Convivea
Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: texasboy on July 22, 2007, 06:27:48 am
-
;D Lots of good bargains out there on 32-42 inch wall mounted flat screen tv`s. Prices are coming down daily.
LCD or Plasma? Personal preference is LCD but need some input. Has Plasma sorted out its problems?
cheers
-
LCD = Lower Quality Picture
Plasma = Slightly Smaller Life Span
Both of them = Lower Quality Picture than a big ass CRT if you don't have an HD source for your T.Vs, Sky HD or something you download (HD sources are about 1GB - 1.5 GB for 45 min T.V episode).
They're getting cheaper and cheaper, but unless your willing to pay another subscription to Sky or you have a 360 or PS3, the whole thing is pointless. I'm waiting for Laser T.Vs to come out or LED backlit LCDs, get a high quality one of those when there's actual HD TV.
-
Hi Quantum,
When you say lower quality picture??? When I walk into Laser/Comet even Currys I am amazed at the quality of the pictures on LCD. Fantastic defination and clarity compared to my present digital tv. What am I missing, is it really that bad??
cheers
-
Hi Quantum,
When you say lower quality picture??? When I walk into Laser/Comet even Currys I am amazed at the quality of the pictures on LCD. Fantastic defination and clarity compared to my present digital tv. What am I missing, is it really that bad??
cheers
It's all about resolution, a top HD siginal is 1080p, which is: 1920 x 1080, a slightly lower HD signal is 720p which is: 1280 x 720. Apparently most people can't tell the difference between these 2 in a normal living room environment unless the T.V is 65 inches or bigger, personally I can.
Some HD TVs can only display 720p, so check that out before hand. But the real issue is that standard U.K T.V is 576p, which is 720 x 576, now when you stretch 576p to 1080p, especially on a fixed resolution device like a flat screen, you simply get a lower quality picture. The other issue is that LCD in particular is actually a lower quality picture than CRT, this is just fundamental to its technology at the moment, but it is improving a little bit at a time.
In all likelihood, what you see at places like Comet or Currys is an actual HD Movie being played, which requires a computer outputting an HD Signal to it, an HD DVD or Blu Ray Player or a Sky HD subscription (which costs an extra £10 a month on top of a normal subscription, plus it used to cost £300 for the Sky HD Box, but they may have got rid of that extra cost, I'm not sure). Also be aware with Sky HD, there are only a limited number of channels which are actually HD, a couple of the movies, a couple of the sports, a few nature documentary channels, SkyOne HD, BBC HD (very limited stuff on this) and maybe a few more.
Most people take their brand new large flat panel T.V home to find the picture looks almost exactly the same if not a little worse, because they simply haven't done their research and the shops have managed to trick them in to thinking the T.V can magically improve the current picture that they have.
-
Yet more limitations of HD. (Warning, the file sizes in these screenshots are actually quite large, about 3 megabytes each. Also the quality of the picture will vary from monitor to monitor, if you have a CRT you bought in the last 4 years and a TFT you bought in the last 2, I'd suggest comparing them so you can see that we've actually taken a step back in quality for saving space)
I'd just like to spend a little time discussing HD, the actual quality of HD in itself can change quite drastically, even if your getting the full 1080p glory.
Here's a screen shot from RAN, an HD DVD movie, this is in 1080p, but as we can see the quality is severely limited by the original source of the movie: http://www.freepicshost.net/pview.php?fid=677&fname=RanPHD2.png
Here's a few shots from the Blu-Ray movie 'House of Flying Daggers', while much touted, the encoders for whatever reason decided to encode it with MPEG2, the old DVD format, this doesn't scale to HD as well as other codecs like VC-1 and h264, so the picture isn't as clear or sharp as it should be:
http://shrani.si/?pdvd013v7tn.png
http://shrani.si/?pdvd011v7tk.png
I've developed a keen eye for spotting stuff encoded in mpeg2, I'm usually about 95% accurate, because it has a sort of fuzzy foggyness about the detail that VC-1 and h264 don't have.
All that aside, some times you do get fine looking movies, take the HD DVD version of Matrix Revolutions, a high quality source, a high quality codec and high bit rate all used. If you played this on a large high quality 1080p T.V this would look fantastic:
http://nwgat.net/woot/files/2/reloadedhddvd/3.png
http://nwgat.net/woot/files/2/reloadedhddvd/7.png
http://nwgat.net/woot/files/2/reloadedhddvd/9.png
http://nwgat.net/woot/files/2/reloadedhddvd/10.png
-
Super info Quantum.
Had been looking at the Sharp LC-42D62U 42" LCD DISPLAY. prices still about £1,100 cheapest but coming down.
cheers
-
Super info Quantum.
Had been looking at the Sharp LC-42D62U 42" LCD DISPLAY. prices still about £1,100 cheapest but coming down.
cheers
Sharp do fantastic LCD monitors and having a quick browse over the specs of that, it's good stuff. It's perfect if you know what you're getting yourself in to. Don't know if it supports 1:1 pixel mapping though.
-
Hi Quantum,
When you say lower quality picture??? When I walk into Laser/Comet even Currys I am amazed at the quality of the pictures on LCD. Fantastic defination and clarity compared to my present digital tv. What am I missing, is it really that bad??
cheers
It's all about resolution, a top HD siginal is 1080p, which is: 1920 x 1080, a slightly lower HD signal is 720p which is: 1280 x 720. Apparently most people can't tell the difference between these 2 in a normal living room environment unless the T.V is 65 inches or bigger, personally I can.
Some HD TVs can only display 720p, so check that out before hand. But the real issue is that standard U.K T.V is 576p, which is 720 x 576, now when you stretch 576p to 1080p, especially on a fixed resolution device like a flat screen, you simply get a lower quality picture. The other issue is that LCD in particular is actually a lower quality picture than CRT, this is just fundamental to its technology at the moment, but it is improving a little bit at a time.
In all likelihood, what you see at places like Comet or Currys is an actual HD Movie being played, which requires a computer outputting an HD Signal to it, an HD DVD or Blu Ray Player or a Sky HD subscription (which costs an extra £10 a month on top of a normal subscription, plus it used to cost £300 for the Sky HD Box, but they may have got rid of that extra cost, I'm not sure). Also be aware with Sky HD, there are only a limited number of channels which are actually HD, a couple of the movies, a couple of the sports, a few nature documentary channels, SkyOne HD, BBC HD (very limited stuff on this) and maybe a few more.
Most people take their brand new large flat panel T.V home to find the picture looks almost exactly the same if not a little worse, because they simply haven't done their research and the shops have managed to trick them in to thinking the T.V can magically improve the current picture that they have.
Interesting information Quantum........
-
;D No doubt MinLo,opens your eyes to stats, I`m sure every family requirements are different.
1)average cornation/eastenders viewer
2) larger family that have children who want to play their games on the bigger screen
3) serious gamers
4)dvd and movie downloaders
Thanks for input on Sharp Quantum. Any friends at moss side markets.lol
cheers
-
Flat panel tv's are awesome
-
I watched Casino Royale blu-ray (through PS3) on a 60" Sony Bravia Plasma 1080p... it looked REALLY good. With HD those TVs are really worth in my opinion. Problem is, not even FoxTel (sky equiv.) here is in HD... so you watch a DVD or normal TV with a TV that big... it looks terrible!
I agree Quantum that some movies have yet to catch up encoding wise on HD, but it won't be long until that is there.
I also don't understand why anyone supports HD DVD (well except paramount... with the "incentive" they got).
I've never actually seen HD on a 32" screen though... Those don't seem to bad for SD either because they're small?
-
I watched Casino Royale blu-ray (through PS3) on a 60" Sony Bravia Plasma 1080p... it looked REALLY good. With HD those TVs are really worth in my opinion. Problem is, not even FoxTel (sky equiv.) here is in HD... so you watch a DVD or normal TV with a TV that big... it looks terrible!
I agree Quantum that some movies have yet to catch up encoding wise on HD, but it won't be long until that is there.
I also don't understand why anyone supports HD DVD (well except paramount... with the "incentive" they got).
I've never actually seen HD on a 32" screen though... Those don't seem to bad for SD either because they're small?
HD DVD is cheaper to make and has cheaper players, primarily uses higher quality codecs, supports Picture in Picture, has compulsory Ethernet port at the back of the HD DVD for firmware updates.
Blu-Ray has a lot of its movies in mpeg2, which is lower quality and negates its larger file size capacity. Also BD Java is being updated at the end of the year to such a specification that new Blu-Ray movies might not work on some old Blu-Ray players.
So far I'm well in to the HD DVD band camp.
I watch HD on my 19 inch computer monitor, so lol, I guess.
-
Don't get an HDTV if you're going to be playing standard (480 or 576) on it. I just got a 32' CRT from LG and the picture looks beautiful when I run 1080i or 720p, but as soon as I play some standard material, it looks worse than my 10 year old trinitron!
-
Don't get an HDTV if you're going to be playing standard (480 or 576) on it. I just got a 32' CRT from LG and the picture looks beautiful when I run 1080i or 720p, but as soon as I play some standard material, it looks worse than my 10 year old trinitron!
Quality of standard definition is very dependent on the way your T.V scales. CRTs are by far the easiest to make standard definition look good because they can be built to output at multiple different resolutions, where as on a TFT you are mapping one resolution to another, CRTs are also quite forgiving in terms of low quality picture as they tend to 'fuzz' it up a little to produce a higher quality than it actually is.
