backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by goodstuff.. on Dec 13 at 11:37 AM


Image courtesy Charles R
Toshiba updates its entry-level HD DVD player

It appears the second wave of HD DVD players are now hitting retail stores. Members over at the AVS Forum are reporting Toshiba's second generation HD-A2 is now showing up in Best Buys across the country and through online retailers.

Being a first generation product, the original HD-A1 had plenty of flaws including issues with slow startup times, problems with HDMI compatibility, artifacting with 720p content and lack of 1080p support. Then there's also the fact that the HD-A1 was huge -- it simply dwarfed traditional DVD players that have had years to mature.

On the other hand the HD-A1 had exceptional image quality, a built-in Ethernet port, upgradeable firmware and a price that was half that of competing Blu-ray players. As of now, the HD-A1 can be had for a price of around $400 according to Froogle.

According to the folks at AVS Forum, the HD-A2 goes a long way to solving the problems of its predecessor but 1080p support is still missing (for 1080p, you’ll have to wait for the HD-XA2).

According to AVS member Kris Deering, startup times are still around 35-45 seconds. Disc loading times, however, have been cut from around 60-75 seconds down to 5-15 seconds. The unit itself is now slimmer, lighter, quieter and is overall a more polished product. Toshiba even saw fit to revise the rather poor remote included with the HD-A1.

Toshiba MSRP for the HD-A2 is $499 and you can find it online from a variety of stores or just head down to your local Best Buy to see one in person.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Same internals as Xbox360 add-on...
By therealnickdanger on 12/11/2006 4:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
Both the 360 and HDA2 feature the same S802A HD-DVD internal drive. This is a good buy for someone not interested in gaming!





RE: Same internals as Xbox360 add-on...
By jkresh on 12/11/2006 5:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
maybe, but the lack of 1080p support is sad, and its not much cheaper then a core system + hd dvd drive (and with some of the deals available now it may actually be more expensive then even a premium system + hd dvd drive). Microsoft just needs to release hdmi out for 360 (or at the least dvi).


RE: Same internals as Xbox360 add-on...
By Vertigo101 on 12/11/2006 5:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
One thing often overlooked with the 360 add-on is the audio options.

You'll never be able to hear any of the high-quality lossless tracks as they were intended, and instead have them downmixed to DD 5.1.


RE: Same internals as Xbox360 add-on...
By jkresh on 12/11/2006 6:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
I could be mistaken but I suspect that Microsoft could release an update to just pass the audio signal directly to your receiver and bypass any internal down mixing. Plus there are very few receivers that can handle the better audio options now (and if you can buy the multi thousand dollar receiver i suspect you will have a separate hd dvd and blue player).


RE: Same internals as Xbox360 add-on...
By Reflex on 12/11/2006 6:52:13 PM , Rating: 3
MS already announced that they are working on a lossless passthrough and DTS ES support for the HD-DVD users.


RE: Same internals as Xbox360 add-on...
By Vertigo101 on 12/11/2006 7:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
What medium do you suggest they would output that signal through? The TosLink connector lacks the necessary bandwidth to output those signals in their native format.

Without HDMI, you just won't be able to hear those tracks.
It's not a big deal for most people, but it is the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOSLINK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Definition_Multi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_TrueHD


RE: Same internals as Xbox360 add-on...
By Reflex on 12/11/2006 9:19:37 PM , Rating: 3
TosLink is more than enough for DTS ES, it is done now via that method for other DVD players without issue. I do not know if it has enough for uncompressed PCM or not, although once again I believe that PC's can send out that signal via TosLink in uncompressed PCM to recievers, which would kind of make that possible.


RE: Same internals as Xbox360 add-on...
By ArneBjarne on 12/12/2006 6:45:36 AM , Rating: 2
sure, but DTS ES is not new, it is not HD and it is not lossless, so what is your point?


RE: Same internals as Xbox360 add-on...
By abhaxus on 12/12/2006 7:29:34 AM , Rating: 2
Technically there is no such thing as "HD" audio. The term is a video term that has passed over to the audio world.

Toslink could easily do Dolby Digital Plus at 1500Kb/s like DTS does, but most receivers do not have DD+ decoders, and the original DD decoder only supports 640Kb/s max.

