HD DVD?

[RR]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Can you educate me a little about DVD in general, is there such thing as
HD DVD? Or are all DVD today still not HDTV ready?

I mean to say is I read that there is battle going on for High Def. DVD
format (ie Microsoft High Def. WMV or HD WMV). So I does it mean all DVD
are just 480p widescreen?

I have also encountered High Def. DVD but there arent TRUE HD DVD as
they are only upscaller (up-convert) DVD. Which in my opinion stretch
out 480p to 720p or 1080i?

 

[Rob]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"RR" <info.rr.fake@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wk%6d.4618$8H1.3217@trnddc08...
> Can you educate me a little about DVD in general, is there such thing as
> HD DVD? Or are all DVD today still not HDTV ready?
>
> I mean to say is I read that there is battle going on for High Def. DVD
> format (ie Microsoft High Def. WMV or HD WMV). So I does it mean all DVD
> are just 480p widescreen?
>
> I have also encountered High Def. DVD but there arent TRUE HD DVD as they
> are only upscaller (up-convert) DVD. Which in my opinion stretch out 480p
> to 720p or 1080i?

from my limited knowledge, the microsoft WMV9 format is the only thing out
there
available right now that has been HD "Certified". It's nowhere near the
quality of
720p or 1080i but it's higher resolution that standard DVD. Of course it
won't work
on DVD players because it's actually just data in a format that only
Microsoft Media
player v9 knows how to deal with, so you'd have to play it on your computer.
Check out the Extreme Edition of Terminator 2 which comes with a WMV9
version.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

As I understand it there is actually 1 DVD player that can play the WM9 HD
DVDs. It is a off brand I hadn't previously heard of.

--Dan

"Rob" <rob@nospam.com> wrote in message news:2807d.4257$6f.4106@trndny02...
>
> "RR" <info.rr.fake@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:wk%6d.4618$8H1.3217@trnddc08...
> > Can you educate me a little about DVD in general, is there such thing as
> > HD DVD? Or are all DVD today still not HDTV ready?
> >
> > I mean to say is I read that there is battle going on for High Def. DVD
> > format (ie Microsoft High Def. WMV or HD WMV). So I does it mean all DVD
> > are just 480p widescreen?
> >
> > I have also encountered High Def. DVD but there arent TRUE HD DVD as
they
> > are only upscaller (up-convert) DVD. Which in my opinion stretch out
480p
> > to 720p or 1080i?
>
> from my limited knowledge, the microsoft WMV9 format is the only thing out
> there
> available right now that has been HD "Certified". It's nowhere near the
> quality of
> 720p or 1080i but it's higher resolution that standard DVD. Of course it
> won't work
> on DVD players because it's actually just data in a format that only
> Microsoft Media
> player v9 knows how to deal with, so you'd have to play it on your
computer.
> Check out the Extreme Edition of Terminator 2 which comes with a WMV9
> version.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"RR" <info.rr.fake@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wk%6d.4618$8H1.3217@trnddc08...
> Can you educate me a little about DVD in general, is there such thing as
> HD DVD? Or are all DVD today still not HDTV ready?

DVD is a standard definition format. Frequently it is encoded at 480p at 24
fps which is why it looks better on standard definition screens.

> I mean to say is I read that there is battle going on for High Def. DVD
> format (ie Microsoft High Def. WMV or HD WMV). So I does it mean all DVD
> are just 480p widescreen?

There are two formats competing to be the "next generation DVD". One format
is called HD DVD and it is being championed by the DVD Forum, the same group
who brought the original DVD standard. This format would use a 30 GB
double-layer disc with video stored as H.264 or WMV9. This group claims
their format is the best because current DVD assembly lines can be easily
converted to produce HD DVDs.

The other format is called Blu Ray and its development was started by Sony
though many other companies have joined its "camp" as well. It will be a 50
GB disc but it will use the MPEG-2 video format which stores video with
about half the efficiency of H.264 or WMV9. Sony will be able to boost this
format in a big way since Sony Pictures will release everything as Blu Ray
and the future Playstation 3 will support Blu Ray as well.

