backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 27 comment(s) - last by vgermax.. on Jun 21 at 11:12 AM

Image Courtesy 'phansson' of AVS Forum
Initial Thoughts: Not Perfect

In recent news word on the street was that Samsung would be pushing back the launch date for its set top Blu-ray player as many others had done in the last week. Surprise, surprise Blu-ray fans! The first Blu-ray player is here.

Units of Samsung's BD-P1000 began making their way onto Best Buy store shelves this past week as an AVS Forum poster has stated. The lucky one, or unlucky if you're not a Blu-ray supporter, has picked up his unit for that single grand price tag but do not yet have Blu-ray content to play on them. The first Blu-ray titles are set to be released in the coming weeks as planned and we can't wait to compare picture quality with the HD DVD format.

The poster who picked up the BD-P1000, "Phansson," says he experienced a slight inconvenience on the first boot, claiming "First time I booted up the player it did lock up. I hope this isn't a sign of things to come. Had to unplug player and start again. Second time worked great."

"Phansson" also goes on to let us know the boot time was about half that of Toshiba's HD DVD player at 20-30 seconds with a standard definition DVD. Phansson's initial thoughts on upconversion of a standard DVD was not so impressive as he says there was noticeable noise around text but it could have very well been the disc/movie itself.

Supposedly there have been around 1000 units shipped as another poster states which seems somewhat accurate since many have reported seeing only a pair of units at their local Best Buys.  Other Blu-ray devices were recently just proclaimed delayed by other media.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
HD
By gramboh on 6/16/2006 12:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
Are HD-DVD and BluRay first generation movies actually truly HD? As in have they remastered the original film print to disc at 720p/1080i/1080p resolutions?

I thought "true" HD required using HD digital cameras at high resolution to capture the content, or is film cameras higher resolution?




RE: HD
By tk109 on 6/16/2006 12:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
Film goes plenty high enough to make HD content. It's tapes or digital thats not HD that's the problem.


RE: HD
By dmoore764 on 6/16/2006 12:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I think when digitally transferring film (for digital masters and special effects production) studios use either 2K or 4K resolution, both of which are higher res than 1080p.


RE: HD
By dmoore764 on 6/16/2006 12:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
Not that that means the quality of the digital transfer will be that high res (just because you transfer 8mm film at 2K doesn't mean you have an HD image), but modern 35mm film is pretty good in terms of resolution.


RE: HD
By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2006 12:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "Film goes plenty high enough to make HD content"

You miss his original question. He's asking if the studios are going to re-telecine the original tapes to HD resolution...or just go grab an already mastered DVD, and upscale it. The latter is a lot cheaper method, obviously.

The answer is-- acccording to the studios at least-- the former. However, I'm sure some releases (especially in a year or two) are going to take the shortcut route, and not really be "true" HD.


RE: HD
By creathir on 6/16/2006 12:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
If this EVER got out into the public that this is what they were doing... it would KILL whatever format they are pushing...
Would that not piss the hell out of you if you have to RE-PURCHASE a movie to get the higher quality, and it is not the quality that is advertised?

Can anyone say... LAWSUIT...
I'd sign up for that class action lawsuit... and I'm for torn reform!
- Creathir


RE: HD
By creathir on 6/16/2006 12:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
torn reform => tort reform


RE: HD
By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2006 1:44:33 PM , Rating: 4
> "Can anyone say... LAWSUIT..."

I can guarantee you right now, some executives are looking at a Powerpoint of HD-remastered film slides vs. upsampled video recaptured from their DVD library. And the bar graph showing the cost savings. The lower-end studios and publishers, especially, are going to be tempted by this route.

The sad thing is there's nothing we can do about it. Upsampled HD is still HD. So technically, they're not lying.

Remember when CDs first came out? They were (discretely) labelled AAD, ADD, or DDD, meaning how much of the recording-mastering chain for that disc used analog means. A lot of those early CDs were horribly noisy, since budget publishers just grabbed an old analog tape, and digitized it. Sometimes they even cheated, and played it through a digital loop, just so they could claim a full digital recording and mastering...even if the original source was a scratchy, noise-filled reel-to-reel tape.


RE: HD
By peternelson on 6/16/2006 1:51:51 PM , Rating: 2

I agree about the film res being available if people invest the money to re-telecine.

Compression quality may improve slightly over time.

