|
Blu ray vs DVD (which is better?)
|
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
11. July 2006 @ 12:54 |
Link to this message
|
Trains make more sense than cars to me. It is a shame they are taking out all those tracks. They can be so much faster and are much better for the environment. When, I go to high traffic areas, I cannot breathe. It is one of the worst feelings. Also, jogging in the city is tough because the air is so heavy.
As for Broadcast HDTV, I definately do not mean Comcast/Motorola, because cable HDTV looked like crap to me the last time I saw it. I mean free broadcasts through an antenna. When I first got a Comcast HDTV box I only kept it for 5 minutes. It was a complete dissappointment.
@Diablos,
I understand what you are saying about the Home Theater experience, but the whole fact that it is called "High Defenition" automatically markets picture quality. When you see the Demos, they always have a simulated DVD picture split with a HD DVD picture. They are not showing you the extra interactivity.
With audio, there is tons of room for improvement over DVD. I like VHS audio more than DVD unless if I am watching with multi-speaker surround. However, I am not big on having loud audio. The reason is that over 30db begins to damage your ears and 30db is not much louder than a loud whisper. Also, my ears are rather sensitive since I am used to being in silent rooms (I play classical guitar and I like to hear myself rather than background noise). Even the noise from typing right now is bothering me. I feel that the uncompressed audio from the new formats will be a big plus for me since you do not have to turn the volume way up to hear everything.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
Dfeyeant1
Newbie
|
11. July 2006 @ 15:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wow there's a lot of negative feedback on BD out there. Sucks, because my livelyhood is reliant on the success of the format. My company is putting out a few good A-list titles soon. Our compression yields by far the best hd pq anyone has seen yet. We will also be putting out an even more expensive player than Samsung in a few months. Samsung really jumped the gun, and I feel they are giving a bad name to the format. Wait till you see the Java capability on future BDs, it's very futuristic and fancy.
BD OWNS!!11!
|
|
dblbogey7
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
11. July 2006 @ 16:56 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
As for Broadcast HDTV, I definately do not mean Comcast/Motorola, because cable HDTV looked like crap to me the last time I saw it. I mean free broadcasts through an antenna. When I first got a Comcast HDTV box I only kept it for 5 minutes. It was a complete dissappointment.
Did you use DVI or HDMI?
OTA HD looks worse where I'm located - cable and satellite HD look better here. Besides you can't get the premium movie channels OTA. Most comments I've seen on internet forums still favor HD-DVD over broadcast HD:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=696717&highlight=...
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
11. July 2006 @ 17:54 |
Link to this message
|
In my area, OTA HDTV is better than cable and satellight simply because the bit-rates are higher for OTA. Soon DirecTV will be switching to MPEG-4 (in my area) in order to fit HD locals into their channel offerings. I'm eager to see what affect that will have on their exsisting HD channels.
But if you want more channels, cable or satellight are the only way to go. For HD movies it HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
Ced
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. July 2006 @ 17:55
|
|
lilazn7
Junior Member
|
11. July 2006 @ 18:57 |
Link to this message
|
I just have a few questions..
With the new Blu-ray discs, how they can hold up to 200GB, as stated before, will that not be enough since this "High Definition" data seems to take up a lot more space than DVD. Personally yet sadly, I have yet to see a HD show or movie. Is the quality much better? Is it worth it moving to HD/Bluray? A movie, taking up ~15GB has to have exceptional quality. My main question is, why is everyone using MPEG-2? I know that it's a DVD format, but what about people with a divX/Xvid player? What about Blu-ray's/HD-DVD's holding 15GB DivX/Xvid movies? Won't that be better quality?
EDIT: What will really suck is that with DVD, there was just that. No competition at all, so you didn't need anything else except a DVD Player/Burner and DVD Discs. What is really bad about this is that if you prefer HD-DVD Movies (err.. from the companies who own them) or Blu-ray movies (Disney, sony etc..) but what happens if you like both? I'm not sure if i'm completely accurate on this point but would you have to buy both a HD-DVD and a Blu-ray player to play the movies you want? Is there such thing as a combo player which can play both?
Any light on this subject would be greatly appreciated.
| | | [ »»»----« 後輩食 » ҳ̸Ҳ̸ҳ ĺīľāźņ ҳ̸Ҳ̸ҳ « 後輩食 » ----> ] [ « .·´¯`·-> plaиētşĥ4ķēя <-·´¯`·. » ] | | |
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. July 2006 @ 19:02
|
|
dblbogey7
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
11. July 2006 @ 19:50 |
Link to this message
|
OTA HD reception has always been a problem at my location even with good equipment. If DirecTV switches to MPEG4 in this area then maybe I'll switch too. I'd hate to give up firewire recording from my Motorola box though.
