such as DivX and H. 264 in our lives? Nvr really heard of av-1. Its based off wmv version9 format. Just keep DivX so we can keep one codec.
H. 264 and DivX seem really similar. Are they?

AV_Integrated · 04-11-2006, 12:24 AM

Why different CODECs? Well, it is all about giving studios the ability to provide users the highest quality possible. MPEG2 potentially may deliver higher quality than either format at the higher bitrates Blu-ray allows for (wait for actual testing before quoting me on that).

H.264 and AVC1 are great new CODECs but really seem to be more designed about higher compression rates for HD material which can't utilize the full bandwidth that Blu-ray and HD-DVD offer. But, for special features, and extra content, they can all be jumped to HD quality formats without taking up a ton more space than the old standard extras that we are used to on DVDs. Pretty cool I would think overall.

One of the big headaches of this format war is that the content developers simply don't have enough tools available to them and there hasn't been enough testing to properly determine the absolute best of the best and make it easy to integrate for HD disc content creation.

That's still likely a year or two out - at the earliest.

imgod22222 · 04-11-2006, 02:39 AM

Well if it's about getting the best visual quality then,
Why did we move from CRTs to LCDs and Plasmas?
CRTs support higher refresh rates, and have much smaller pixel pitch. So you can get higher fps, and have more pixels, thus making a clearer picture, and CRTs are alot cheaper. Along with that they have the best viewing angle. So besides the fact that CRTs are just bigger and heavier, why do so many things have a DVI port and no longer a VGA port?

No, it's all about being able to keep something as small as we can get it. Thus, we made compression standards so we can store more video on a media. And we made contraptions (Practically) everyone in the us owns called ipods.

Blue · 04-11-2006, 09:10 AM

[QUOTE=imgod22222]Well if it's about getting the best visual quality then,
Why did we move from CRTs to LCDs and Plasmas?
CRTs support higher refresh rates, and have much smaller pixel pitch. So you can get higher fps, and have more pixels, thus making a clearer picture, and CRTs are alot cheaper. QUOTE]

The SED should keep you VERY happy as it's supposed to be the best of Plasma, CRT and LCD - without the disadvantages.

I much prefer LCD to CRT projectors though.

thunderhawk · 04-11-2006, 09:18 AM

You are right about the advantages of CRT. However, many production facilities have been shut down that produce CRT material (LG.Philips Join Venture closes CRT facility: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...eID=177104528).
SED probably won't let you down as it has the advantages of CRT and it also satisfies the people who want thin displays.
But you'll have to wait for those sets to appear on the markets... And the price will be significantly higher than LCD... (Toshiba and Canon schedule mass production of SED panels for July 2007: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/09/toshiba_canon_sed/)

More information on SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) technology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...mitter_display

imgod22222 · 04-11-2006, 12:29 PM

well, neither is blu-ray, so maybe if they come out at the same time i'll be inclined to get a new home entertainment system.

Marwin · 04-11-2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imgod22222

But why would we keep mpeg-2 format?!?!?
Have we learned nothing?!?!?!

No matter how you look at it MPEG-2 is a lot more mature with all the years it has been in use, so the tools/encoders have been proven and produce very high-quality video by now. Add to this that the MPEG-2 codec has been further tweaked for HD so it's even better than before and you've got something that's not so bad for starting out. When the tools/encoders for H.264/VC-1 start to improve the studios can then move on to using them.

Also, you need MPEG-2 support for playback of DVDs, so you still can't remove it from the players.

AV_Integrated · 04-12-2006, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imgod22222

CRTs support higher refresh rates, and have much smaller pixel pitch. So you can get higher fps, and have more pixels, thus making a clearer picture, and CRTs are alot cheaper. Along with that they have the best viewing angle. So besides the fact that CRTs are just bigger and heavier, why do so many things have a DVI port and no longer a VGA port?

Only on more expensive CRTs can you get what you described, and viewing angle is horrendous on RPTV CRT which also needs monthly convergience for a decent image. My 50" plasma - I hung it, I enjoy it. That's what plasma offers. Very simple usage with very good (not perfect) quality.

Front projection? CRT is a nightmare to setup correctly and get it perfect. Plus, a good 9" CRT is still a TON more money than competing formats.

As for scan lines, fps, etc. that is gaming geek speak. Movies are 24 frames per second. That is what you want from your digital display - perfect 24fps, not scan lines that have to operate well above 24hz just to hope for a decent image. DLP and LCD don't need it.