It will be interesting to see which of these standards (if any) wins out.
This seems very much like a video version of the recent DVD-Audio vs. SACD
war in which both seem to be co-existing but neither one doing all that well
and not that many titles being put out. In that respect the high fidelity
audio format has been a bit of a flop even though it sounds awesome. I hope
the next gen DVD does not suffer the same fate.

> I have also encountered High Def. DVD but there arent TRUE HD DVD as they
> are only upscaller (up-convert) DVD. Which in my opinion stretch out 480p
> to 720p or 1080i?

There are no true high definition DVD players right now. There are only
upscaling DVD players which interpolate pixels to make it look better on a
high definition TV. This certainly can make the picture look better, but it
still is not as good as starting with true high definition material.

Brad

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news😛K17d.1961$5b1.930@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> "RR" <info.rr.fake@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:wk%6d.4618$8H1.3217@trnddc08...
>> Can you educate me a little about DVD in general, is there such thing as
>> HD DVD? Or are all DVD today still not HDTV ready?
>
> DVD is a standard definition format. Frequently it is encoded at 480p at
> 24 fps which is why it looks better on standard definition screens.

Whoops - I meant that to say that because they're 480p they look better on
HIGH DEFINITION screens.


>> I mean to say is I read that there is battle going on for High Def. DVD
>> format (ie Microsoft High Def. WMV or HD WMV). So I does it mean all DVD
>> are just 480p widescreen?
>
> There are two formats competing to be the "next generation DVD". One
> format is called HD DVD and it is being championed by the DVD Forum, the
> same group who brought the original DVD standard. This format would use a
> 30 GB double-layer disc with video stored as H.264 or WMV9. This group
> claims their format is the best because current DVD assembly lines can be
> easily converted to produce HD DVDs.
>
> The other format is called Blu Ray and its development was started by Sony
> though many other companies have joined its "camp" as well. It will be a
> 50 GB disc but it will use the MPEG-2 video format which stores video with
> about half the efficiency of H.264 or WMV9. Sony will be able to boost
> this format in a big way since Sony Pictures will release everything as
> Blu Ray and the future Playstation 3 will support Blu Ray as well.
>
> It will be interesting to see which of these standards (if any) wins out.
> This seems very much like a video version of the recent DVD-Audio vs. SACD
> war in which both seem to be co-existing but neither one doing all that
> well and not that many titles being put out. In that respect the high
> fidelity audio format has been a bit of a flop even though it sounds
> awesome. I hope the next gen DVD does not suffer the same fate.
>
>> I have also encountered High Def. DVD but there arent TRUE HD DVD as they
>> are only upscaller (up-convert) DVD. Which in my opinion stretch out 480p
>> to 720p or 1080i?
>
> There are no true high definition DVD players right now. There are only
> upscaling DVD players which interpolate pixels to make it look better on a
> high definition TV. This certainly can make the picture look better, but
> it still is not as good as starting with true high definition material.
>
> Brad
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I do not think you have watched WMV9 on a computer with a good video card
and monitor. It is stunning. If you have a good computer and a broadband
connection download coral reef from Microsoft...it is a 100mg file.
"Rob" <rob@nospam.com> wrote in message news:2807d.4257$6f.4106@trndny02...
>
> "RR" <info.rr.fake@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:wk%6d.4618$8H1.3217@trnddc08...
>> Can you educate me a little about DVD in general, is there such thing as
>> HD DVD? Or are all DVD today still not HDTV ready?
>>
>> I mean to say is I read that there is battle going on for High Def. DVD
>> format (ie Microsoft High Def. WMV or HD WMV). So I does it mean all DVD
>> are just 480p widescreen?
>>
>> I have also encountered High Def. DVD but there arent TRUE HD DVD as they
>> are only upscaller (up-convert) DVD. Which in my opinion stretch out 480p
>> to 720p or 1080i?
>
> from my limited knowledge, the microsoft WMV9 format is the only thing out
> there
> available right now that has been HD "Certified". It's nowhere near the
> quality of
> 720p or 1080i but it's higher resolution that standard DVD. Of course it
> won't work
> on DVD players because it's actually just data in a format that only
> Microsoft Media
> player v9 knows how to deal with, so you'd have to play it on your
> computer.
> Check out the Extreme Edition of Terminator 2 which comes with a WMV9
> version.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Rob" <rob@nospam.com> wrote in message news:2807d.4257$6f.4106@trndny02...
>
> "RR" <info.rr.fake@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:wk%6d.4618$8H1.3217@trnddc08...
>> Can you educate me a little about DVD in general, is there such thing as
>> HD DVD? Or are all DVD today still not HDTV ready?
>>
>> I mean to say is I read that there is battle going on for High Def. DVD
>> format (ie Microsoft High Def. WMV or HD WMV). So I does it mean all DVD
>> are just 480p widescreen?
>>
>> I have also encountered High Def. DVD but there arent TRUE HD DVD as they
>> are only upscaller (up-convert) DVD. Which in my opinion stretch out 480p
>> to 720p or 1080i?
>
> from my limited knowledge, the microsoft WMV9 format is the only thing out
> there
> available right now that has been HD "Certified".