The thing limiting the next gen audio codecs right now is that receivers do not support them. I personally would be happy with DTS 96/24 at 1500kb/s transcoded from the higher standards for the time being, rather than having to unhook my dvd-a/sacd player's analog outputs from my receiver.


By rushfan2006 on 12/12/2006 9:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Technically there is no such thing as "HD" audio. The term is a video term that has passed over to the audio world.


Technically you are wrong. Ask Intel about that one. ;)


By ArneBjarne on 12/12/2006 11:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
The bitrate and sample frequency seems like a reasonable definition of the definition of digital audio.

You are right that the standard dts 96/24 is just as high definition as the new formats under the dts HD hat, the latter are just not compressed as hard.

In any case the dts ES is still not HD, and even if Reflex had refered to dts ES 24/96, which is HD, it would still not have been one of the formats that the orginal post was referring to.

Those formats, whatever you want to call them, require more bandwith than S/PDIF can handle.


By therealnickdanger on 12/11/2006 9:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
'Tis true, unfortunately. Until Microsoft unleashes HDMI for the Xbox360, the best we'll ever be able to do is 1.5Mbps DTS over TOSLINK... which is almost 3X better than being downmixed to DD 640kbps, like it is now. However, given that there are currently no TrueHD HDMI receivers available, we aren't at a disadvantage yet. Until that time, we can at least feel some comfort in knowing that the Xbox360's downmixing abilities are excellent.



A2 is $399 street.
By Eug on 12/11/2006 5:40:36 PM , Rating: 3
I must say, lack of 1080p support doesn't bother me at all. The 1080p support of the XA2 is p60 anyway, not p24. (All will read 1080p24 of course, since that's how the discs are encoded.)

BTW, the street price at some stores is US$399 for A2 (including 3 free HD DVDs), so it's cheaper than getting an Xbox 360 with HD DVD add-on. At this price there's not much point in getting the A1, which is much slower anyway. Then again I got my A1 for just over US$200 on close-out... but then returned it because although it had a beautiful picture, it was very slow when first booting up. I'll just use my 360 HD DVD add-on for now.




RE: A2 is $399 street.
By bisoy on 12/11/2006 7:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.

Also if your TV has a good deinterlacer then it can convert your 1080i signal to 1080p without much video degradation.


RE: A2 is $399 street.
By Goty on 12/11/2006 8:02:53 PM , Rating: 1
Not if it's not supported by the player.


RE: A2 is $399 street.
By bisoy on 12/11/2006 11:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
it's a question more of whether it is supported by your tv and not the player. If you have a 1080p capable tv, chances are (especially the newer ones) that it can convert a 1080i source to 1080p. The question however is whether the pq will be as beautiful as an unconverted 1080p/24.


RE: A2 is $399 street.
By bisoy on 12/11/2006 11:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
And to think you will need a very good 1080p capable display to even notice the video improvement over 1080i -- and these displays don't come cheap.

So for me 1080i is just fine.


RE: A2 is $399 street.
By FITCamaro on 12/12/2006 7:00:36 AM , Rating: 2
I've got a 42" Samsung DLP. 720p looks perfectly fine to me. 1080p would just make standard definition sources look horrible.


RE: A2 is $399 street.
By abhaxus on 12/12/2006 7:21:46 AM , Rating: 2
That's not true at all... more pixels means that the display can more accurately scale lower resolutions, not the reverse.


New Tech vs $$
By cheetah2k on 12/11/2006 8:59:10 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, so $1000 for 1080.... Remeber the first BetaMax player/recorder that hit the shelves for $799? If not, I do (starting to show my age!) - It too was a HUGE box of goodies ;-)

Wait 6 months, and it will be half that price. New tech is always more expensive when its released. Throw in some stiff competition to the toshiba, and we'll all be smiling shortly.




RE: New Tech vs $$
By kg4alb on 12/11/2006 10:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
Why not just go pay about half the price for a BR player now and get the same feature set?


RE: New Tech vs $$
By Gatt on 12/12/2006 8:52:57 AM , Rating: 2
Please show me a BR player for $500, or even one under $1000. I don't know of any...


RE: New Tech vs $$
By GGA1759 on 12/12/2006 9:30:21 AM , Rating: 2
Sony's BD player is $999.99, that is under a $1000.

Also, it's BD (Blue-ray Disc), not BR.


RE: New Tech vs $$
By kg4alb on 12/12/2006 10:26:21 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously knew what I meant, so who cares?


RE: New Tech vs $$
By kg4alb on 12/12/2006 10:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Samsung_BD_P1000_BL...

Well there you go, there's a whole list of them. That's what happens when you take everything you hear on the internet as truth.


RE: New Tech vs $$
By goodstuff on 12/13/2006 11:37:51 AM , Rating: 2
Sasmung BDP-1000 $599 new at Amazon.


Prices (again)
By Goty on 12/11/2006 8:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
While the HD-A2 may be had for $400, the HD-XA2 is currently going for $1000+ (and yes, it is available, check pricegrabber). $600 just for 1080p? Pretty outrageous if you ask me.




RE: Prices (again)
By AlexWade on 12/12/2006 9:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
Question: How many people can tell a difference between 1080i and 1080p? Maybe I should ask, how many people know the difference between 'p' and 'i'? How many people can actually afford a 1080p set? The answer to all three is not many. I cannot tell a difference between 480i and 480p. My old Hitachi HDTV is capable of full 1080i. The only advantage going progressive scan is that motion is smoother, if you can notice at all. So why pay extra for a feature you probably won't get any benefit from? I'm not about to replace my HDTV just because something new came. That is where I'm like most.


RE: Prices (again)
By Goty on 12/12/2006 10:28:35 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what I'm getting at. Why pay that much money for a sinlge, questionable feature. And for those who are willing to pay for it, why pay that much?


1080p is just 1080i->1080p
By probedb on 12/12/2006 4:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
I thought from reading interviews etc that the 1080p output still won't be true 1080p but 1080i converted to 1080p by the player? Or is that just current generation BR players?




RE: 1080p is just 1080i->1080p
By abhaxus on 12/12/2006 7:24:47 AM , Rating: 2
The discs are encoded at 1080p/24. The player must convert them to 1080i/60 to add menus/OSD/"pip" because the hardware to add these things at 1080p is very expensive. This is true for both the samsung BDP-1000 and the new HD-XA2. Both players deinterlace the processed 1080i signal and then output at 1080p/60. I've played around with the sammy on a few displays and I definitely believe 1080i looks better than the 1080p output.


RE: 1080p is just 1080i->1080p
By rushfan2006 on 12/12/2006 9:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
eegats man.....prepare to get the diehards that believe all they read and the marketing sales boys out there that brainwash them to thinking "1080p is *ALWAYS* the best"....

I did a post about 1080i on some sets being equal or looking better than 1080p on other sets and the flames started fanning....LOL....


lol
By GhandiInstinct on 12/11/06, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By therealnickdanger on 12/11/2006 4:34:45 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
XBOX players who think they have 1080p with their new HDDVD

As someone who does have the HD-DVD add-on and 1080p VGA output, what exactly are you driving at?


RE: lol
By Enoch2001 on 12/11/2006 4:41:09 PM , Rating: 4
I think he's driving at that he rides the short bus, as I also have 1080p through VGA on my Xbox 360's HD-DVD drive.


RE: lol
By h0kiez on 12/12/2006 8:19:22 AM , Rating: 4
There's quite a lot of misinformation here for such a technical forum. For those that aren't quite up-to-speed, the "1080i" output from the HD-1A doesn't really matter. Here's an except from an article from Projector Central:

(URL:http://projectorcentral.com/retailing_HD-DVD_Blu-r...

Contrary to popular misconceptions, HD-DVD and Blu-ray are both 1080p sources. As far as movies are concerned, both disc formats are scanned and encoded in 1080p from the original film. So why the confusion? It comes from the fact that the first HD-DVD player, the Toshiba HD-A1, outputs 1080i, while the first Blu-ray player, the Samsung BD-P1000, outputs both 1080i and 1080p. That sounds like a big deal, but in reality this is more of a marketing/perception problem for the Toshiba player than a technical limitation.

Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray have all of the progressively scanned 1080-lines per frame of information on the disc, and this information is not lost or compromised in 1080i transmission. The transmission interface is simply a matter of the order in which the scanlines are read and transmitted to the video display. If they are transmitted in 1080p, they are sent sequentially. If they are transmitted in 1080i, they are sent in two fields, with one containing the odd numbered lines and another the even numbered lines. These two fields are then reassembled into sequential frames by the video processor in the TV or projector. Either way you end up with the full 1080p frame being used to create the picture, so there is no difference in the end result.