NOTE: DLP operates at several hundred hz.

imgod22222 · 04-12-2006, 06:58 AM

That's a strange note... DLP is at several hundred hertz.

I have a question about DLP. For DLP TVs, you can't see the subpixels, can you?
If true, i find that very hard to believe that it runs at several hundred hertz because we have one of those black-and-white power saving tv-radio-cd player all-in-one things for hurricanes, and i doubt it would use the power of 6 C-sized batteries to run at hundreds of hertz. Wouldn't it be cheaper for both the manufacturer and consumer for there to be an LCD since those save much more power?

And a little question about LCDs, how come LCD TVs are like 5-8cm thick and my laptop LCD is somewhere near 1cm thick, if just that?

AV_Integrated · 04-13-2006, 05:29 PM

LCD comes in a variety of flavors...

Flavor 1: Flat panel display
Unlike your PC display, this display includes a very large backlight that is designed to very evenly distribute light across the entire display. It also includes a large power supply internally so that you only have a single plug from the display, to your wall to connect. Finally, it includes all the necessary connectivity and processing on board to connect from multiple formats to your home A/V system. It's not just a 'big' computer LCD. It is far more. What secifically, of what I listed, kicks it out the extra few inches? I'm not sure really - I haven't pulled one apart.

The other LCD technology is rear projection which runs at about a foot or so deep. This actually uses a projector inside of it projected though a very small (1" range) set of 3 LCD panels. Unlike an LCD flat panel which uses a very large LCD matrix right at the surface, these 3 small LCD panels are buried down inside the projector, then lenses, and mirrors direct the image up onto the rear projection screen.

DLP power consumption isn't that much. It is a rear projection technology, like LCD rear projection. The actual MMD (mirror chip) inside the projector has individual mirrors that flutter side to side hundreds of times a second to produce the various colors and different shades of those colors. I forget what the exact number is, but there are hundreds of flutters possible, every second, by each one of those mirrors.

The main power draw in these technologies is the projection lamps which are often 200 watts or so in current draw. The hz reference is in terms of image refresh rate, not so much tied into the current draw. Not an electrical reference.

thunderhawk · 04-14-2006, 09:13 AM

By the way, your computer screen probably uses the TFT (Thin Film Transistor) 'flavor' of LCD. TFT is active matrix and what so great about that is the light weight, very good image quality, wide color gamut, and response time.
You can read more about active matrix technology here: http://www.wtec.org/loyola/dsply_jp/c5_s2.htm
But the point is, the technology of LCD used in your laptop, isn't the same as the one used in LCD panels for home cinema use, simply because of the size difference and production costs.

.

Edit: This might be of interest for you: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=1526

Alex Pallas · 04-15-2006, 05:05 AM

i thought last time we had this discussion sony announced it was using mpeg1 because it uses less compression when there is more space available

thunderhawk · 04-15-2006, 08:16 AM

MPEG-1? Wierd, that's not part of the Blu-ray Disc specification. You mean MPEG-2, right?

Yeah, they said they won't adopt another codec, only if it's better then MPEG-2 on every level/bitrate/...

AV_Integrated · 04-15-2006, 04:53 PM

I believe Warner is using VC-1 for everything and that Blu-ray and HD-DVD will be coming out at EXACTLY the same quality in the exact same format. Zero changes in quality for either side.

Talk about Switzerland.

imgod22222 · 04-16-2006, 01:47 PM

If both BD and HD-DVDs will have the same quality, then why are they competeing? Disc space? Then BD would 0wn HD-DVDs, so once again, why are they competing?

thunderhawk · 04-16-2006, 07:04 PM

Why they are competing? For the money involved. Billions of dollars are for the winning format...

It's just, on both formats you can see movies in HD. That's what people want. If they get involved further, they will want more quality and quantity for their money, so they'll start thinking: "How many GB get on these discs if I want to use them to store data?" Unfortunately, most people won't ask themselves such questions in depth... And that's why HD DVD won't die when it launches. At least not directly if I had anything to say with it...

imgod22222 · 05-02-2006, 10:21 PM

So are you trying to say that HD DVDs are cheaper than BDs? By what, like that .000056 dollars it's going to end up different than the price of a BD, or will the prices really be that different?