Plenty of other compression formats are capable of HD, including,
obviously, the old MPEG-2 (since that's what HDTV uses, Blu-Ray HD discs
will use, and the DVD Forum's adopted HD-DVD format can also use), but also
MPEG-4 Layer 10 (aka H.264), which is more similar to WMV9 in capabilities.
(H.264 and WMV9 are both also allowed in the HD-DVD specification, and
players will be required to decode all three.)

> It's nowhere near the quality of
> 720p or 1080i but it's higher resolution that standard DVD.

I'm not sure where you get this idea. WMV9 is fully capable of the same
quality as standard 720p or 1080i TV signals, and appearantly using
substantially less bandwidth (as is H.264). (The tradeoff is that these
standards require more processing power and memory than MPEG-2 to both
encode and decode, and hence were impractical before now.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Brad Griffis wrote:
> The other format is called Blu Ray and its development was started by Sony
> though many other companies have joined its "camp" as well. It will be a 50
> GB disc but it will use the MPEG-2 video format which stores video with
> about half the efficiency of H.264 or WMV9. Sony will be able to boost this
> format in a big way since Sony Pictures will release everything as Blu Ray
> and the future Playstation 3 will support Blu Ray as well.

The Blu-Ray group has announced the BD format will include H.264
(MPEG-4) and the Microsoft developed VC-1 (formal version on WMV9)
codecs. See www.blu-ray.com.

We will likely have to suffer through yet another format war which
will hurt initial sales. Although BD will probably win in the long run.
One of the main reason the initial entry of the new HD DVD/BD disks into
the marketplace is because of the lack of HD TVs to play them on. That
is changing, in the US at least, as HD TV sales are taking off in a
major way. We will probably see the initial release of first run
overpriced players and disks sometime later next year.

If you want to play HD movies through an HD TV set, your choices are:
D-VHS or high performance HTPC. I have read that some DVD players are on
the way (if not out already) which can handle the WMV9 file format, but
those are likely to be a short lived technology demo niche.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news😛K17d.1961$5b1.930@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> "RR" <info.rr.fake@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:wk%6d.4618$8H1.3217@trnddc08...
> There are no true high definition DVD players right now. There are only
> upscaling DVD players which interpolate pixels to make it look better on a
> high definition TV. This certainly can make the picture look better, but
it
> still is not as good as starting with true high definition material.

Im not trying to argue, but there is one called the Bravo D3 and it will
play the wm9 HD DVDs. Still not as HD as I would like given the limited
capacity of todays DVDs.

--Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cMg7d.3626$JG2.3600@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news😛K17d.1961$5b1.930@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> "RR" <info.rr.fake@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:wk%6d.4618$8H1.3217@trnddc08...
>> There are no true high definition DVD players right now. There are only
>> upscaling DVD players which interpolate pixels to make it look better on
>> a
>> high definition TV. This certainly can make the picture look better, but
> it
>> still is not as good as starting with true high definition material.
>
> Im not trying to argue, but there is one called the Bravo D3 and it will
> play the wm9 HD DVDs. Still not as HD as I would like given the limited
> capacity of todays DVDs.
>
> --Dan
>
>

Dan,

Hey, no problem, you're absolutely correct! I was speaking pretty broadly,
but you are right that there are a few out there. However, with there being
so few models that do this and because there is such limited material (is
there anything besides Terminator 2?) I was not counting those.

Brad

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:22:41 GMT, "Brad Griffis"
<bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> There are no true high definition DVD players right now. There are only
>>> upscaling DVD players which interpolate pixels to make it look better on
>>> a
>>> high definition TV. This certainly can make the picture look better, but
>> it
>>> still is not as good as starting with true high definition material.
>>
>> Im not trying to argue, but there is one called the Bravo D3 and it will
>> play the wm9 HD DVDs. Still not as HD as I would like given the limited
>> capacity of todays DVDs.
>>
>> --Dan
>>
>>
>
>Dan,
>
>Hey, no problem, you're absolutely correct! I was speaking pretty broadly,
>but you are right that there are a few out there.

Samsung claims this DVD player is HD:

DVD-HD931

Right or wrong, it does look better than a non-HD DVD player does on a
HD monitor. They list at $199, at least where I work.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xsydne9PnsrfWcDcRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> Brad Griffis wrote:
>> The other format is called Blu Ray and its development was started by
>> Sony though many other companies have joined its "camp" as well. It will
>> be a 50 GB disc but it will use the MPEG-2 video format which stores
>> video with about half the efficiency of H.264 or WMV9. Sony will be able
>> to boost this format in a big way since Sony Pictures will release
>> everything as Blu Ray and the future Playstation 3 will support Blu Ray
>> as well.
>
> The Blu-Ray group has announced the BD format will include H.264 (MPEG-4)
> and the Microsoft developed VC-1 (formal version on WMV9) codecs. See
> www.blu-ray.com.
>
> We will likely have to suffer through yet another format war which will
> hurt initial sales. Although BD will probably win in the long run.

My question has always been what would stop players from being made that
could play both types of discs? They both use the same wavelength of light,
for instance, and now they both support the same three compression codecs.
That would enable quicker conversion of existing DVD lines to the production
of HD-DVD discs using the HD-DVD format, while still allowing Sony to do
Blu-Ray, and eventually others to transition over to Blu-Ray for its higher
capacity.

 

[Neil]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news😛K17d.1961$5b1.930@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> ...One format...
> called HD DVD ...would use a 30 GB double-layer disc with video stored as
> H.264 or WMV9.
>
> The other format ...called Blu Ray ...will be a 50 GB disc but it will use
> the MPEG-2 video format which stores video with about half the efficiency
> of H.264 or WMV9...

Brad, your info is very good and extremely helpful. Thank you. I hope this
doesn't sound like "nit-picking", but I would probably compare Blu Ray's
encoding to that of HD DVD by changing the words "about half the efficiency"
to "less compression than that". If compression is the goal, then Blu Ray's
MPEG-2 encoding is indeed less efficient, but if video quality is the goal,
then Blu Ray is more "efficient".

Sincerely,

Neil
Salem, MA USA

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Neil" <ThisIsNotARealAddress@xyzabc1234.com> wrote in message
news:RCA7d.293341$mD.159275@attbi_s02...
> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news😛K17d.1961$5b1.930@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> ...One format...
>> called HD DVD ...would use a 30 GB double-layer disc with video stored as
>> H.264 or WMV9.
>>
>> The other format ...called Blu Ray ...will be a 50 GB disc but it will
>> use the MPEG-2 video format which stores video with about half the
>> efficiency of H.264 or WMV9...
>
> Brad, your info is very good and extremely helpful. Thank you. I hope
> this doesn't sound like "nit-picking", but I would probably compare Blu
> Ray's encoding to that of HD DVD by changing the words "about half the
> efficiency" to "less compression than that". If compression is the goal,
> then Blu Ray's MPEG-2 encoding is indeed less efficient, but if video
> quality is the goal, then Blu Ray is more "efficient".
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Neil
> Salem, MA USA

Neil,

I respectfully disagree with your statement. The H.264 codec can provide
the same video QUALITY as MPEG-2 using roughly half to two-thirds the amount
of space. For example, 1 hour of HD video may take up 10 GB when encoded as
MPEG-2 but maintaining the same quality it would only require 6 GB with
H.264. In this respect MPEG-2 is less "efficient" than H.264 because it
requires more data to provide the same video quality.

As Alan Figgatt pointed out, the Blu Ray group is now including h.264 in
their specificiation as well as VC-1 (the proposed SMPTE standard based on
WMV9). So for now at least both Blu Ray and HD DVD will be supporting the
same three standards: MPEG-2, H.264, and WMV9. Thanks Alan for pointing
that out as I missed the announcement!

Brad

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew Vaughan wrote:
> My question has always been what would stop players from being made that
> could play both types of discs? They both use the same wavelength of light,
> for instance, and now they both support the same three compression codecs.
> That would enable quicker conversion of existing DVD lines to the production
> of HD-DVD discs using the HD-DVD format, while still allowing Sony to do
> Blu-Ray, and eventually others to transition over to Blu-Ray for its higher
> capacity.

As I understand it, while HD DVD and Blu Ray use the same blue
wavelength (405 nm), Blu Ray (BD for short) has a different lens design
and structure which place the data layer only 0.1 mm from the bottom of
the disk as opposed to 0.6 mm for DVD/HD-DVD. Blu Ray players will have
two heads for backwards compatibility - one for CD/DVD and one for BD. I
suspect HD-DVD will have do the same thing.

There are universal players that play all known CD/DVD formats - CD,
VCD, SACD, DVD, DVD-A, etc. Chances are we will eventually see a
universal player which handles HD-DVD and BD, but they may have to have
no less than 3 different heads with supporting electronics for each.
Likely to be an expensive universal player; at least early on.

However, you are not likely to see a BD player which handles HD-DVD
from the major backers in the BD consortium for quite some time. From
what I have read, part of the motivation (besides greater storage
capacity) for the new Blu Ray design is so the BD makers don't have to
pay royalties (or fewer royalties at least) to the DVD companies. So why
would they make a player which can read HD-DVD disks? It's a format war
after all.

Alan Figgatt

 

[Neil]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NrB7d.3191$5b1.565@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Neil" <ThisIsNotARealAddress@xyzabc1234.com> wrote in message
> news:RCA7d.293341$mD.159275@attbi_s02...
>> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news😛K17d.1961$5b1.930@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>> ...One format...
>>> called HD DVD ...would use a 30 GB double-layer disc with video stored
>>> as H.264 or WMV9.
>>>
>>> The other format ...called Blu Ray ...will be a 50 GB disc but it will
>>> use the MPEG-2 video format which stores video with about half the
>>> efficiency of H.264 or WMV9...
>>
>> Brad, your info is very good and extremely helpful. Thank you. I hope
>> this doesn't sound like "nit-picking", but I would probably compare Blu
>> Ray's encoding to that of HD DVD by changing the words "about half the
>> efficiency" to "less compression than that". If compression is the goal,
>> then Blu Ray's MPEG-2 encoding is indeed less efficient, but if video
>> quality is the goal, then Blu Ray is more "efficient".
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Neil
>> Salem, MA USA
>
> Neil,
>
> I respectfully disagree with your statement. The H.264 codec can provide
> the same video QUALITY as MPEG-2 using roughly half to two-thirds the
> amount of space. For example, 1 hour of HD video may take up 10 GB when
> encoded as MPEG-2 but maintaining the same quality it would only require 6
> GB with H.264. In this respect MPEG-2 is less "efficient" than H.264
> because it requires more data to provide the same video quality.
>
> As Alan Figgatt pointed out, the Blu Ray group is now including h.264 in
> their specificiation as well as VC-1 (the proposed SMPTE standard based on
> WMV9). So for now at least both Blu Ray and HD DVD will be supporting the
> same three standards: MPEG-2, H.264, and WMV9. Thanks Alan for pointing
> that out as I missed the announcement!
>
> Brad

Brad,

It's a pleasure to get your feedback. I am quite un-educated in the details
of these compression techniques, so I accept your wisdom on these things.
If H.264 can produce video (and sound) that is perceived visually (and
audibly) as good or better than MPEG-2, then I absolutely agree with you.
Compression is a compromise. We all know that all video compression
techniques sacrifice some of the original video signal to produce a smaller
video file that when viewed appears to be close to the original video. From
a purely mathematical point of view, it is not incorrect to say that the
greater the compression, the greater the original signal is lost. But
again, as you say, when comparing one compression scheme to another, if
there is no visible difference, then greater compression is indeed more
efficient and for all practical purposes superior.

Neil
Salem, MA USA

 

[Neil]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NrB7d.3191$5b1.565@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Neil" <ThisIsNotARealAddress@xyzabc1234.com> wrote in message
> news:RCA7d.293341$mD.159275@attbi_s02...
>> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news😛K17d.1961$5b1.930@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>> ...One format...
>>> called HD DVD ...would use a 30 GB double-layer disc with video stored
>>> as H.264 or WMV9.
>>>
>>> The other format ...called Blu Ray ...will be a 50 GB disc but it will
>>> use the MPEG-2 video format which stores video with about half the
>>> efficiency of H.264 or WMV9...
>>
>> Brad, your info is very good and extremely helpful. Thank you. I hope
>> this doesn't sound like "nit-picking", but I would probably compare Blu
>> Ray's encoding to that of HD DVD by changing the words "about half the
>> efficiency" to "less compression than that". If compression is the goal,
>> then Blu Ray's MPEG-2 encoding is indeed less efficient, but if video
>> quality is the goal, then Blu Ray is more "efficient".
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Neil
>> Salem, MA USA
>
> Neil,
>
> I respectfully disagree with your statement. The H.264 codec can provide
> the same video QUALITY as MPEG-2 using roughly half to two-thirds the
> amount of space. For example, 1 hour of HD video may take up 10 GB when
> encoded as MPEG-2 but maintaining the same quality it would only require 6
> GB with H.264. In this respect MPEG-2 is less "efficient" than H.264
> because it requires more data to provide the same video quality.
>
> As Alan Figgatt pointed out, the Blu Ray group is now including h.264 in
> their specificiation as well as VC-1 (the proposed SMPTE standard based on
> WMV9). So for now at least both Blu Ray and HD DVD will be supporting the
> same three standards: MPEG-2, H.264, and WMV9. Thanks Alan for pointing
> that out as I missed the announcement!
>
> Brad

Brad,

It's a pleasure to get your feedback. I am quite un-educated in the details
of these compression techniques, so I accept your wisdom on these things.
If H.264 can produce video (and sound) that is perceived visually (and
audibly) as good or better than MPEG-2, then I absolutely agree with you.
Compression is a compromise. We all know that all video compression
techniques sacrifice some of the original video signal to produce a smaller
video file that when viewed appears to be close to the original video. From
a purely mathematical point of view, it is not incorrect to say that the
greater the compression, the greater the original signal is lost. But
again, as you say, when comparing one compression scheme to another, if
there is no visible difference, then greater compression is indeed more
efficient and for all practical purposes superior.

Neil
Salem, MA USA

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5Fl7d.11065$vT3.196@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> Hey, no problem, you're absolutely correct! I was speaking pretty
broadly,
> but you are right that there are a few out there. However, with there
being
> so few models that do this and because there is such limited material (is
> there anything besides Terminator 2?) I was not counting those.
>
> Brad
>

As I understand it there are several Imax HD DVDs and the T2 disc, but not a
whole lot more. I asked a question here a while back about why would we
need blu ray discs and such, if we already have the required space and
technology on standard DVDs. The answer was that while todays WM9 HD-DVDs
are indeed better than regular DVDs, they still don't have enough space to
put on REALLY high quality video. The T2 disc is not what I consider true
HD for various reasons that were pointed out in the responses to my
question, look in this group a couple weeks back for my post and the
responses. I may buy a nice upscaling DVD player soon and just hold out for
a while more when a higher capacity disc has hit the mainstream.

--Dan

 

[Neil]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Neil" <ThisIsNotARealAddress@xyzabc1234.com> wrote in message
news😛RG7d.401683$8_6.216810@attbi_s04...
>
> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:NrB7d.3191$5b1.565@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Neil" <ThisIsNotARealAddress@xyzabc1234.com> wrote in message
>> news:RCA7d.293341$mD.159275@attbi_s02...
>>> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news😛K17d.1961$5b1.930@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>> ...One format...
>>>> called HD DVD ...would use a 30 GB double-layer disc with video stored
>>>> as H.264 or WMV9.
>>>>
>>>> The other format ...called Blu Ray ...will be a 50 GB disc but it will
>>>> use the MPEG-2 video format which stores video with about half the
>>>> efficiency of H.264 or WMV9...
>>>
>>> Brad, your info is very good and extremely helpful. Thank you. I hope
>>> this doesn't sound like "nit-picking", but I would probably compare Blu
>>> Ray's encoding to that of HD DVD by changing the words "about half the
>>> efficiency" to "less compression than that". If compression is the
>>> goal,
>>> then Blu Ray's MPEG-2 encoding is indeed less efficient, but if video
>>> quality is the goal, then Blu Ray is more "efficient".
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Neil
>>> Salem, MA USA
>>
>> Neil,
>>
>> I respectfully disagree with your statement. The H.264 codec can provide
>> the same video QUALITY as MPEG-2 using roughly half to two-thirds the
>> amount of space. For example, 1 hour of HD video may take up 10 GB when
>> encoded as MPEG-2 but maintaining the same quality it would only require
>> 6
>> GB with H.264. In this respect MPEG-2 is less "efficient" than H.264
>> because it requires more data to provide the same video quality.
>>
>> As Alan Figgatt pointed out, the Blu Ray group is now including h.264 in
>> their specificiation as well as VC-1 (the proposed SMPTE standard based
>> on
>> WMV9). So for now at least both Blu Ray and HD DVD will be supporting
>> the
>> same three standards: MPEG-2, H.264, and WMV9. Thanks Alan for pointing
>> that out as I missed the announcement!
>>
>> Brad
>
> Brad,
>
> It's a pleasure to get your feedback. I am quite un-educated in the
> details
> of these compression techniques, so I accept your wisdom on these things.
> If H.264 can produce video (and sound) that is perceived visually (and
> audibly) as good or better than MPEG-2, then I absolutely agree with you.
> Compression is a compromise. We all know that all video compression
> techniques sacrifice some of the original video signal to produce a
> smaller
> video file that when viewed appears to be close to the original video.
> From
> a purely mathematical point of view, it is not incorrect to say that the
> greater the compression, the greater the original signal is lost. But
> again, as you say, when comparing one compression scheme to another, if
> there is no visible difference, then greater compression is indeed more
> efficient and for all practical purposes superior.
>
> Neil
> Salem, MA USA

Well ...I decided to go out and educate myself on H.264, and let me tell
you, I am impressed! What extraordinary video while using lots of
compression. I found some wonderful information and even demonstration
videos of H.264 at:

http://www.pixeltools.com/h264_paper.html

Now I can't wait to see some real products that use the compression.

Neil
Salem, MA USA

 

[Neil]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Neil" <ThisIsNotARealAddress@xyzabc1234.com> wrote in message
news:4rW7d.169627$D%.154409@attbi_s51...
> "Neil" <ThisIsNotARealAddress@xyzabc1234.com> wrote in message
> news😛RG7d.401683$8_6.216810@attbi_s04...
>>
>> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:NrB7d.3191$5b1.565@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>> "Neil" <ThisIsNotARealAddress@xyzabc1234.com> wrote in message
>>> news:RCA7d.293341$mD.159275@attbi_s02...
>>>> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news😛K17d.1961$5b1.930@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...One format...
>>>>> called HD DVD ...would use a 30 GB double-layer disc with video stored
>>>>> as H.264 or WMV9.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other format ...called Blu Ray ...will be a 50 GB disc but it will
>>>>> use the MPEG-2 video format which stores video with about half the
>>>>> efficiency of H.264 or WMV9...
>>>>
>>>> Brad, your info is very good and extremely helpful. Thank you. I hope
>>>> this doesn't sound like "nit-picking", but I would probably compare Blu
>>>> Ray's encoding to that of HD DVD by changing the words "about half the
>>>> efficiency" to "less compression than that". If compression is the
>>>> goal,
>>>> then Blu Ray's MPEG-2 encoding is indeed less efficient, but if video
>>>> quality is the goal, then Blu Ray is more "efficient".
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>> Salem, MA USA
>>>
>>> Neil,
>>>
>>> I respectfully disagree with your statement. The H.264 codec can
>>> provide
>>> the same video QUALITY as MPEG-2 using roughly half to two-thirds the
>>> amount of space. For example, 1 hour of HD video may take up 10 GB when
>>> encoded as MPEG-2 but maintaining the same quality it would only require
>>> 6
>>> GB with H.264. In this respect MPEG-2 is less "efficient" than H.264
>>> because it requires more data to provide the same video quality.
>>>
>>> As Alan Figgatt pointed out, the Blu Ray group is now including h.264 in
>>> their specificiation as well as VC-1 (the proposed SMPTE standard based
>>> on
>>> WMV9). So for now at least both Blu Ray and HD DVD will be supporting
>>> the
>>> same three standards: MPEG-2, H.264, and WMV9. Thanks Alan for
>>> pointing
>>> that out as I missed the announcement!
>>>
>>> Brad
>>
>> Brad,
>>
>> It's a pleasure to get your feedback. I am quite un-educated in the
>> details
>> of these compression techniques, so I accept your wisdom on these things.
>> If H.264 can produce video (and sound) that is perceived visually (and
>> audibly) as good or better than MPEG-2, then I absolutely agree with you.
>> Compression is a compromise. We all know that all video compression
>> techniques sacrifice some of the original video signal to produce a
>> smaller
>> video file that when viewed appears to be close to the original video.
>> From
>> a purely mathematical point of view, it is not incorrect to say that the
>> greater the compression, the greater the original signal is lost. But
>> again, as you say, when comparing one compression scheme to another, if
>> there is no visible difference, then greater compression is indeed more
>> efficient and for all practical purposes superior.
>>
>> Neil
>> Salem, MA USA
>
> Well ...I decided to go out and educate myself on H.264, and let me tell
> you, I am impressed! What extraordinary video while using lots of
> compression. I found some wonderful information and even demonstration
> videos of H.264 at:
>
> http://www.pixeltools.com/h264_paper.html
>
> Now I can't wait to see some real products that use the compression.
>
> Neil
> Salem, MA USA

My apologies for writing replies to my own posts, but am so excited by what
I have learned about H.264, and I am also humbled by an error of mine in one
of my previous posts. Please let me modify a statement that I made in a
previous post.

It is now clear to me that H.264 is BOTH a less-lossy compression technique
than is MPEG-2, AND it is a smarter (and more space efficient) compression
scheme. The end result is that when comparing two video files of the same
size, one being MPEG-2 and the other H.264, the H.264 video is clearly
superior and retains more of the original (pre-compression) video content.
Quite extraordinary!

Neil
Salem, MA USA