@lilazn7:
Those are really good questions and I'll try to answer a few as best I can - maybe Ced can fill in the gaps and make corrections.
Quote:
With the new Blu-ray discs, how they can hold up to 200GB, as stated before, will that not be enough since this "High Definition" data seems to take up a lot more space than DVD.
Current BluRay releases are single layer 25 Gig discs. Manufactuing the dual layer 50 Gig discs has proven to be problematic but should come in time. Future 200 GB discs would be used mainly for data storage.
Quote:
Is the quality much better? Is it worth it moving to HD/Bluray?
This depends on your display. A good sized HD display 42" or over should show an improvement over upconverted DVD's. I have a 60" 1080p and the picture quality of HD-DVD is absolutely stunning. I have read comments in other forums where the difference is less noticable on smaller displays.
Quote:
My main question is, why is everyone using MPEG-2? I know that it's a DVD format, but what about people with a divX/Xvid player? What about Blu-ray's/HD-DVD's holding 15GB DivX/Xvid movies? Won't that be better quality?
BluRay uses MPEG2 while most HD-DVD's use VC-1. (I think HDDVD releases from HDNet are MPEG2.) VC-1 is a newer more efficient codec than MPEG2 which results in a higher quality picture using less space. I'm not an expert on DivX and XviD but I think these codecs are not really suited for HD. Ced - correct me on this or maybe add more info pls.
Quote:
...but what happens if you like both? I'm not sure if i'm completely accurate on this point but would you have to buy both a HD-DVD and a Blu-ray player to play the movies you want? Is there such thing as a combo player which can play both?
It's two formats competing against each other. There are a few companies working on a combo solution - LG and Ricoh in particular - but no definite date yet. I already have the Toshiba HD-DVD player but since I do want to see for myself I did get the Samsung BluRay player too. Due to PQ issues I decided to return the Samsung but I plan to audition the upcoming Sony or Pioneer.
If you want to get your feet wet in the new formats I recommend HD-DVD. The Toshiba HDDVD player costs half as much as the BluRay from Samsung but the picture quality of the initial HD-DVD discs far surpasses that of BluRay. This is an almost unanimous consensus among enthusiasts and early adopters.
|
|
lilazn7
Junior Member
|
11. July 2006 @ 20:03 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks for the reply.
Concerning your answer regarding the VC-1 codec, I've heard some good things about the H264 codec. Is it any good? Is HD-DVD really worth paying all that money to get the player and discs?
| | | [ »»»----« 後輩食 » ҳ̸Ҳ̸ҳ ĺīľāźņ ҳ̸Ҳ̸ҳ « 後輩食 » ----> ] [ « .·´¯`·-> plaиētşĥ4ķēя <-·´¯`·. » ] | | |
|
|
Dfeyeant1
Newbie
|
11. July 2006 @ 22:41 |
Link to this message
|
The H.264 is the best compression out there in terms of pq that will fit on a Blu-ray disc. This compression is more efficient than HD DVD's VC1 and it is being made to utilize the entire 25GB BD vs. HD DVD's 15GB. Hold out for BD with this compression, you will finally see HD at its best. HD with the same mpeg2 compression has exactly 4 times better PQ, in terms of resolution, than a DVD; now imagine that "4 times" with a better codec while utilizing 25% more space with a higher bitrate. Soon you wont have to imagine, even the lameo Samsung player will display this supreme clarity. TV large or small the difference is noticeable. The Sony titles look closer to DVDs than to the H.264 compressed titles.
BD OWNS!!11!
|
|
eatsushi
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
12. July 2006 @ 06:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
@Dfeyeant1:
Good to hear that at least one BluRay company is in the process of authoring in h.264/MPEG4. Your releases should look much better than the current MPEG2 crop that's out there. Is it possible for you to divulge the name of your studio?
@lilazn7:
We're in the same boat. I see movies and future releases that I'd like that are in different camps and I'm just resigned to the fact that I'm just gonna have to get both players for my HD fix.
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
12. July 2006 @ 15:49 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I'm not an expert on DivX and XviD but I think these codecs are not really suited for HD.
DivX has a codec desgind for HD content but it is not on par with VC-1 or H.264 in PQ although files sized and encoding time are both amazing.
Look at this link posted by eatsushi in this thread for more info...
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/352796
Quote:
The H.264 is the best compression out there in terms of pq that will fit on a Blu-ray disc.
Where is your proof? H.264 (AVC) is supported by the HD-DVD camp aswell, so if it is better than VC-1 it won't be a problem. I doubt that AVC is better than VC-1 since VC-1 is being tested in the market place and is getting real feedback from customers and retailers that Micro$oft engineers can use to improve their codec.
Anyway, Blu-ray's problem isn't that the MPEG-2 codec is less-effeicient it is that the movie transfers look horrible, the Samsung player has poorly implamented de-interlacing chips, and the price for the player is twice as high and produce the same quality or worse.
