bluray.highdefdigest.com— Interview with Sony that addresses issues about transfers and codecs on Blu-ray disc also an explanation of Blu-wizard
Nov 4, 2006View in Crawl 4
LynxPyro is correct, don't bother digging him down unless you hate the truth.Its all about the price, Sony is trying to convince everything that they NEED Blu-Ray, just like Microsoft is trying to convince that we NEED HD-DVD. Sony has screwed up a lot lately, but in the past, their products have been of good quality for me (I have one of their HDTV's) and when the price eventually comes down (say to the range DVD players are now) then I'll consider it, but there really isn't a reason to upgrade unless your a hardcore videophile.Let the hardcore people have their bleeding edge for a little bit, let the dust settle, and pick what works for you when it works for you..This translates into everything, movies, consoles, music, blah blah, people need to stop picking extremes and try to be more moderate.
You know everybody that still uses the "it's another betamax" argument is a moron. Betamax lost to the lower quality VHS because tapes were 1 hour long unlike VHS's 2 hours. So who cares about having twice the capacity for video or data (like Bluray will offer)? Apparently the consumers do.
H.264 is a good codec, but it is not the holy grail for HD on optical disc. For one, it removes the film grain during and then adds simulated film grain back in. Most people wouldn't notice, but die hard videophiles can definitely tell the difference. MPEG-2 is also a great codec, but it was never designed for these sorts of resolutions and bit rates, and it is really being stretched to the limit of what it can do. VC-1 is by far the best codec out there for HD content on optical disc at this point. I have seen side-by-side comparisons of 1080p footage encoded in VC-1, MPEG-2, and H.264 at the exact same bit rates. Hands down, the image quality of VC-1 was definitely better. You are able to get the same quality out of VC-1 with about 20% lower bit rates. This doesn't mean the compression is more lossy, it just has a better compression algorithm.
"Amazing. Congratulations on posting the one millionth rootkit post on Digg and it's still not even funny. Do you guys still play the old "pull my finger" jokes and still find that funny? Clueless embeciles."And I hope people keep posting them. Installing malware on millions of hapless users is not something consumers should forgive and certainly not forget. The only real defense consumers have against fascist corporations is the dollar.
Actually, it for sure means it so more lossy. The amount of compression that can be done without loss can be calculated from the entropy in the source. If you compress more than that, you lose data. If you compress more, you lose more data.The key is to throw away the right data, data people won't notice.Anyway, there are lots of versions of H.264. Which profile of H.264 was in use? How many reference frames was it using? And you do realize that the spec for VC-1 or H.264 is a spec for playback. There is nothing that says that the best encoder for a given format has yet been created. The first DVDs looked like crap, with artifacts everywhere. Did that mean MPEG-2 was useless at those bitrates? No, it just meant that good encoders hadn't been created yet. This is yet another argument for Sony using MPEG-2 while H.264 encoders are improved.Your argument about MPEG-2 is silly. If you increase the amount of CPU available, the amount of data rate available, and the amount of RAM available, there is no reason MPEG-2 is out of its league or out of date. It's like saying that JPEG is good for up to 256x256, but you wouldn't want to use it for a 4000x4000 image. It's not true.I don't care about film grain. Digital projection already exists in theaters, and it doesn't have grain. People will get used to there no being grain, and many films will be shot on digital, thus there won't be any grain in the source either.
theg2Nov 4, 2006
LynxPyro is correct, don't bother digging him down unless you hate the truth.Its all about the price, Sony is trying to convince everything that they NEED Blu-Ray, just like Microsoft is trying to convince that we NEED HD-DVD. Sony has screwed up a lot lately, but in the past, their products have been of good quality for me (I have one of their HDTV's) and when the price eventually comes down (say to the range DVD players are now) then I'll consider it, but there really isn't a reason to upgrade unless your a hardcore videophile.Let the hardcore people have their bleeding edge for a little bit, let the dust settle, and pick what works for you when it works for you..This translates into everything, movies, consoles, music, blah blah, people need to stop picking extremes and try to be more moderate.
theprezNov 4, 2006
You know everybody that still uses the "it's another betamax" argument is a moron. Betamax lost to the lower quality VHS because tapes were 1 hour long unlike VHS's 2 hours. So who cares about having twice the capacity for video or data (like Bluray will offer)? Apparently the consumers do.
deepfreezedNov 5, 2006
sound like Sony backed propaganda
drgonzo2k2Nov 5, 2006
H.264 is a good codec, but it is not the holy grail for HD on optical disc. For one, it removes the film grain during and then adds simulated film grain back in. Most people wouldn't notice, but die hard videophiles can definitely tell the difference. MPEG-2 is also a great codec, but it was never designed for these sorts of resolutions and bit rates, and it is really being stretched to the limit of what it can do. VC-1 is by far the best codec out there for HD content on optical disc at this point. I have seen side-by-side comparisons of 1080p footage encoded in VC-1, MPEG-2, and H.264 at the exact same bit rates. Hands down, the image quality of VC-1 was definitely better. You are able to get the same quality out of VC-1 with about 20% lower bit rates. This doesn't mean the compression is more lossy, it just has a better compression algorithm.
ijumpNov 5, 2006
@KittyEater:>>If there's one company to get non-BIASED information about Blu-Ray from, it's Sony.There, fixed!
bluesdealerNov 5, 2006
"Amazing. Congratulations on posting the one millionth rootkit post on Digg and it's still not even funny. Do you guys still play the old "pull my finger" jokes and still find that funny? Clueless embeciles."And I hope people keep posting them. Installing malware on millions of hapless users is not something consumers should forgive and certainly not forget. The only real defense consumers have against fascist corporations is the dollar.
happyscrappyNov 5, 2006
Actually, it for sure means it so more lossy. The amount of compression that can be done without loss can be calculated from the entropy in the source. If you compress more than that, you lose data. If you compress more, you lose more data.The key is to throw away the right data, data people won't notice.Anyway, there are lots of versions of H.264. Which profile of H.264 was in use? How many reference frames was it using? And you do realize that the spec for VC-1 or H.264 is a spec for playback. There is nothing that says that the best encoder for a given format has yet been created. The first DVDs looked like crap, with artifacts everywhere. Did that mean MPEG-2 was useless at those bitrates? No, it just meant that good encoders hadn't been created yet. This is yet another argument for Sony using MPEG-2 while H.264 encoders are improved.Your argument about MPEG-2 is silly. If you increase the amount of CPU available, the amount of data rate available, and the amount of RAM available, there is no reason MPEG-2 is out of its league or out of date. It's like saying that JPEG is good for up to 256x256, but you wouldn't want to use it for a 4000x4000 image. It's not true.I don't care about film grain. Digital projection already exists in theaters, and it doesn't have grain. People will get used to there no being grain, and many films will be shot on digital, thus there won't be any grain in the source either.