Blu-ray & HD DVD - Who Has the Upper Hand?

[BMXTRIX]

1) This is an editorial

An editorial which focusses on many negatives. Got any editorial, that doesn't read like a press release, that focusses on all the aspects, both good and bad?

2) MPEG-2, while it can be beautiful is held back on BD because you have to fit the length of the movie on the 25GB disc. This is the reason for reports of macroblocking, etc... Also, larger resolution = different compression issues. This isn't DVD.

No, it's not DVD - it isn't a 10 year old format with all the bugs worked out. It isn't established, and it quite clearly has issues. But, the articles don't talk about 25GB being the primary issue - it talks about 19.4Mbs being an upper compression limit... I haven't heard that in my life. It says things like "It's the same older, slower codec" - I wasn't aware of it being 'slow'. Makes me scratch my head in wonder. Just a bit negative.

3) Despite these blunt articles, we don't want the formats to fail.

Good! But, blunt articles that focus on one side of things... and are, as you say 'editorials', not reviews.

4) I am scheduled to review the new Samsung BD player as soon as they can ship it to me (paperwork has gone through). At this point there will be an honest review - delivering the first hand perspective that has been lacking.

It's going to be a pretty miserable time. There are already reviews out, and they are all pretty much the same. At the VERY least I hope you get a demo HD disc with some properly encoded video at full bandwidth rates... I believe you may find that some of that MPEG2 stretches well beyond 19.4Mbs. Either way, it likely will not be a pretty review - and should not be. Especially with the movies current available. I would rather see two discs than what is currently being offerred.

5) I honestly don't care which format is better of "wins". I just wish the industry had been smart and taken a closer look at the past. High Definition DVD does not seem to be a replacement (now or in the near future) for DVD. It is not being marketed that way and it is not being handled that way by manufacturers or the studios.

DVD didn't 100% replace VHS and marketing hasn't begun yet. A $1,000 product, or even a $500 product is not a 'mass market' product. You know that! It isn't a 'near future' replacement of any sort. It would be a long term replacement, at best, and will take years to penetrate enough homes to usurp DVD... and all those homes really need HD displays! Yes, it's a ways off.

6) Ned admitted we're respected.

I try to repect everyone - but blunt can go all directions can't it? I do strongly agree with "the smart money is on wait-and-see" - but the immediate follow up is a statement about MPEG2... is it accurate or completely false and poorly informed? I may be poorly informed, but MPEG2 at higher bit rates (30Mbs+ or so from reading and memory) is what is supposed to be necessary for 1080p delivery accurately. MPEG2 isn't the flaw, 25GB is the flaw and releasing movies now, without 50GB is the flaw.

 

[Wayde Robson]

BMXTRIX

I did some checking and the overhead is only partly true. It's not imposed by Mpeg2 itself, but by the method they decided upon for broadcast HD.

A well educated friend will provide the details in a quote:

"There is no such limit for MPEG2. The compression algorithm simply compresses the original information (for example over 1 Gb/sec for HD programming) to 19.4 Mb/sec or less for broadcast.

This is a compression factor of over 50 and it's quite amazing that our pictures look as good as they do, when you take that tremendous amount of compression into consideration.

The broadcast limit of 19.4 was decided a while ago for OTA - it also happens that two such bitrates fit perfectly into one cable 256 QAM signal.

MPEG is also used for DVDs if I recall, where the "limit" is 10 Mb/sec for the total DVD information. (Video is slightly less)."

So, I would suggest that where I said that Mpeg2 imposes this limit is certainly wrong. This limit is probably decided when the individual disk is encoded. This transfer rate limitation being met is what causes macroblocking in HDTV, this happens when the images start moving around quickly. The transfer rate of any given BD disk could be less or could be more probbaly depending on the amount of compression required.

 

[Wayde Robson]

Another quotable from the same discussion:

"VC1 is more advanced codec than MPEG2. It achieves its "sweet spot" in the 12-16 Mbps range, while MPEG2 requires something around 25-28 Mbps. The "sweet spot" describes the level of quality that achieves so called "transparency" - almost undectable differences between the same compressed and uncompressed images. The above quoted bitrates apply to the 1920x1080p 24 fps standard in which movies are stored on BluRay and HD DVD disks.
Since BluRay for now is stuck with less capacity - 25 GB vs 30GB for HD DVD - and stuck with MPEG2, they cannot use high enough MPEG2 bitrate to achieve transparency. Hence the lower quality of current BluRay disks."

BMXTRIX, are you saying that the current crop of BD movies look just as good as HD DVD movies? Or are you saying that the reason the current crop of BD movies don't look as good is due to something other than the Mpeg2 codec?

Any review I've read comparing the image quality between the two comes to the same conclusion. Please let me in on a review that states the opposite.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Another quotable from the same discussion:

"VC1 is more advanced codec than MPEG2. It achieves its "sweet spot" in the 12-16 Mbps range, while MPEG2 requires something around 25-28 Mbps. The "sweet spot" describes the level of quality that achieves so called "transparency" - almost undectable differences between the same compressed and uncompressed images. The above quoted bitrates apply to the 1920x1080p 24 fps standard in which movies are stored on BluRay and HD DVD disks.
Since BluRay for now is stuck with less capacity - 25 GB vs 30GB for HD DVD - and stuck with MPEG2, they cannot use high enough MPEG2 bitrate to achieve transparency. Hence the lower quality of current BluRay disks."

BMXTRIX, are you saying that the current crop of BD movies look just as good as HD DVD movies? Or are you saying that the reason the current crop of BD movies don't look as good is due to something other than the Mpeg2 codec?

Any review I've read comparing the image quality between the two comes to the same conclusion. Please let me in on a review that states the opposite.

Nah - I'm saying exactly what you quoted - MPEG2 + 25GB + a 2 hour movie looks like arse! Either VC-1 or AVC + 25GB is required or MPEG2 + 50GB of storage (higher bit rate) is required. Current Blu-ray Disc movies look horrible and the studios should be ashamed for letting such filth hit the streets under any circumstances. But, the fault is two fold. It is the combination of single layer Blu-ray Discs and the use of MPEG2. Switching either of those variables should fix the image quality issue. I say should, because you still need quality control and people to do the encoding to make sure everything actually looks as good as possible.

Currently, MPEG2 is sitting closer to 17Mbs from what I have read for the movies that have been issued. Some people are pushing 'transparency' levels as high as 30Mbs. In the end, if MPEG2 is to be used, then 50GB discs will be required for most movies. I believe Warner and others are already pushing really hard for adoption of VC-1 to be used ASAP.

I agree - realistically we should be seeing VC-1 or AVC on a 50GB disc with HD extras and a lot of interactivity as well as HD audio formats... and probably wishing for even more than 50GB of space.

 

[ned]

Most of the positive reviews we've seen have been sugar coated and lacked any real criticism. They read more like blogs or press releases.

The Sound and Vision Magazine article for one is positive review without any sort of sugar coat. It's a fair review of Toshiba IMHO.

 

[BMXTRIX]

The Sound and Vision Magazine article for one is positive review without any sort of sugar coat. It's a fair review of Toshiba IMHO.

It is a fair review of the Toshiba, but doesn't actually touch much (if at all) on one of the biggest plusses for the Toshiba which is that for $500 (or the $800 model) they are being sold at a loss and are an extraordinary value for the cash. That's a big plus. The big downside, which isn't mentioned - at all - since it is a strict review of the player itself... is that software (movie titles) may be lacking for a long time since HD-DVD doesn't have a lot of major studio support... But, as I said, that isn't about the Toshiba.... is it?

One of my biggest gripes is that some people don't want to hear the good with the bad. They, for some reason, didn't expect the formats to get off to a slow start (it doesn't surprise me at all), and they didn't expect there to be any bugs whatsoever. Despite almost every format prior to it having those exact same issues. Just kind of bugs me... personally - to hear that from pros in the CE business who seem 'surprised'.

 

[ned]

I may be poorly informed, but MPEG2 at higher bit rates (30Mbs+ or so from reading and memory) is what is supposed to be necessary for 1080p delivery accurately. MPEG2 isn't the flaw, 25GB is the flaw and releasing movies now, without 50GB is the flaw.

VC-1 code has been promoted heavily to Sony but they refused to accept (typical Sony philosophy). Hopefully other studios who announced to release BD using the more advance VC-1 codecs will show improvement PQ.

 

[mfabien]

VC-1 code has been promoted heavily to Sony but they refused to accept (typical Sony philosophy). Hopefully other studios who announced to release BD using the more advance VC-1 codecs will show improvement PQ.

If these other studios do use VC-1 over MPEG-2, will the BD movies have better pictures than a Toshiba HD DVD? Isn't that the $64,000 question?

Will the BD picture be such over HD DVD that it will be worth paying double or more the purchase price to acquire the player?

Note: then there's the question of the new audio codecs which require HDMI 1.3 to access in the case of the BD player.

 

[Audioholics]

To be honest, the studios are dipnutz if they don't simply code the movie once in a CODEC that both players can read (such as VC-1) and hand it to both camps... why do it twice? The picture (source) quality should be exactly the same (and very good)... at least that's what I'd do.

It kills me that there are currently no duplicate titles on both Blu-ray and HD-DVD (since studios are still split on early releases). That is according to Amazon, and if I don't want to spend my time watching that supposedly-boring time-lapse Chronos title... Even so, I supopose I'd just be comparing a starved MPEG-2 stream to VC-1 at present.

 

[MBauer]

Middle Ground

I agree that much of the commentary around these formats has been sugar coated however it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that an editorial on Audioholics has to take the opposite extreme.

Yes it is an "editorial" but an editor should have caught the disconnect between the title and the contents. We are all guests here on the site and I respect that and attempt to make posts in the spirit of being a guest and visiting the site.

What we read on Audioholics is how we as readers gauge the reliability and benefit of the site. The editorial we are discussing needed the input of an editor, primarily to read it and discuss with the author the disconnect between the title and the actual document. I know I began reading it to inform myself and help me make a decision I felt it failed to provide the insight I was after. I am not discussing whether I agree or disagree with the piece, but the failure of it to deliver the value I hoped to receive. Defending it by telling me that most reviews and articles are sugar coating the devices doesn't make up for the tone and content of the editorial

 

[BMXTRIX]

If these other studios do use VC-1 over MPEG-2, will the BD movies have better pictures than a Toshiba HD DVD? Isn't that the $64,000 question?

Will the BD picture be such over HD DVD that it will be worth paying double or more the purchase price to acquire the player?

Note: then there's the question of the new audio codecs which require HDMI 1.3 to access in the case of the BD player.

If the video stored on the disc, is identical on both the HD-DVD disc and the Blu-ray disc, then the movie will be identical. The PLAYER is then the unit that will come into question for video quality. Unfortunately, it is known - actually established - that the HDMI output from the Samsung player is a weak point with the player and component video should be used instad of HDMI for optimal image quality... go figure. Glad we will have some Blu-ray choices. Use of MPEG-2 on a DL disc (50GB) should also produce results that are equal to, or possibly a tiny bit better, than HD-DVD. Either way, should give that image that currently isn't there.

The Toshiba player is not a realistic long term product. It is being sold at a serious hardware loss. If Samsung were to take losses the way Toshiba is, then the Samsung player likely would cost $400 or less for most people. Yes, the Toshiba is a deal. Is it worth spending more, for less, with Blu-ray? Well, 90% studio support is what I consider one of the most important aspects here. At this time, according to current alliances, you will NOT get most movies - EVER - in HD-DVD format. None of the Pixar movies, no Spiderman... no X-men... a host of other major titles.