04-10-2006, 05:20 PM	#1
imgod22222 Member Member since:Apr 2006	Video Compression? When God said: Let there be DVDs, people said: in MPEG2 format. Then (some) of us people found the light, and changed to DivX The industry had made DIVX and failed miserably. Then God said: Let there be HD-DVDs and BDs! People then said: (Your answer here) ---Sorry if using the name God in this thread/post has angered anyone. No offense, really.---

04-11-2006, 09:18 AM	#8
thunderhawk Moderator Member since:Jul 2004 Location:Belgium	You are right about the advantages of CRT. However, many production facilities have been shut down that produce CRT material (LG.Philips Join Venture closes CRT facility: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...eID=177104528). SED probably won't let you down as it has the advantages of CRT and it also satisfies the people who want thin displays. But you'll have to wait for those sets to appear on the markets... And the price will be significantly higher than LCD... (Toshiba and Canon schedule mass production of SED panels for July 2007: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/09/toshiba_canon_sed/) More information on SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) technology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...mitter_display Last edited by thunderhawk; 04-11-2006 at 09:20 AM.

04-14-2006, 09:13 AM	#14
thunderhawk Moderator Member since:Jul 2004 Location:Belgium	By the way, your computer screen probably uses the TFT (Thin Film Transistor) 'flavor' of LCD. TFT is active matrix and what so great about that is the light weight, very good image quality, wide color gamut, and response time. You can read more about active matrix technology here: http://www.wtec.org/loyola/dsply_jp/c5_s2.htm But the point is, the technology of LCD used in your laptop, isn't the same as the one used in LCD panels for home cinema use, simply because of the size difference and production costs. . Edit: This might be of interest for you: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=1526 Last edited by thunderhawk; 04-14-2006 at 09:27 AM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
discusuion is compression of video games better or not?	PS3	jorg	1	05-18-2008 01:40 AM
HDTV compression damaging video quality?	Display Theory and Discussion	jswilli1	4	04-26-2008 10:27 PM
video compression	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	cembros	3	03-25-2008 03:10 AM
Video compression on BD	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	torimusic	4	04-03-2006 04:58 PM

04-10-2006, 06:21 PM	#2
thunderhawk Moderator Member since:Jul 2004 Location:Belgium	LoL, no problem here mate Erm... In H.264 AVC, VC-1 and MPEG-2 format please.

04-10-2006, 06:33 PM	#3
Marwin Developer Top contributor Member since:May 2003 Blu-ray collection:10 DVD collection:5 iTunes collection:1	I don't really care as long as it looks great

04-10-2006, 10:45 PM	#4
imgod22222 Member Member since:Apr 2006	But why would we keep mpeg-2 format?!?!? Have we learned nothing?!?!?! Do we prefer to have a half hour of TV waste over 700MB of space, or would we EVER be more progressive and keep things such as DivX and H. 264 in our lives? Nvr really heard of av-1. Its based off wmv version9 format. Just keep DivX so we can keep one codec. H. 264 and DivX seem really similar. Are they?

04-11-2006, 12:24 AM	#5
AV_Integrated Senior Member Member since:Jan 2005	Why different CODECs? Well, it is all about giving studios the ability to provide users the highest quality possible. MPEG2 potentially may deliver higher quality than either format at the higher bitrates Blu-ray allows for (wait for actual testing before quoting me on that). H.264 and AVC1 are great new CODECs but really seem to be more designed about higher compression rates for HD material which can't utilize the full bandwidth that Blu-ray and HD-DVD offer. But, for special features, and extra content, they can all be jumped to HD quality formats without taking up a ton more space than the old standard extras that we are used to on DVDs. Pretty cool I would think overall. One of the big headaches of this format war is that the content developers simply don't have enough tools available to them and there hasn't been enough testing to properly determine the absolute best of the best and make it easy to integrate for HD disc content creation. That's still likely a year or two out - at the earliest.

04-11-2006, 02:39 AM	#6
imgod22222 Member Member since:Apr 2006	Well if it's about getting the best visual quality then, Why did we move from CRTs to LCDs and Plasmas? CRTs support higher refresh rates, and have much smaller pixel pitch. So you can get higher fps, and have more pixels, thus making a clearer picture, and CRTs are alot cheaper. Along with that they have the best viewing angle. So besides the fact that CRTs are just bigger and heavier, why do so many things have a DVI port and no longer a VGA port? No, it's all about being able to keep something as small as we can get it. Thus, we made compression standards so we can store more video on a media. And we made contraptions (Practically) everyone in the us owns called ipods.