I'd check your manual to make sure there isn't a special setting for Standard Definition, otherwise that's unfortunately what you get with some HD TVs.
-
I tried looking through the manual and I can't seem to find anything. Right now I have a DVI->HDMI cable going from my computer to the TV. My old setup was a S-video cable going to the trinitron.
Maybe it's because I'm running SD through HDMI that the TV is getting confused. I'm going to try and hookup a standard DVD player with S-video eventually and see what that looks like.
The LG makes the SD material look really fuzzy as you said. The trinitron was a lot sharper.
-
I tried looking through the manual and I can't seem to find anything. Right now I have a DVI->HDMI cable going from my computer to the TV. My old setup was a S-video cable going to the trinitron.
Maybe it's because I'm running SD through HDMI that the TV is getting confused. I'm going to try and hookup a standard DVD player with S-video eventually and see what that looks like.
The LG makes the SD material look really fuzzy as you said. The trinitron was a lot sharper.
Hmm, I'd mess about with all the different cables you can and see if you reach a nice balance which doesn't require you pulling out a different cable every time you change the channel.
If LG have made the CRT well, you should be able to get standard definition looking just as good on it as your trinitron. I know someone who got a Samsung HD CRT and standard definition looks fine on it. But companies do tend to be a bit lazy about concentrating on anything but the best they can do.
-
HD DVD is cheaper to make and has cheaper players, primarily uses higher quality codecs, supports Picture in Picture, has compulsory Ethernet port at the back of the HD DVD for firmware updates.
Blu-Ray has a lot of its movies in mpeg2, which is lower quality and negates its larger file size capacity. Also BD Java is being updated at the end of the year to such a specification that new Blu-Ray movies might not work on some old Blu-Ray players.
So far I'm well in to the HD DVD band camp.
I watch HD on my 19 inch computer monitor, so lol, I guess.
Blu-ray and HD DVD has almost equalled pricing now... by the end of the year they will be the same. Ok blu-ray has movies in mpeg2 but that's sure to be fixed in the future. All those things are problems NOW, if you think in terms of future... it's got to be:
Blu-ray Disc 25 GB (single layer) 50GB (dual layer)
HD DVD 15 GB (single layer) 30GB (dual layer)
-
HD DVD is cheaper to make and has cheaper players, primarily uses higher quality codecs, supports Picture in Picture, has compulsory Ethernet port at the back of the HD DVD for firmware updates.
Blu-Ray has a lot of its movies in mpeg2, which is lower quality and negates its larger file size capacity. Also BD Java is being updated at the end of the year to such a specification that new Blu-Ray movies might not work on some old Blu-Ray players.
So far I'm well in to the HD DVD band camp.
I watch HD on my 19 inch computer monitor, so lol, I guess.
Blu-ray and HD DVD has almost equalled pricing now... by the end of the year they will be the same. Ok blu-ray has movies in mpeg2 but that's sure to be fixed in the future. All those things are problems NOW, if you think in terms of future... it's got to be:
Blu-ray Disc 25 GB (single layer) 50GB (dual layer)
HD DVD 15 GB (single layer) 30GB (dual layer)
Actually when it comes to really thinking in the future, Toshiba have announced they are looking to release a triple layer HD DVD, with 17 GBs per layer, totaling 51 GBs.
mpeg2 doesn't seem to be leaving Blu Ray any time soon, I still see loads of mpeg2 movies, long after the launch of Blu Ray, in fact 70% of the time I only see movies in VC-1 because they're exactly the same as the HD DVD version. I also keep up with the tech sites, prices will drop to the more reasonable sub $100 with HD DVD before Blu Ray, easily.
Changing BD Java specification isn't going to be a problem just for todays crowd. Bar Sony, I imagine studios won't be stupid enough to release a movie that can only be played on new players, even if most players can play it, people tend to prefer backwards compatibility so will probably forgo adding features. That's why mandatory Ethernet ports are a wise idea.
Anyway, season 1 of heroes on HD DVD would probably persuade me to buy HD DVD in I was in America.
Also, I don't know why you think that having 50GB is so important over having 30GB, the only thing it really matters for are T.V series and they've always been multiple disk. You can happily fit a full movie, very high bit rate, 1080p on 30GB, the only thing you might have to sacrifice is having many different audio tracks on the disk.
-
The reason I see it as a problem is the same reason people thought "who needs 8.5GB of data on a DVD?"
In the future 30GB won't be anywhere near enough. And 3 layers just defies the point doesn't it? Considering it's the same amount as a dual layer blu ray...
The future has definitely go to come down to the size. A few years ago DVD quality was great, now we want HD quality, pretty soon someone will want better quality and a HD DVD won't be able to provide it. Also from a film making perspective you don't have to compress your film as much to fit on a blu ray. This may seem silly at the moment sure, because HD DVD and Blu-ray are both so different from DVD that you can really tell the difference, but it won't be long until you play a HD DVD at maximum compression against a blu-ray disc at maximum compression and you will be able to tell the difference.