So HD disc formats can deliver HD content.

However don't forget the other option of a blueray or HD-DVD. That is to produce MORE content at a lower bitrate.

eg instead of 1 disc of Lord of the rings part 1, they could put standard def dvd quality for the whole trilogy onto one of the new discs. Don't know if this extra long play will be used widely but I'm just saying its possible eg for recording conference proceedings, tv series like 24 or "Lost" , particularly where film is not available and the original production was standard def. No need to upres and compress, just store the SD and the player will scale it up (some better than others).


RE: HD
By namechamps on 6/17/2006 11:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
um not to mess up your point but LOST is recorded in 16:9 HD (720p to be exact) so I doubt the will down convert it to SD just to fit more content on a disk.

If I can watch Lost in HDTV via broadcast or even record it in HDTV via HD-VCR (not that I have one) then why would I pay to buy an HD disk (HD-DVD or BR) that is lower quality than what I am use to watching.

Just so I have less disks? I mean the DVD version puts 4 episodes per disk (thats 3+ hours of content). Wow now I can watch 8 hours of lost before I get my lazy ass off the couch.

Seriously though if content providers start doing this (and I dont think they will) I may need to buy a domain like NotReallyHD.Com to warn consumers.


RE: HD
By tk109 on 6/16/2006 1:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
"You miss his original question."

No I didn't. I answered him. The answer is yes when they use film (which they will when they can) it's plenty good enough for HD. If they use other means then no it's not good enough and will have to be upsampled. He's wondering if it's even possible to make true HD content now unless it was a recent movie shot with HD cameras. So we are telling him that yes it's possible and is going to be done with these discs. It's not hard to gather that from my original post.


RE: HD
By Bowsky on 6/16/2006 4:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
He's right. If I remember correctly the HD standard was designed to provide the same quality of image found on 35mm film. 35mm or better has been used in movies and in many television shows for decades now.

Also many of the current DVDs being release were mastered at HD resolutions and then down sampled to 480p to fit on a 9gig disc. Already having this master removes the need to take the 480p and just up sample it to HD resolutions.


RE: HD
By 13Gigatons on 6/17/2006 8:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
35mm print has about 8 million pixels, well above the 2 million in HDTV. They also have a newer version which had about 12 million pixels but Hollywood has not adopted that yet and probably won't since they want to go Digital.

I'm not sure what 70mm and IMAX have but that IMAX is mindboggling.


What does he expect?
By Shoal07 on 6/16/2006 9:19:26 AM , Rating: 1
First time I booted up the player it did lock up. I hope this isn't a sign of things to come. Had to unplug player and start again. Second time worked great

Honestly, with a first gen anything, what does he expect?




RE: What does he expect?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2006 9:53:15 AM , Rating: 2
You don't expect consumer gear to lock up, be it generation one or 51.


RE: What does he expect?
By TheDoc9 on 6/16/2006 10:12:10 AM , Rating: 1
Disagree, almost every computer I've used, brand new or built has frozen at some point in the setup process. They tend to be fine afterwards.

True this isn't a standard pc computer, however consumer electronics are getting much closer lately (to pc's). Especially since this uses java and although it's a special version of java, the processing power for that alone is probably be immense for an off the shelf disc player, certainly more than any other before it. These things tend to add complexity and likely hood of random problems. Look at the 360 as a perfect example.


RE: What does he expect?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2006 10:32:20 AM , Rating: 2
Consumer gear, not a PC. A computer has a variable and near-infinite amount of hardware and software which can be isntalled upon it. Consumer hardware is a fixed, immutable platform. A lockup on such gear is pretty much inexcusable....certainly not something one "should expect".


RE: What does he expect?
By creathir on 6/16/2006 12:40:57 PM , Rating: 3
I totally agree...
To compare "uptime" of a PC with a device that has set hardware/software is just rediculous. As stated, there are almost infinate combinations of hardware and software that can "gunk up" a PC... it is actually quite amazing the things boot in the first place, as complex as they are.
- Creathir


RE: What does he expect?
By TheDoc9 on 6/16/2006 10:19:36 AM , Rating: 3
If you've ever been to the AVS forum, these guys are hard core. So any comparisons he makes or any things that happen that wouldn't normally bother anyone, even the most demanding video/audiophile. Well it's going to bother them. These are the types of guys that will literally go over their new tv with a scanning tunneling electron microscope looking for dead pixels.