IMO - This is why I would NOT buy HD-DVD right now. Not because I have anything against the format (at all!) but because HD-DVD does not have the industry and studio support at this time. Clearly something that could - maybe - change... but only if Blu-ray continues to be a very lousy performer.

As far as I know, all of the newest audio formats require HDMI 1.3. This is true for both camps, but HD-DVD does have a HD stereo version currently working and available. I have no serious issues with the entire concept - it seems to me that 'wait' is definitely a very good thing to say considering HDMI 1.3 is a known necessity for top notch performance from these players. Heck, I will be in the PS3 camp... some fun gaming, HDMI 1.3, and HD discs - for a price comparible to the Toshiba. $600 is a cheap Blu-ray disc player... with a free video game system! All about marketing I suppose.

 

[ironlung]

It's good to wait!

...it seems to me that 'wait' is definitely a very good thing...

I've been waiting for years. Only getting new HD content with an eyedropper. How many more calendars do I have to throw away before the amount of HD passes the amount of SD?


Next year is gonna be SWEET!

 

[BMXTRIX]

Next year is gonna be SWEET!

The frustration is felt my friend... I stopped buying DVDs about 2 years ago with the knowledge that HD discs were on their way... slowly... on their way.

Next year, is going to be, if nothing else... interesting. Perhaps even moreso than this year with two new HD disc formats released. The holidays should be crazy this year... to see if marketing for Blu-ray and HD-DVD go through the roof, or if Blu-ray gets their quality together for movie releases... to see Panasonic, Sony, Pioneer, and perhaps Sharp & LG Blu-ray players enter the mix. To see if HD-DVD simply rolls over and plays dead - or if they are up to the challenge that may be put forth...

and vice-versa

I don't have anything against HD-DVD, I just want Blu-ray to make short work of that format so all studios support Blu-ray and that Blu-ray benefits as a technology overall from having to deal with a bit of competition for a little while. A very short format war I could see as a good thing - but some people will be burned by it, as is always the case with war. A long battle? That would not help the formats at all, or ease consumer adoption.

 

[Audioholics]

Guess what this is:

Ship date: Jun 29, 2006
Estimated delivery: Jun 30, 2006 3:00 PM

Destination: Lakeland, FL
Service type: Standard Overnight
Weight: 17.0 lbs.

Status: Picked up

 

[The Dukester]

A new Bose lifestyle system complete with 0 ga. snake oil speaker wire (hence the 17lb weight )for review

Guess what this is:

Ship date: Jun 29, 2006
Estimated delivery: Jun 30, 2006 3:00 PM

Destination: Lakeland, FL
Service type: Standard Overnight
Weight: 17.0 lbs.

Status: Picked up

 

[BMXTRIX]

Guess what this is:

Ship date: Jun 29, 2006
Estimated delivery: Jun 30, 2006 3:00 PM

Destination: Lakeland, FL
Service type: Standard Overnight
Weight: 17.0 lbs.

Status: Picked up

Your chance to be disappointed would be my guess. Unless, by some unknown reason they were kind enough to include the demo disc which has hi-bandwidth MPEG2 on it. You HAVE seen the Blu-ray player in stores by now haven't you? Geez, it just looks awful.

 

[Rob Babcock]

For me HD will be a reality when Denon makes a player that will do BRD & HD-DVD, as well as DVD-A & SACD!

 

[mfabien]

Guess what this is:

Ship date: Jun 29, 2006
Estimated delivery: Jun 30, 2006 3:00 PM

Destination: Lakeland, FL
Service type: Standard Overnight
Weight: 17.0 lbs.

Status: Picked up

First, your one to stick to the topic.

17.0 lbs sounds like an HD DVD player. A Samsung BD is just a little over 9 lbs.

Wise choice for a passionate man.

 

[Audioholics]

Must be shipping weight then... lol.

 

[Wayde Robson]

I can't wait to see your take on it.

Although I don't expect any surprizes, the Audioholics treatment is sure to be a little more in depth than much of what I've read.

I've read so many reviews on both devices lately that my dreams now refresh at 75Hz