RE: lol
By hubajube on 12/11/2006 4:45:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
secondly for all the XBOX players who think they have 1080p with their new HDDVD from Microsoft.
What's funny is that you have no idea what you're talking about but are more than willing to show how ignorant you are on a public forum. LOL!


RE: lol
By Topweasel on 12/11/2006 4:57:07 PM , Rating: 1
The Only people not getting 1080P is Upconverters and they were never going to get 1080P. People need to remember that its video output is basically a desktop video card and that its ramdac can handle resolutions up to 2500x****. Their is no logical reason it can't be that it can't do 1080P. The only thing holding it back is rendering capabilities in games which even 1280x720 can be a stretch.


RE: lol
By therealnickdanger on 12/11/2006 5:14:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The only thing holding it back is rendering capabilities in games which even 1280x720 can be a stretch.

While I'm sure this whole thread could digress even further from the main focus, it's important to understand that the only limitations to any PC/console comes from programming. For example, Gears of War could run at 1920x1080, but some of the more stunning effects would have to be sacrificed. Fortunately, Epic determined that 720p with full eye-candy and 4xAA looked "good enough". We've already seen how graphically sterile 1080p PS3 games look in relation to their 720p Xbox360 cousins, so developers have to be choosy. With 48 unified pipelines running at 500MHz and up to ~480MB RAM at any given time, the Xenos GPU is certainly not lacking in grunt.


RE: lol
By borowki on 12/11/06, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By FITCamaro on 12/12/2006 6:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
The Xenos GPU automatically does 4x AA with the 12MB(?) of embedded memory thats directly on the chip. All Xbox 360 games get 4x AA for free with no framerate hit.


RE: lol
By therealnickdanger on 12/12/2006 12:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
That's close, but not completely correct. The Xenos GPU has direct access to a 10MB eDRAM framebuffer which *can* be used for post-processing effects like blur, AA, HDR, depth-of-field, and other effects the developer wishes to implement. It can be programmed to do other useful number-crunching activities as well. With its ridiculous bandwidth (256GB/s) to the Xenos GPU, a lot of hardcore processing can be freed from the GPU. I don't honestly believe this results in "free" effects in all cases, given unavoidable I/O overhead, but it is a substantial weapon in the 360's arsenal as well as a thorn in the PS3's side.


RE: lol
By Symbyant on 12/11/2006 6:50:16 PM , Rating: 3
Are you kidding me??? If you're going to talk something down, at least know what you're talking about when you do it. HD-DVD is totally capable of 1080p. All HD-DVDs are encoded at that resolution. The thing is that the players Toshiba has released so far do not output a 1080p signal. This was done to keep costs low initially. Furthermore, when Blu-Ray released, all of the videos were encoded using MPEG-2, not VC-1 or H.264, due to low yeilds of the 50GB double-layer disc. With just a 30GB disc, HD-DVD was doing movies in VC-1(I don;t know if any H.264 HD-DVD's have released yet). It has only beenit is. recently that true HD encoded Blu-Ray discs have come to market.

I don't have either format yet, but I'd rather the format be solid and have to wait for players to catch up, than the other way around (although it's not like the Blu-Ray players have been performing any better). It's true that Blu-ray players support 1080p, but at or more than twice the cost of what you can get an HD-DVD player(PS3 excluded, if you can find one). Oh and btw, to agree with many who posted before me, the X360 does ouput HD-DVD at true 1080p over vga and component.

You see what I did there, GhandiInstinct? I had a point to make, which I did in a clear manner and backed up what I was talking about. And remember, while Sony has had some great products in the past, they've had just as many under performing ones, many of which have been relatively recently, so just because Sony says that it's the best thing on earth, that doesn't mean that it is (especially today).


RE: lol
By Ecmaster76 on 12/11/2006 10:24:30 PM , Rating: 1
The use of mpeg-2 has nothing to do with low yields of high capacity discs. mpeg-2 has higher space requirements than h.264 or vc-1 at a given quality level.