RE: What does he expect?
By michal1980 on 6/16/06, Rating: -1
How much $?
By Milliamp on 6/16/2006 7:21:54 AM , Rating: 1
How can you point out that these units are being sold at Best Buy but not mention the price they are selling them at?




RE: How much $?
By Milliamp on 6/16/2006 7:23:24 AM , Rating: 2
I read the thread, he paid $999 for it.


RE: How much $?
By Suomynona on 6/16/2006 7:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The lucky one, or unlucky if you're not a Blu-ray supporter, has picked up his unit for that single grand price tag ...


RE: How much $?
By jtesoro on 6/16/2006 8:00:04 AM , Rating: 2
When I read that part, I actually thought it was figurative rather than literal.


need some movies
By IMPoor on 6/16/2006 11:13:52 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that the blu-ray is out in stores is awesome. The sooner it becomes available the sooner the price wars can bring the price low enough for the average consumer. But the fact that you buy a $1000 player and there is no movies for it sucks ass. At least one action movie would be good. I saw the commercial for Underworld: Evolution on TV and it said that coming soon to BLu-Ray. That would be a good one to test it out.




Personally, don't see the point yet
By killmax on 6/19/2006 7:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'm wondering what all the hype is about. I have yet to see any HD-DVD or Blu-Ray media. Does it look that much better than current DVD's. People are talking about this like the switch back in the day from VHS to DVD. That change I could understand, but this? Personally I think it is the companies pushing a new format onto the customer when there is no need or outcry for it. Their going to stick you with a $1000 dollar bill so they can fit a whole season of a show on one disc. Did I ask for it on one disc? NO! Not worth my money yet!




Several points
By vgermax on 6/21/2006 11:12:04 AM , Rating: 2
1. Complexity aside, consumer electronics should not "lock-up", first generation or otherwise. This can hardly be considered nit-picking, but shows a serious lack of QC. This seems, however, to be a new problem that consumers will now be burdened with as the Toshiba players have similar reports of problems.

2. HD has little to do with the original source being digital. As noted in other posts the digital output from the telecine sets the "resolution". The source, however, must be of sufficient quality in order for the telecine not to reveal flaws in the source. eg. grain noise, dust, film degradation, poor optical resolution, etc. It is highly debated as to what an equivalent resolution of film can be considered. I believe you need to exceed 10MP before you start resolving grain in film which would imply that the limit of the film resolution is being resolved by the digital capture. This, of course, depends upon the size of the film frame being captured and in this instance refers to 35mm film. There are also matters of the dynamic range of digital capture versus analog (film) capture which haven't been touched upon in the comments thus far.

Having a digital source merely removes some of the potential contributors to image degradation. With respect to upsampled HD being HD, technically it is a true statement, but the limitations of the source apply. It will not be possible to resolve the full resolution with an upsampled picture. To nitpick another post, if Lost can fit 4 episodes per disc, a dual-layer BD should fit ~20 episodes per disc assuming the same encoding bitrate.

3. Lastly, as to what the point of all this is? A significantly better picture. Going to full HD is a bigger leap than going from analog VHS to DVD. First consider the HD that is currently available, broadcast HDTV. A head to head comparison between HDTV and analog TV is almost shameful. A comparison between a DVD and HDTV isn't that much better. The DVD exhibits much lower noise levels than an analog video signal, and can resolve a marginally higher resolution but is definitely in the same "ballpark". HDTV is nearly an order of magnitude greater in resolution. Recently, X-Men 2 was broadcast in HD. A head-to-head comparison of the broadcast and the DVD left the DVD lagging far behind. For instance, one can actually resolve the make-up, and appliques on Mystique.

Now also consider that OTA HDTV broadcasts have a bitrate that typically does not exceed 12Mbps, but both HD-DVD and BD have video bitrates that start at 50% higher, and can peak at over 3x that of OTA HDTV (18-40 Mbps, with 18-24 Mbps being nominal). For the same compression algorithm an improved picture should already be evident, but consider OTA is encoded in MPEG2, and the new formats have the option of encoding in MPEG4, or VC1 as well, which are more efficient algorithms and the ptoential for a signficant reduction of compression artifacts should be evident. Having said all this the potential for a dramatically better picture should hopefully be evident.




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki