backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 89 comment(s) - last by Link.. on Apr 10 at 3:58 PM

If you can tell the difference, Halo 22 should look best on Blu-ray
Sony commits Blu-ray to be bigger than HD DVD, literally

Although the high definition optical format camps are divided into two, they both share many of the same characteristics. Both formats support nearly identical video and audio codecs and when all things being equal, should deliver identical experiences.

Aside from movie studio exclusives support, the main differentiating factor between the formats is storage space. In their current market iterations, Blu-ray Discs hold a 20GB advantage with its dual-layer 50GB media when compared to HD DVD’s dual-layer 30GB discs.

Sony realizes this distinct advantage, and is committing to rolling out 80 percent of all its forthcoming Blu-ray titles as 50GB discs, according to Video Business.

When transferring a film onto Blu-ray, compression engineers may utilize the extra 20GB to attain higher bit rate video and to accommodate lossless audio streams. While many dual-format releases of late, such as The Departed, feature identical video streams encoded with the same codec, engineers recognize that the added space afforded by Blu-ray can be spent to improve quality.

The encoders responsible for Nine Inch Nails: Beside You In Time, released on both HD DVD and Blu-ray acknowledges the difference. On the difference between the HD DVD and Blu-ray versions of the concert, a FAQ document on the NIN Web site reads, “Technically speaking, the video quality of the Blu-ray version has a slight edge over the HD DVD: It was encoded at a slightly higher bit rate due to the Blu-ray spec's higher bandwidth capabilities for encoded video streams. However, this difference is nominal and would only be noticeable by a pair of well-trained eyes on an extremely expensive professional 1080P monitor.”

No matter how indistinguishable the differences 20GB may make, Sony is keen on using every bit of that extra space to prove its superiority over HD DVD.

“It’s important, especially in this phase, that we make sure we are showing the absolute best quality in video and audio, and 50GB accomplishes that,” said Sony worldwide president David Bishop.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
cool
By Moishe on 4/3/2007 8:05:24 AM , Rating: 2
It's smart to make a real difference in the quality. Even if most people can't tell the difference, at least Sony can truthfully say "it's higher quality than HD-DVD".

On the other hand, I won't be able to tell the difference, but it does give people another reason to buy into blu-ray or more validation if they've already made the decision.




RE: cool
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 8:30:08 AM , Rating: 3
Except for the fact that, at least for now, most BD movies are in the 25GB format and thus smaller than HD-DVD. And, even at half-capacity, the average person still can't tell a difference between the two formats...except for the early BD films encoded on Mpeg-2. You just don't need 50GB (or usually even 30GB) to encode HD movies under VC-1.

Seriously, in the case of movies, the capacity difference is a nonissue. Its relevant only for data storage.


RE: cool
By Moishe on 4/3/2007 8:40:31 AM , Rating: 5
I agree. This wouldn't sway me. But if Sony starts using the space to encode a higher-than-HD-DVD-quality video they will have that "checkbox" checked on the list of reasons why to buy blu-ray. Like I said, some people are already sold on blu-ray and this may just act as validation for their previous purchase. Either way I think it's a smart way to use the space for movies since the space IS there to be used.

Reality is if you have 50GB capability and are only using 25GB, then the whole argument is pointless. Capability is nice, but until it's used it's just a checkmark on a feature list.


RE: cool
By GoatMonkey on 4/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: cool
By zsouthboy on 4/3/2007 11:28:32 AM , Rating: 4
Um. No.

There is no 2160p spec.

There is no display capable of displaying 4x the resolution of 1080p.

There is no digital video recorder recording at that resolution.

In short: no.


RE: cool
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: cool
By GoatMonkey on 4/3/2007 12:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
You guys always take the bait. It would be awesome if they could though.


RE: cool
By Cygni on 4/4/2007 1:31:19 AM , Rating: 2
wow, you completly missed the point, didnt you?

And yes, there are displays capable of 3840x2160.

Even if there werent, his point was futureproofing. As in the FUTURE.


RE: cool
By NainoKami on 4/3/2007 12:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
What's the point? You can't tell the difference anyway unless you have a HUGE screen and sit abnormally close to it...

http://www.audioholics.com/education/display-forma...


RE: cool
By Lazarus Dark on 4/3/2007 12:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
hmm. thanks for the link. Good read. I agree, 2160p or quadhd is not necessary for video. But I would love one as a pc display for photoshop and for some serious multitasking. I think gaming would really benifit from quadhd, especially if you had a curved screen, that would be extremely immersive.

As far as the 480p vs 720p vs 1080p debate, I would always choose 1080, because even if my viewing distance was too far to notice the difference between a 720p display and 1080, I can tell the difference between 720 scaled and 1080 native res on the same display (my 1080p Westinghouse). So, since most hd is 1080 and hddvd and bd are 1080, I would go with the native res of most hd content.


RE: cool
By GoatMonkey on 4/3/2007 1:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
I won't be satisfied until I have an ultra high definition imax in my house.

Obviously, it doesn't matter at this point even if they did this it would mean scaling up the video and then scaling it back down to play it back. The source video is usually not good enough yet for it to matter. And someone else mentioned that 50gb is not enough anyway. I just wanted to see some reactions to that post.

I don't believe that it's not possible for movie studios to record in higher definition though. I think there are even some film formats that could give you the level of clarity you would need to make a 2160p or 1440p video look good.

Major motion picture studios should be recording more than they need in order to create a super-hidef version in the future when we have media and displays that can handle it.

It's pretty clear that even if the standard for higher resolution televisions is not yet written into a spec, that it is coming. You have higher resolution 30" displays from Apple and Dell already. They are not intended as televisions of course, but it shows that there is already a need for it.

You know you want to reply. Do it.


RE: cool
By NainoKami on 4/3/2007 4:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
You're still missing my point. At normal viewing distances 2160P, or whichever resolution above 1080P you want to mention, isn't intelligible. You can't see the pixels in the first place, so why increase resolution which includes: Higher cost and a new format, as Blu-ray doesn't support that high bitrates!
A few things that can be of much greater significance is colour depth, compression ratio, black levels (ie. mastering of the actual footage to get the levels right), and pure and simple competent people doing the actual transfer. A lot of things can go wrong in a transfer from film to digital formats, and you really tend to notice with all these nice displays we can suddenly afford. 1080P has AWESOME potential! Now we just need good transfers! (Not saying there aren't any, but there are movies out there that are pretty bad transfers, all things considered)


RE: cool
By dever on 4/3/2007 1:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
Try using the display as a computer monitor as well, or trying to view small text and you'll quickly see that the 1920x1080 resolution has validity. My 15" laptop is 1920x1200 and I love using it at it's native resolution. I love the extra real estate.


RE: cool
By NainoKami on 4/3/2007 4:06:25 PM , Rating: 1
We are not talking about a computer here. I have a 23" 1920x1200 screen and I love it, but even sitting a few feet from it I can't see the pixels - at all! I have better than 20/20 vision (ie. about 20/15 to 20/10), but film is one thing, and computing is another... And I hate to be nit-picky, but I think the subject was films...


RE: cool
By darkpaw on 4/6/2007 3:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
Great link, thanks. I bought a flat screen in February, and went cheap with a 37" 720p instead of being an idiot and maxing my credit for a 1080p.

Definately looks like the better choice in the end and I can always pickup a 1080p in a few more years when they drop down to the price I paid for my cheap 720.


RE: cool
By BZDTemp on 4/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: cool
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 9:42:41 AM , Rating: 4
> "And you know this how? Have you checked most BD movies?"

It's been reported by several trade journals; the full list of 25GB BD movies is available online.

> "I think you need to do some reading on compression tech since you're naming MPEG2 as if it is a bad thing. "

MPEG2 has lower image quality than VC-1/H.264 at a given bitrate. The early 25GB BD films that used MPEG2 suffered from a very "soft" picture, and more compression artifacts.

This is pretty basic stuff, and not really open to debate.


RE: cool
By Spivonious on 4/3/2007 9:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
pwned


RE: cool
By SunAngel on 4/3/2007 9:54:27 AM , Rating: 1
You can go to this website and learn all about the current and previous movies released on Blu-ray.

http://www.blu-ray.com/

Nearly everything is being produced on the 50GB discs with a variety of formats from MPEG-2 to to VC-1 to MPEG-4 AVC.