With that said I would like to see a high action HD movie encoded with AVC and VC-1 for good comparison between codecs.
Ced
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. July 2006 @ 15:50
|
|
dblbogey7
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. July 2006 @ 04:24 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks for the clarification Ced.
So I know that H.264 is supported by BD and HD-DVD hardware but is DivX-HD? I don't see it in the hardware specs. I'm also interested in Dfeyeant1's claims that H.264 is superior to VC-1 and would really like to see discs masterd with this so I can see for myself. I hope he gives us a heads up on thier releases..
I've also been reading some comments about the CBR MPEG2 encoded D-VHS tapes (at 28mbps but at 720p or 1080i only) used in D-Theater. This encoding they claim is superior to Sony/BD's VBR MPEG2 and takes up less space.
|
|
Dfeyeant1
Newbie
|
13. July 2006 @ 14:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm not even supposed to tell anyone what we're doing here, so sorry I can't divulge my studio name. I've seen all the Sony titles, and I agree, they suck. Their pq is poor at best in comparison to our titles. I don't know if H.264 is necessarily superior, but I do know that with 25GBs we are able to encode at a much higher bit rate than if we had only 15GBs to work with. Everyone is talking about the multilayer deal, but it's currently a non-issue, at least until the format war comes to an end. I'm not too savy on some of the tech terms, but I do know that H.264 is aka mpeg4; isn't ACS an audio encoding? Come on, 25GBs!! What's the deal? The superior amount of space alone should make this an easy battle. What the hell are people thinking??
BD OWNS!!11!
|
|
dblbogey7
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. July 2006 @ 15:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
@Dfeyeant1:
That's too bad. BD's authored in h.264 would be a welcome piece of news for those who want to see better releases from the BluRay camp.
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. July 2006 @ 15:59 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
So I know that H.264 is supported by BD and HD-DVD hardware but is DivX-HD?
No, DivX-HD isn't supported by either next gen optical format. I think the only non-PC based system that plays DivX-HD files is the Philips DVP-5140.
Quote:
I don't know if H.264 is necessarily superior, but I do know that with 25GBs we are able to encode at a much higher bit rate than if we had only 15GBs to work with.
Currently, Blu-ray hasn't mass produced any dual layer discs while HD-DVD has. That means Blu-ray is limited to 25 GB and HD-DVD is limited to 30 GB. Also, I find that to many people are acting like the whole disc is used for video. This is not the case and has little relavance to the ability to encode high calibur video streams since there are more important factors. Some of those factors are; Quality of the transfer (if the source is film); Quality of the encoder; Quality and amount of audio streams; How much extra stuff is included; and the length of the movie.
Ced
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. July 2006 @ 17:16
|
|
dblbogey7
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. July 2006 @ 04:11 |
Link to this message
|
The resident experts at AVS forums have discussed VC1 vs H.264 in numerous threads and have repeatedly chosen VC-1 as superior. I myself would like to see first hand.
I found out (also from AVS forums) that Japanese HD-DVD releases are in H.264/AVC. Since the current players and software have not implemented region coding (yet!) I'll order a few Japanese titles online and see for myself.
They've also stated the bitrates of the initial US titles - presumably VC-1:
Quote:
most are 16mbits-22mbits Peak
some are 18mbits-24mbits Peak
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=689467
|
|
eatsushi
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
14. July 2006 @ 08:10 |
Link to this message
|
@Dfeyeant1:
I think I know where you're working:
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=17386
Quote:
Friday, June 23, 2006
Panasonic Launches BD-ROM Authoring Service in the U.S.
In order to provide the new service, Panasonic has installed Blu-ray Disc authoring equipment at PHL (Panasonic Hollywood Lab). The equipment installed for this purpose includes a specially developed MPEG-4 Advanced Video codec (AVC) encoder and a Blu-ray Java authoring system.
If this is where you work can you give us a heads up on your BD releases and maybe a discount on your upcoming BD player? (Just kidding!!!)
Added:
Here's a forum discussion on the status of Panasonic's H.264 decoder:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=699040
Another question - maybe for Ced:
Does anyone here think that BD50 releases - when they do come out - will cost more than current BD25's?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. July 2006 @ 10:12
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. July 2006 @ 15:44 |
Link to this message
|
They will cost more to produce but I don't think sony would try to pass the cost to the consumer since HD-DVD's costs/prices are already lower.
Quote:
Since the current players and software have not implemented region coding (yet!) I'll order a few Japanese titles online and see for myself.
Awsome! I can't wait to read your opinion on AVC vs. VC-1.
Ced
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
15. July 2006 @ 17:25 |
Link to this message
|
I've used h.264 (mainconcept software encoder) to encode some movies with lower bitrate (1500kbps) and I was not impressed by its effeciency. This was almost the same resolution as a DVD.