04-11-2006, 09:10 AM	#7
Blue Super Moderator Top contributor Member since:Jan 2005 Location:Melbourne Australia Blu-ray collection:206	[QUOTE=imgod22222]Well if it's about getting the best visual quality then, Why did we move from CRTs to LCDs and Plasmas? CRTs support higher refresh rates, and have much smaller pixel pitch. So you can get higher fps, and have more pixels, thus making a clearer picture, and CRTs are alot cheaper. QUOTE] The SED should keep you VERY happy as it's supposed to be the best of Plasma, CRT and LCD - without the disadvantages. I much prefer LCD to CRT projectors though.

04-11-2006, 12:29 PM	#9
imgod22222 Member Member since:Apr 2006	well, neither is blu-ray, so maybe if they come out at the same time i'll be inclined to get a new home entertainment system.

04-12-2006, 06:58 AM	#12
imgod22222 Member Member since:Apr 2006	That's a strange note... DLP is at several hundred hertz. I have a question about DLP. For DLP TVs, you can't see the subpixels, can you? If true, i find that very hard to believe that it runs at several hundred hertz because we have one of those black-and-white power saving tv-radio-cd player all-in-one things for hurricanes, and i doubt it would use the power of 6 C-sized batteries to run at hundreds of hertz. Wouldn't it be cheaper for both the manufacturer and consumer for there to be an LCD since those save much more power? And a little question about LCDs, how come LCD TVs are like 5-8cm thick and my laptop LCD is somewhere near 1cm thick, if just that?

04-13-2006, 05:29 PM	#13
AV_Integrated Senior Member Member since:Jan 2005	LCD comes in a variety of flavors... Flavor 1: Flat panel display Unlike your PC display, this display includes a very large backlight that is designed to very evenly distribute light across the entire display. It also includes a large power supply internally so that you only have a single plug from the display, to your wall to connect. Finally, it includes all the necessary connectivity and processing on board to connect from multiple formats to your home A/V system. It's not just a 'big' computer LCD. It is far more. What secifically, of what I listed, kicks it out the extra few inches? I'm not sure really - I haven't pulled one apart. The other LCD technology is rear projection which runs at about a foot or so deep. This actually uses a projector inside of it projected though a very small (1" range) set of 3 LCD panels. Unlike an LCD flat panel which uses a very large LCD matrix right at the surface, these 3 small LCD panels are buried down inside the projector, then lenses, and mirrors direct the image up onto the rear projection screen. DLP power consumption isn't that much. It is a rear projection technology, like LCD rear projection. The actual MMD (mirror chip) inside the projector has individual mirrors that flutter side to side hundreds of times a second to produce the various colors and different shades of those colors. I forget what the exact number is, but there are hundreds of flutters possible, every second, by each one of those mirrors. The main power draw in these technologies is the projection lamps which are often 200 watts or so in current draw. The hz reference is in terms of image refresh rate, not so much tied into the current draw. Not an electrical reference.

04-15-2006, 05:05 AM	#15
Alex Pallas Active Member Member since:Sep 2005 Location:The Belly Of The Beast (USA)	i thought last time we had this discussion sony announced it was using mpeg1 because it uses less compression when there is more space available

04-15-2006, 08:16 AM	#16
thunderhawk Moderator Member since:Jul 2004 Location:Belgium	MPEG-1? Wierd, that's not part of the Blu-ray Disc specification. You mean MPEG-2, right? Yeah, they said they won't adopt another codec, only if it's better then MPEG-2 on every level/bitrate/...

04-15-2006, 04:53 PM	#17
AV_Integrated Senior Member Member since:Jan 2005	I believe Warner is using VC-1 for everything and that Blu-ray and HD-DVD will be coming out at EXACTLY the same quality in the exact same format. Zero changes in quality for either side. Talk about Switzerland.

04-16-2006, 01:47 PM	#18
imgod22222 Member Member since:Apr 2006	If both BD and HD-DVDs will have the same quality, then why are they competeing? Disc space? Then BD would 0wn HD-DVDs, so once again, why are they competing?

04-16-2006, 07:04 PM	#19
thunderhawk Moderator Member since:Jul 2004 Location:Belgium	Why they are competing? For the money involved. Billions of dollars are for the winning format... It's just, on both formats you can see movies in HD. That's what people want. If they get involved further, they will want more quality and quantity for their money, so they'll start thinking: "How many GB get on these discs if I want to use them to store data?" Unfortunately, most people won't ask themselves such questions in depth... And that's why HD DVD won't die when it launches. At least not directly if I had anything to say with it...

05-02-2006, 10:21 PM	#20
imgod22222 Member Member since:Apr 2006	So are you trying to say that HD DVDs are cheaper than BDs? By what, like that .000056 dollars it's going to end up different than the price of a BD, or will the prices really be that different?

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals