Forums > General Discussion
Looking for new flat panel TV
TheNightWatchman:
--- Quote from: Quantum on September 06, 2007, 01:46:23 am ---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.
--- End quote ---
Ok so this is where we differ. I believe that the better format should be adopted as the new DVD, also because once one is adopted, it doesn't matter if it's blu ray, hd dvd or something else, it will quickly improve. But that's just my opinion.
And what is a good mpeg2 bit rate? There are films that don't fit on a DVD for this reason.
I just can't wait for the HVD or the PCD to take over... then we will have raw video at any size you like.
Quantum:
--- Quote from: TheNightWatchman on September 07, 2007, 11:46:17 pm ---Ok so this is where we differ. I believe that the better format should be adopted as the new DVD, also because once one is adopted, it doesn't matter if it's blu ray, hd dvd or something else, it will quickly improve. But that's just my opinion.
And what is a good mpeg2 bit rate? There are films that don't fit on a DVD for this reason.
I just can't wait for the HVD or the PCD to take over... then we will have raw video at any size you like.
--- End quote ---
I'd say 40 mbit/s is a good bit rate. You often get this sort of rate on transport streams from high quality satellites. Blu-Ray would only be able to play this for just over 2 hours, and that's without any audio, though 40 mbit/s is its maximum video bit rate, so it could pull it off if the show was short enough (I calculate an absolute maximum of 2 hours, no extra features, just 1 audio track and including a menu). Codecs like h264 have a lot more advanced variable bit rate and things like b-frames, so it's a lot easier to make them look good while taking up a lot less space (i.e fast action sequences can have high bit-rates, credits can have low bit rates, a fast scene change can have a b-frame).
I'm not bothered whether HD DVD or Blu Ray get adopted as the new data DVD, with holographic storage and PRAM just around the corner, I find it inconsequential. Things like the fact HD DVD is region free and Blu Ray isn't are far more important to me than being able to fit a 2 or 3 more episodes of a T.V show on a single disk.
HVD is only 3.9 terrabytes, that's far too small for raw footage at 4000p, I'd be shocked if you fit more than about 10 - 15mins, with no audio. Plus raw footage has almost no visual gains over advanced codecs like h264, your gaining less than 1% quality for 100s of times the file size. I'd be surprised if raw footage is ever used in the standard home entertainment media for at least the next 50 years.
PCD is far too theoretical to be seriously talking about at the moment.
TheNightWatchman:
--- Quote from: Quantum on September 08, 2007, 01:31:13 am ---HVD is only 3.9 terrabytes, that's far too small for raw footage at 4000p, I'd be shocked if you fit more than about 10 - 15mins, with no audio. Plus raw footage has almost no visual gains over advanced codecs like h264, your gaining less than 1% quality for 100s of times the file size. I'd be surprised if raw footage is ever used in the standard home entertainment media for at least the next 50 years.
PCD is far too theoretical to be seriously talking about at the moment.
--- End quote ---
Since (1) that we both agree that hologram disc is the way to go and (2) you are, with no doubt, much better at maths than me, I'll agree with you on this statement. ;)
AND I'm quite interested in your choice of words... "only 3.9 TB"?
Quantum:
--- Quote from: TheNightWatchman on September 08, 2007, 11:01:12 pm ---
--- Quote from: Quantum on September 08, 2007, 01:31:13 am ---HVD is only 3.9 terrabytes, that's far too small for raw footage at 4000p, I'd be shocked if you fit more than about 10 - 15mins, with no audio. Plus raw footage has almost no visual gains over advanced codecs like h264, your gaining less than 1% quality for 100s of times the file size. I'd be surprised if raw footage is ever used in the standard home entertainment media for at least the next 50 years.
PCD is far too theoretical to be seriously talking about at the moment.
--- End quote ---
Since (1) that we both agree that hologram disc is the way to go and (2) you are, with no doubt, much better at maths than me, I'll agree with you on this statement. ;)
AND I'm quite interested in your choice of words... "only 3.9 TB"?
--- End quote ---
Hmm, just did a little test to see what uncompressed footage was like, even at todays resolutions of 4096 x 2304 (I've seen them looking at introducing much higher quality stuff soon), still talking about 27 MBytes per frame, that's about 2.225 TBs per hour (but only at 24fps). Fortunately there's a lot of good lossy and lossless codecs out there. The one that deals with that resolution gets it down to 220mbit/s which is less than a 100 GB per hour, but it is a lossy codec and so are all the other ones seriously implemented in digital cinematography. But I think you would struggle to find an example where it actually reduced visible quality.
Hehe, I dunno, 3.9 TBs just doesn't seem like a lot these days. Given the rate optical hard drives are coming out and they'll soon be starting to be replaced by holographic hard drives (which are in a much better development and commercialization stage than HVDs) I imagine 3.9 TBs won't seem like a huge amount when it comes out. I know we have more storage between all the hard drives in the house than that at the moment and by the start of next year I'll own more storage than that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version