I really do not understand how this is even an issue with anyone. Blu-ray is indisputably the better medium, instead people are worrying about the price that it is right now, when next year the price of both will be probably around half what it is now. Ok you might say that HD DVD has some better features in its players... but if this 'cleverness' was but into the better medium, surely everyone would have a better output?
HD DVD almost saw its demise too, being outsold significantly by blu-ray, until they gave a multimillion dollar 'incentive' to Paramount so that they only will release on HD DVD.
I can just see (although I sincerely hope that it won't happen) a VHS vs Betamax war going the wrong way again.
-
Right, I probabily watch more HD stuff than anyone else on this site (though that said I don't have access to any HD channels so I can't just stick those on, though my understanding is a lot of content has essentially just been upscaled), so I feel the need to take apart your points one by one.
The reason I see it as a problem is the same reason people thought "who needs 8.5GB of data on a DVD?"
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
In the future 30GB won't be anywhere near enough. And 3 layers just defies the point doesn't it? Considering it's the same amount as a dual layer blu ray...
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.
The future has definitely go to come down to the size. A few years ago DVD quality was great, now we want HD quality, pretty soon someone will want better quality and a HD DVD won't be able to provide it. Also from a film making perspective you don't have to compress your film as much to fit on a blu ray. This may seem silly at the moment sure, because HD DVD and Blu-ray are both so different from DVD that you can really tell the difference, but it won't be long until you play a HD DVD at maximum compression against a blu-ray disc at maximum compression and you will be able to tell the difference.
The future coming down to simple specs would mean the DS wouldn't have over double the world wide sales of the PSP, it would mean the Wii wasn't just about to catch up to the total world wide sales of the 360. Blu-Ray doesn't support better quality than 1080p, it's written in to the way Blu-Ray players work, so it doesn't work like that. If a better quality did come out that was widely supported, HD DVD is the only format out there where you can guarantee the players can update themselves for it. The highest quality codec takes the least amount of space for its quality, that is h.264.
I can tell the difference between an mpeg2 encoded Blu-Ray movie and a VC-1 encoded HD DVD. I took my little brother in to town a few months back, the first time I'd seen an HD Movie in the 'wild' on a real 1080p T.V, I gave it 1 look and said "I bet that's Blu Ray" and I chuckled when I looked down and saw a Samsung Blu Ray player.
The maths doesn't add up, there would be no reason to see a "maximum compression" Blu Ray or HD DVD, allowing for 1080p resolution, 24 bit colour depth, 24 fps, 5 GBs worth of audio, and 3 hours of move, you can have INSANE bit rates for h.264. So much so, it would have to be pretty poorly encoded for you to notice any difference between making the movie 25 GBs or 22 GBs.
I really do not understand how this is even an issue with anyone. Blu-ray is indisputably the better medium, instead people are worrying about the price that it is right now, when next year the price of both will be probably around half what it is now. Ok you might say that HD DVD has some better features in its players... but if this 'cleverness' was but into the better medium, surely everyone would have a better output?
It's not though, there are lots of technical superiorities of HD DVD, companies like Microsoft and Intel didn't choose to back it for company political reasons, they have stated if Blu-Ray wins they'll support that, but from a technical standpoint HD DVDs pros outweighs its cons. I don't even know what that last sentence means.
HD DVD almost saw its demise too, being outsold significantly by blu-ray, until they gave a multimillion dollar 'incentive' to Paramount so that they only will release on HD DVD.
I can just see (although I sincerely hope that it won't happen) a VHS vs Betamax war going the wrong way again.
HD DVD didn't almost see its demise at all. It was being outsold 2 to 1 in America alone for the last few moths (though the ratio has been decreasing month on month) and has only been doing so significantly better in America since the PS3. Now that's a little worrying for the Blu Ray camp in some respects, at this point including the PS3 the number of Blu Ray players outnumbers HD DVD players well over 7 to 1? Without any figures I don't want to assume to high a number but it could probably easily be 12+ to 1. Yet total Blu Ray sales are only 2 to 1 that of HD DVD in America. In other regions the gap is a hell of a lot thinner.
Before the PS3 the Blu Ray camp only had about a 1-3% sales advantage, and given most PS3 owners seem to only buy 1 Blu-Ray and decide they're not too impressed, the figure of Blu-Ray sales could drop a hell of a lot once almost all new PS3 owners already have seen a Blu-Ray on a mates PS3.
-
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.
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
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.
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.
-
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 )
-
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.
-
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.
-
;D ;D
What a great discussion guys. I learn as I go along.
And I only asked advice about buying one.lol
cheers
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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"?
-
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.
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"?
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.