RE: lol
By Symbyant on 12/12/2006 9:57:44 AM , Rating: 1
Actually it has everything to do with it. Although VC-1 and H.264 both have a higher compression ratio than MPEG-2(VC-1 more so than H.264, albeit H.264 has a higher signal-to-noise ratio), the ratio is not the only thing that matters. What actually matters is how the compression standards achieve their compression rates. All of these standards are lossy, so different standards cut out different parts of the picture data. Thus, if space were not an issue, it would not be possible to attain the picture quality of VC-1 or H.264 with MPEG-2.

While your statement that MPEG-2 would take more space than VC-1 or H.264 is accurate supposing that they all were at the same quality level, the MPEG-2 Blu-ray discs were authored at much lower quality (due to the limits of MPEG-2) than their VC-1 counterparts on HD-DVD and the more recent H.264 Blu-ray discs. This is because to author a full-length H.264 Blu-ray title, at 1080p with all the high quality color and picture data, it took more than the 25GB limit at the time. HD-DVD primarily uses VC-1, thus its higher compression ratio allows them to fit an HD movie on a smaller disk (why blu-rays have not been encoded in VC-1, I do not know). However, the 25GB limitation is what forced them to encode using the older MPEG-2 standard, which lost more data. In fact many of the early Blu-ray reviews point out that a number of the initial Blu-ray movies, while encoded at a higher resolution than the DVD versions, looked even worse than the DVD versions, because they had to skimp on quality in other areas to stay within the limit. Hope this clears some confusion.


RE: lol
By DocDraken on 12/12/2006 10:59:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, the 25GB limitation is what forced them to encode using the older MPEG-2 standard, which lost more data.


That doesn't make any sense. With more space available you can use a less efficient (and less hardware demanding) compression algorithm. With less space the opposite. To say that they used MPEG 2 instead of H.264 because there weren't enough space is utter nonsense.


RE: lol
By Symbyant on 12/12/2006 12:05:24 PM , Rating: 1
You're right, when pulling that sentence out of context it doesn't make sense. However, like I said before, different compression algorithms work in different ways. I'll make this simple. Comparing MPEG-2 to H.264 (or VC-1 for that matter) is like comparing apples to to oranges; they are both fruit, but they taste and look different. H.264 was made for encoding HD content, it was never intended to be encoded at such a low bit rate which leads to lower overall quality. With H.264 encoding at 1080p, they could not fit a whole movie onto 25GB. MPEG-2 however, was designed to handle (now considered) lower fidelity video and hence allowed video to be encoded at 1080p, but be less than 25GB, but it sacrificed overall picture quality (not resolution) to do so. The MPEG-2 decision was also reinforced by the fact that all movie publishing companies already had MPEG-2 authoring tool chains which the blu-ray consortium thought it would make it easier to get more blu-ray titles out of the door quickly. Ironically, HD-DVD has been using VC-1 and has a handful more titles out than Blu-ray.


RE: lol
By ChristopherO on 12/12/2006 4:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't quite correct.

H.264 and VC-1 has lower bit rates *at reference quality* for HD video than does MPEG-2.

You can do H.264 and VC-1 at 15Mbps and far surpass anything from MPEG2 at any bit rate.

However, if you do an apples-to-oranges comparison, MPEG2 is smaller. Meaning, MPEG2 at 480p is going to be smaller than an HD codec at 1080p. However MPEG2 at 1080p will never be smaller (for an equivalent quality than either H.264 or VC-1). At reference quality, MPEG2 will always be drastically larger than either of the other two.

For instance, MS did an in-house compression run of Batman Begins at 12Mbps and achieved a picture that they considered indistinguishable from the master. WB later used 15Mbps for the final encoding because that, plus extras, most effectively made use of the 30GB of the dual layer HD-DVD they were targeting. You'll see a lot of regular DVDs at 7-9Mbps for 480p, so you can see how this is basically amazing.

Additionally, you can see the HD content on Xbox Live Video Marketplace. They have some 720p movies available that use a significantly lower bit rate than even DVDs, and the quality looks somewhat similar to broadcast HD. Broadcast HD (MPEG2) is ~19Mbit, whereas the Xbox live videos are VBR peaking around 5Mbit or similar I believe.

You can read about some of this in the HD-DVD area of AVS Forum. One of the frequent posters is a VP for MS in the media division.


RE: lol
By masher2 on 12/12/2006 5:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "You can do H.264 and VC-1 at 15Mbps and far surpass anything from MPEG2 at any bit rate ..."