In terms of picture quality, it is crap, but compares to roughly a 2500kbps MPEG-2. I have yet to encode any videos for comparison between MPEG-2 and h.264, but I assume it is about the same as VC-1 only a tad slower.
As for the space on a disc, since they set a cap on the bitrates, a movie will fill roughly 11.25GB per hour.
This means that barely any movies will need more than 25GB for the actual movie. A movie like King Kong for instance, would require a larger disc and would need about 35GB at full bitrate.
@Dfeyeant1,
Quote:
HD with the same mpeg2 compression has exactly 4 times better PQ, in terms of resolution
You wording of this sentence confuses me. If you hold everything constant and only change the resolution, the lower the resolution, the better the quality (of course it does not scale as a straight line, so there is a point where lowering the resolution will yield no visible increase in quality.
For instance, encode a few seconds at 8mbps at 720x480 resolution and the exact same thing again at 1920x1080 resolution and again at 8mbps. I am pretty sure the lower resolution will look quite a bit better than the HD one.
As for PQ in terms of resolution, PQ and resolution are two different things. In order to keep PQ constant, as you raise resolution, you have to raise the bitrate. I do not know exactly how it scales though.
|
|
MARLBOR
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. July 2006 @ 03:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
first blu prety much has all ready won
first blue ray can read write hd format it just a licensing thing plus there more company going with the blue ray now sony being the bigest of course but that not real problem even microsoft who saporting hd is talking about puting a blu ray disk in there new xbox 360
the bennifits of blu ray r more then just hd video it can be exspanded well be on hd witch has become a selling point considering all hd realy is a new version of the dvd stander alot companys r seeing at as they will have to upgrade to somthing new with 10 years most likly blu rays based most likly y not now
ok here a list taking from the blu ray home site of movie studio releasing blu ray movie
Warner sony disney parmount loin gate mgm fox
but like i said if u realy want to get in to the techy stuff blu ray
would be a beter choice for your computer do to the fact that the same format that hd use blue ray can read and write so u see hd realy is out dated all ready cuz hd can not do blu ray it werid i know but true
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. July 2006 @ 08:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
MARLBOR
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. July 2006 @ 13:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
lol and this y i hardly every write a comennt in forums
ok the orginal question is what one is better blu rays or hd wel blue rays
blu rau can do every thing that hd can even write in hd own format but hd can not do every thing blu rays can so blue ray is better
now as for who will win the war i dont realy know
blu rays has constantly been steeling suporter from hd such as disney who were orginaly going to back hd
the main selling point of hd is it cheaper
now as for research wel i been reading about blu ray and hd for almost five years now and been fowloing blue ray even longer like when it orginaly dam near 10 years came up with the idea of burring 3d hollowgram disk so i like to think i research some at least
i just gave my thoughts on the subject
|
Senior Member
|
16. July 2006 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
No comment.Lol.
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. July 2006 @ 21:28 |
Link to this message
|
My point is that you have a bias toward Blu-ray because it simply has more storage. Your opinion is your own but spreading misconception doesn't help anyone.
Yes Blu-ray is better than DVD. But will it replace it?
Ced
|
|
MARLBOR
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. July 2006 @ 03:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
wel i guess i should have taken hd feeling in to consideration
in making it feel less important
ok there nothing wrong with hd it is a decent format 13.5 gig is good enough for the average user an so forth
but i was trying to stick to orginal queston which was what is beter
and as for sprending what ever that big word of yours was around
i try to keep thing simple my self
but ok
blu ray
benfit
can take a stander
cdr cdrw
dvd dvd- dvd+ dvdrw
and in creases th amount of straoge u can place on them
test have show for a stander cdrw an cdr u can increse the amount stored from 700 strander to over a gig depending on brand and method use
test have also shown that blu ray can increse the storage of a stander dvdrw dvd- and dvd+ from 4.5 gb to 5.5 and some cases more depending on brand and method of writing used granted that just some test result not to say the advertising that
hd can not do any of that to my current knowledge i might be wrong havent read any thing about that
so i would say if u want to buy an optical drive for your system i go blu ray becuz it can do hd video plus in increase the amount stroge to your exsiting dvd and cd not limitin u to just blu ray disk for my more storage granted this only opinion
i would say that not a smal thing
and i wasnt aware i was trying to help people
people r smart enough to read for them self not listen to my bias opinion
i some how dont think that there r going to be million dollars lost becuz of me
and this havs been the wriedest thing ever i seen never have i had some 1 agree with me then tell me i a bias and not helping any 1
that is screwy
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
DamonDash
Suspended permanently
|
17. July 2006 @ 08:36 |
Link to this message
|
Dont waste your time Marlbor because anytime you support Blu-ray in this forum your either Bias or dont know what your talking about.
|
