Quote:
Originally Posted by species8472
As for Interactive, a Disney title or two does not count (I am taking real movies not the kid stuff). How many Blu-Ray titles are available and how many support BD-J? Not every many at all. It minus well be NOTHING, seriously. The point is the feature is not wide spread because the group was late in defining the spec for BD-J. Since last fall a large majority of HD-DVD titles have supported the feature where BD is catching up.
|
Actually, you are incorrect again, as you have been incorrect in all of your statements from the beginning. Are you just doing this to purposely spread FUD? BD-J was defined and finalised at launch. That is a fact. Whether studios choose to use it is on a per title basis, it has nothing to do with kids stuff. Just as not every HD-DVD title has IME . Please, stop with the FUD. BD-J can be used for anything. The Descent uses it to achieve PiP by superimposing a BD-J driven commentary window over the main feature, along with seamless branching, which HD-DVD cannot even do. The Descent, actually, is a fine example of the superiority of the Blu-ray format because, long before Profile 1.1 and separate video and audio tuners in the hardware, Lionsgate was able to use a BD50 disc with AVC and BD-J two encode two complete 1080p versions of the film, one with PiP and one without,and utilise seamless branching plus include a discrete 6.1 uncompressed PCM soundtrack with spectacular PQ and SQ. HD-DVD could not even dream of doing that.
Quote:
|
Ethernet ports are not mandatory. How many have them? Not all, just a few. Without an Ethernet port, no Internet Activties and no automatic updates. The port should have been standard right away with Persistent storage.
|
Why should it have been mandatory? To force everyone to go out and pay for a player with a feature they may or not want or even be able to use? Not everyone has broadband, not everyone has a LAN in their home, and not everyone has use of that feature, so why should every player have one? The manufacturers can add the feature as they see fit and distinguish each model and price it accordingly, it makes much more sense in the market place rather than shoving it down everyone's throats. I bought a Blu-ray player for my mother and grandmother, and they wouldn't know an Ethernet port if it hit them in the face. They don't even have broadband, so what would they need with Ethernet?
But, in answer to your question, what players have them:
The PS3, Panasonic DMP-BD10, DMP-BD10A, Pioneer Elite HD-A1 and second-gen Pioneer Elite (can't remember the model number) Samsung BD-P1200. That's six out of, what, 9 current players on the market? And all the players coming from Japanese manufacturer Funai (Sylvania, Magnavox, etc.) in the Autumn will have them as well as will the Samsung P1400 and P2400 players coming in Oct/Nov 2007.
Quote:
|
The PS3 TrueHD support is decoded in Software (like the 360) which is similar to what PowerDVD does. The difference between software and hardware multichannel support is huge. The multichannel output of the PS3 is weak and not what I consider Good.
|
This is an absolutely lame excuse. I'm sorry. First of all, the PS3 uses the CEll to decode TrueHD, so how this is all in software is beyond me, so I'm not sure what the heck your point is.
Quote:
|
The 360 HD-DVD does not support TrueHD output and only decodes (which disappointed everyone). HD-DVD can deal with PCM Uncompressed audio just fine.
|
No, it cannot, that's why they don't use it. Please tell the truth if you're going to debate and try to come across as knowledgeable. HD-DVD does not have the bandwidth or disc capacity to be able to support uncompressed PCM, it doesn't even support 192/24 at 5.1 like Blu-ray does. Take a title like King Kong. Even on a dual layer 30GB HD-DVD, not only could they not even fit the extended edition, but they couldn't fit a lossless soundtrack (what happened there? I thought that was the be all and end all in audio?), only lossy DD+ and no extras, and to top it all off - the thing that I find the funniest of them all - this disc that HD-DVD folks like to refer to as 'reference' with all of its shortcomings suffers from so many compression artifacts (i pulse frames - you can check your heart rate against it) it's insane. Give me a break.
Quote:
|
The point is most BD does not support TrueHD until recently. Even Sony's flagship Casino Royale had no TrueHD, just uncompressed audio which was bass heavy and not much better than other compressed codecs.
|
Look, you can try to criticise the mastering of the Casino Royale soundtrack all you want, we know it hurts you HD-DVD guys that it sold so well, but to call it not much better than compressed codecs just shows your complete lack of understanding. FWIW, I thought Casino Royale looked and sounded amazing. But, to reiterate - you keep making a big deal out of TrueHD, and it's understandable when the format you chose iis so limited in capacity and bandwidth, but TrueHD is no better in sound quality than PCM, because TrueHD is sourced from uncompressed PCM. I'm going to spell it out for anybody that may be reading this. TrueHD is a lossless compression scheme. All that means is it takes an uncompressed PCM source and compresses it (without throwing away any information) to fit into a smaller space and to use less bandwidth. Upon decompression, it is bit-for-bit identical to the UNCOMPRESSED PCM source. Notice that? UNCOMPRESSED PCM. For anyone familiar with iTunes, it basically does the same thing as ripping a track from a CD and compressing it with Apple Lossless, only it supports higher resolutions and more channels. To make it even more clear - If I have a soundtrack that is 48/24 uncompressed PCM 5.1 and one that is 48/24 TrueHD 5.1 - assuming they are mastered identically -there is NO difference in sound quality. Period. END OF DEBATE. The fact is PCM already has wide industry support at both the consumer and professional level and every single Blu-ray player is capable of playing uncompressed PCM at up to 192/24 7.1, and there are far more A/V receivers out there that can handle multichannel PCM than there are that decode TrueHD - so what is the deal with being so big on TrueHD which is nothing more than a compressed version of PCM anyway? Other than the fact that HD-DVD can't handle anything else without severe PQ penalties?
I
Quote:
|
am aware of many titles being coded for BD-J and the reason why they are coming this fall is because they need to wait for more players with support. The final spec will be done in Oct which is still a few months away.
|
Please, get your facts straight. As I said already, BD-J was, and has been finalised since launch. Every Blu-ray player in the market is BD-J compliant. Period.There have been numerous titles released that used BD-J in various degrees. What is coming on 1 Nov 2007 is Mandatory Profile 1.1. As I already stated in my previous post (and apparently you missed), this mandates hardware support in every player for secondary audio and video streams and this specification has ALREADY been finalised as well. I will also point out again, that this also mandates that secondary video streams (aka Picture-in-picture) be full 1080p resolution, not the lame 480i/p rubbish that HD-DVD does.
Quote:
|
Earlier I was referring to the support for the TrueHD Tracks not now the audio is output (Uncompressed).
|
Semantics, I see. Anyway, Sony has already said that a firmware update will allow the codec to passed via HDMI. Problem solved.
Quote:
|
The Toshiba Players were upgraded to decode TrueHD in 5.1 instead of 2 channel quite a while ago. The TrueHD output is Uncompressed Multichannel Audio same as the Blu-Ray Hardware players. This was the case (only 2 channel) at launch and but not since last fall. 7.1 TrueHD support is not really needed but would be nice.
|
I know this, but you keep saying that TrueHD support is mandatory in HD-DVD players. I am pointing out that it is only mandatory to decode TrueHD 2.0, which is useless. Leaving that little fact out skews the reality of the situation. You make it out like Blu-ray players are crippled because manufacturers don't have to support TrueHD if they don't want to, well HD-DVD players only have to decode TrueHD 2.0, and who gives a crap about that?
Quote:
|
You mentioned another average movie in Deja Vu. Batman Begins, The Matrix and Riddick are all encode in similar bitrates and look great at 20GB or so. High Bitrates are not needed, that is an illusion regardless of what you or others say or think (Especially sources that take advertising dollars from the same group they are promoting). They are biased. I suggest you take the best of the best and compare for yourself, not the best of Blu-Ray vs the worst of HD-DVD.
|
I've seen them. Sorry, I will take the best Blu-ray over the best HD-DVD any day. To think that those bit-starved encodings can look as good as encodings that are allowed to breathe is ridiculous. These are lossy codecs. The more you squeeze them, the more information you lose, that's a fact. The fact that HD-DVD doesn't have the bandwidth to be able to spike the peaks in particularly tough spots is a weakness during the encoding process, period. Batman Begins looks just like all the other bit-starved Warner encodings - soft, smoothed over, rubbish.
Quote:
|
And AVC and VC-1 more different and then alike (much). In fact, I am working on an article with the VC-1 development engineers regarding the codecs superiority.
|
That statement says it all right there. FWIW, I'll take AVC any day. They are very similar, but VC-1 sucks handling grain. That's why Paramount used AVC on both formats for Rattle & Hum.
Quote:
Obviously your vision is failing (I am kidding) you if you believe MPEG4 encoded material actually looks better than VC-1 encoded stuff (regardless of the media the content is placed on - HD-
DVD or Blu-Ray disk). MPEG2 and MPEG4 are both aging technologies.  |
Now I know you're nuts.
Quote:
|
Why support a format that could not get it right the first time?
|
But, that's why I support Blu-ray
07-20-2007, 12:01 PM
I hear ya.. Some movies are poorly done regardless of format. XMEN MPEG4 was bad and I was shocked. The cable broadcast is almost better.. 
Linear Mode