Absolute statements are rarely correct, and this is no exception. If one wanted to construct an MPEG-2 stream out of nothing but constant bit rate I-frames, turning off all the adaptive motion compression, you'd see better quality than H.264 at 15Mbps. The stream might require a wholly impractical 100 Mbps or so, but it would still exceed the image quality.


RE: lol
By ChristopherO on 12/12/2006 8:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
You were taking my statements out of context. Selectively quoting parts of sentences, then literally interpreting the selective statement doesn't coincide with the overall tenor of the post -- plus it comes off sounding overly pedantic. It is possible to create scenarios to debunk many absolutes, but in this case those scenarios would never occur in anything resembling commercially released material. The absolute is still valid in that most people would accept the declaration as a reasonable substitution of phraseology for the intent of brevity.

You are however correct in referencing my statement which included H.264. Quality wise it will not fare as well as MPEG2 in lab-based comparisons, but in practically it tends to be a better format given the various limitations applied to either of the competing HD disc specifications.

Taking your argument to relevant conclusion -- there is a 54Mbit maximum on BD. In practicality, you'll see a maximum of about 40-45Mbit given the other data inevitably present on the media. At the available maximum you'll have a product roughly commensurate to the tighter streams from the newer compressors. Granted we're talking about lossy compression, so there can be frames where a specific compressor might have a more favorable algorithm for the provided image (or image series). Overall VC-1 has received the nod in quality in intra-industry codec shoot-outs. Regardless, you can make either VC-1 or H.264 look "reference" on a 25GB BD disc with ample room to spare for bonus content (which was the misinformation posted earlier I was attempting to correct).


RE: lol
By masher2 on 12/12/2006 9:06:53 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't quote your entire post, because it was, barring that one statement, correct. I'm sorry if you feel I took it out of context, however, the objection still stands. If you give MPEG1/2 (or any codec, for that matter) enough bandwidth, its going to outperform a bitrate-limited competitor. Perhaps your intent was to claim it would outperforma at any reasonable bitrate, but that's not what the statement said.


RE: lol
By ChristopherO on 12/12/2006 9:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
True, most codecs with unlimited bandwidth should outperform one which is limited. Well, unless the codec being compared is garbage and doesn't support deeper color depths or similar. Even then there are caveats...

Anyway, sorry for being rather defensive. I occasionally participate in another forum relevant to my work and there will be regular off-topic fanatics who insist on posting for the sake of being argumentative, twisting intent, or slandering everyone else. Being subjected to enough of that and you start to discard manners or pull out the battering ram a bit impulsively.


RE: lol
By masher2 on 12/12/2006 1:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "However, the 25GB limitation is what forced them to encode using the older MPEG-2 standard, which lost more data..."

No. The early BD films were encoded with MPEG-2 simply because the original release of the Sony DB Authoring Software didn't support VC-1 or H.264.


RE: lol
By Symbyant on 12/12/2006 2:26:32 PM , Rating: 1
So Sony released authoring software for it's HD Blu-ray format that didn't support the new HD-enabling compression technologies??? Frankly, the only reason MPEG-2 was even included in the new formats was for backwards compatibility with DVD. I find it very hard to beleive the their authoring software for Blu-ray only supported MPEG-2, if even initially, when neither HD-DVD or Blu-ray disc authors have ever intended to use MPEG-2 to encode HD content. I'll look into it. It may be true. If it is true, it was possibly one of the wrost ways to launch an HD format. But I gurantee you that you won't find a single layer H.264 Blu-ray on the market right now. If it was just the editing software, than why aren't there single layer H.264 blu-ray movies??? Just food for thought.


RE: lol
By masher2 on 12/12/2006 3:41:23 PM , Rating: 1
> "...So Sony released authoring software for it's HD Blu-ray format that didn't support the new HD-enabling compression technologies??? ...I find it very hard to beleive."

Shrug. From the Wikipedia entry on Blu-Ray, as well as dozen other sources:

quote:
Initial versions of Sony's Blu-ray Disc-authoring software only included support for MPEG-2 video , so the initial Blu-ray Discs were forced to use MPEG-2 rather than the newer codecs, VC-1 and H.264. An upgrade was subsequently released supporting the newer compression methods so the second wave of Blu-ray Disc titles were able to make use of this...




“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs










botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki