Forums > General Discussion

Looking for new flat panel TV

<< < (5/6) > >>

TheNightWatchman:
Ok I have reasons to disagree with other things you have said (especially about mpeg2) but I think your words here simply illustrate the problem in your thinking.


--- Quote from: Quantum on September 04, 2007, 10:36:42 am ---Who does need 8.5 GB of data on a DVD? I can deal with multiple disks, with my nice movie on 1 disk and crappy features on the other disk
--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: Quantum on September 04, 2007, 10:36:42 am ---Well actually 3 layers of 17GBs would be 1 GB more than 2 layers of 25GBs, so how that 'defies the point' I'm not sure. Why 30GBs won't be anywhere near enough? Not too sure about that either.

--- End quote ---

Do you remember when software first came on CDs? 700mb was LOADS of space and you could put whatever you wanted on them. After not so long, 700mb just wasn't enough to fit what you wanted. When DVDs came out 4.7GB was plenty for everything you needed. But now, that 4.7GB is slowly becoming not enough space. It will be the same for HD DVD and Blu-ray!

This is the main reason why you need the medium with more space. What are blu-rays flaws? You seem to say there are technical flaws, I was aware of some when they first made blu-ray, but they have now fixed them have they not? (I would say Microsoft back HD DVD because blu-ray is Sony....haha).

Anyway my point is, you need to understand that in the future (which won't be next year, or the year after, or the year after that) 30GB will not be enough space. Why do you think the hologram disc is being made? We need the most space we can. Also think about this in a non movie sense. Blu-ray was initially created as a storage medium because it has large space. Think about software, games, encyclopaedias, whatever you want, the 8.5GB maximum of DVD is becoming not enough space for these things. You cannot deny that one day 30GB will not be enough for these things. So surely wouldn't you want to prolong that time, by using a disc that is 50GB instead? That is what I mean by looking to the future.

Ok I will address codec now. You say that the highest quality codec takes the least amount of space for its quality is h.264. Ok that's fine, but given the choice, why would you want to squeeze your data onto a 30GB disc over a 50GB disc? You do realise that you still have to compress your image, but by using the bigger space you do not have to compress as much.

You also seem to make a big point about mpeg2. Just because some people decided to encode a blu-ray disc with mpeg2 doesn't make it a worse medium? It just makes the people that are doing it lazy!

Also I thought I'd just point out, many people are waiting for the HD DVD v Blu-ray format war to end before they go out and buy things. I think when one medium becomes the standard, the pricing and the availability of it will become much better anyway. Therefore so will the features, so I do not see this being a pro of either side.

I also find the whole PS3 issue clever on the side of Sony. Xbox360 released on standard DVD, the same as Wii (although I have NO IDEA why) where PS3 used Blu-ray. People who own PS3s now also have blu ray players and therefore don't mind buying blu ray discs, especially if they are the same price as DVDs. I think this might be the thing that swings the competition anyway, because it is a large incentive for people who otherwise would not have bought blu ray or HD DVD to go and buy blu ray discs. Ok Xbox360 released an 'add on' HD DVD player, but hardly anyone (in comparison) will buy it.

Quantum:
Of course I understand that a matter of data storage that 30GBs in the future won't be enough, I'm not disputing that. But in my opinion we should pretty much abandon optical disk storage anyway, it has a lot of cons and only pro is GB/£. And to be brutally honest, I think 50GBs is way too small as data storage, I have 950GBs on my computer and am looking at making a 2 terabyte data storage server in our house, along with probably upgrading the space in my computer. Its almost got to the point where it's not much more to buy a 500GB external hard driver than 100+ DVDs, and certainly a lot more practical.

But that's still not the issue, the highest quality movies ARE going to be 1080p, 24-32 bit colour depth, 24 fps (I really doubt we'll see 60 at 1080p because of the whole HDMI palava), for that 30 GBs is enough, just as for standard definition 4.7 GBs is enough. Can you think of a single movie that can't fit on to a single DVD?

Blu-Ray has several technical flaws, not least of which is that it doesn't make Ethernet ports mandatory, nor a secondary video and audio decoder (e.g if they want to introduce Picture in Picture it may just not work on some Blu-Ray players). It's been a long time since I've read in to it, but if I remember right the data was being stored "like an open sandwich", which is why Blu-Ray has to have an extra layer of hard coating increasing the price. I honestly don't think Microsoft are being that snobby given that actually helped develop both formats.

h264 at half the data size, generally produces a higher quality picture, I would rather someone who encoded it really well in to h264 at 30GBs than someone who just encoded it in to mpeg2 at 50GB. I'm not saying mpeg2 can't look good, I've certainly seen it look really good on a 40m/bit transport stream, unfortunately Blu-Ray doesn't really have the space for that kind of bit rate *I say with some smugness*.

And yes, it does make Blu-Ray a worse medium by encoding it in to mpeg2. I've shown people random screenshots from different movies from mpeg2 Blu-Ray movies and the general response when I say this is HD is: "Oh is that it?". With the general comment that it looks mainly like DVD but bigger. Where as when I show them a screenshot of something in VC-1 or h264, which has a good source, I get more of a "Wow" response. It's a matter of practicality, you either a) buy lower quality looking movies with satisfaction that the technical specifications are a little higher, b) buy higher quality movies with the satisfaction that your looking at this movie in its best.

At this rate, people will most likely jump on universal players, the 'war' isn't going anywhere fast. I think we will see a market of both HD DVD and Blu-Ray, where movie makers can simply choose which format they prefer for their movie and consumers won't care less.

You have no idea why the Wii released on DVD? Are you mad? Why would you need 9GBs or more for standard definition content?  Do you really think they'd be getting the same sort of sales if they were 50 - 100% more in price?

And yes surveys have shown lots of PS3 owners have bought Blu-Ray and most of them were either dissatisfied or didn't see much of an advantage over DVD (though I imagine from recent reports that most of them didn't know really how to set HD up : http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8387 )

TheNightWatchman:
You're still talking about blu ray having to have mpeg and HD DVD having to have VC1, etc. If you asked me which one is better of course mpeg2 will be worse! I'm saying blu ray is the better medium... not mepg2 is the better codec! Only some blu-ray movies are encoded in mpeg2 anyway. What I'm saying is, encoding in VC-1 or h264 on both HD DVD and blu ray, blu ray would be better simply because of its size?

You're asking me if a single movie can't fit into a single DVD (where this is true of Once Upon A Time in America and The Godfather II) I think you need to understand that any movie can fit onto a CD if you want, it's just compressed so heavily that it looks terrible. For better quality you want less compression - therefore more space?

Also for the Wii, you say why would you need more then 9GB of space for standard definition content... I thought Xbox360 and Wii would be using high definition the same as the PS3 is, but they decided not to.

Also I agree most people do not even know how to set up HD. I read somewhere that PS3 default is interlaced... same with many HD DVD and blu-ray players. It's annoying that they are not default at 1080p, then if that is not found 720p, then 1080i, then SD progressive, then SD interlaced. But either way HD at the moment is not really designed for the normal consumer. I think we'll have to see the end of this format war to get a product which is stupid-proof.

Quantum:
But it's a package! As a single disc, Blu-Ray is better in terms of size and speed, I don't disagree with that at all. But it's not about that, it's about the media and the medium, not just the medium. As a medium alone, HD DVD advantage are probably somewhat less than Blu-Ray advantage, because size and speed are huge factors.

But that's not the argument in Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD, it's about who has presented the best package for the adoption and future of HD media and as of yet, Blu-Ray have thoroughly unimpressed me. At this point I would hazard a guess that well over 40% of Blu-Ray movies are mpeg2, it was about 95+% for quite some time after it launched, but as more movies are cross format and developers start realizing it's stupid, it's improving. But if I was to buy Blu-Ray I'd have to avoid early movies and wait for re-encodes.

And of course I meant, not that will it will simply fit on a DVD, but at full 720 x 576 (16:9 flag) with a good mpeg2 bit-rate and good quality sound, will it fit on to a DVD? And the answer is simply, yes, all films in SD happily fit on to this.


Right this is a separate topic, but you've got some mixed up views on the game consoles ability. The Wii has no ability to output HD gaming, 720p, 1080i or 1080p, its hardware essentially an over clocked and feature improved GameCube. For Nintendo it was a matter of hardware choice, HD gaming hardware is expensive to produce and only a small % of people who own a Wii will have an HD TV. They've said they're next iteration of console will be HD capable.

The XBox 360 doesn't have the buffer size to output fast moving 1080p gaming (games like tennis, however can be outputted in 1080p). It's to do with when the graphics card was made, but it can do a few clever things that the PS3 card can't. But most people can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p in a normal living room environment until TVs get bigger than 60 inches, so Microsoft isn't too bothered. If the 360 chose to go with HD DVD or Blu Ray, it probably would have been twice as expensive on launch and have about 1/10th of the consoles available. Microsoft jumped in to the console war early to force Sony's hand in to moving fast, it had some disadvantages, but in terms of market share, it's done them well in America and really well in the U.K.

texasboy:
 ;D ;D
What a great discussion guys. I learn as I go along.
And I only asked advice about buying one.lol
cheers

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page