Why Blu-Ray is going to win the format war

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › Why Blu-Ray is going to win the format war

1 | 2

rscole86

4999 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 462

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#73707 6-Jun-2007 22:08

hmm, should i be the first to mention pr0n?

And the fact that they are a big driving force for the HD-DVD camp

garvani

1873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 83

Trusted

#73742 7-Jun-2007 08:57

pron is pretty much irrelevant these days as the article says,

"Yes, porn decided the VHS/Betamax format war... because at the time, the only way to watch adult films was to visit a seedy movie theater on the wrong side of town or to spool up a Super-8 or 16mm film. So when porn on videotape became available (largely on VHS) that you could watch in the privacy of your own home, people went nuts for it. Unfortunately for Harry's argument, not only are there literally hundreds of thousands of $10 adult DVDs available, free porn is EVERYWHERE on the Net. And that's what companies like Vivid see as the future - downloading high-def porn to your PC"

Im also considering the ps3 for a blu-ray player.. im waiting for the Java-bd (sp?) update to come out then ill make my descision.

TomAckroyd

105 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5

#73744 7-Jun-2007 09:02

richms: Yeah, like upscaling makes it look any better then the interlaced crap that infests DVD. It was a format pushed out a couple of years too early. If only they had waited and seen that CRT was to die they wouldnt have made the mistake with keeping it interlaced.

Thankfully 1080p looks to be winning out on the HD front.

"Doctor, doctor - it hurts when I do this"

"So don't do it then."

I don't understand what you mean by "interlaced crap that infests DVD".

If material is ex film, or another progressive format (eg HD), it won't look any better on any display whether it's played back on an interlace-supported format like DVD or non-interlaced format. (Unless it's an NTSC disc encoded at 24fps with 3:2 flags playing back on a true progressive-supported PAL system.)

If material is ex SD video (an interlaced format) you will see it correctly displayed on an interlaced-supported system eg DVD playing on any television. It *will* look worse if played back on a computer. But computer displays and computer DVD playback do not support interlaced video.

So don't do it.

Tom.

richms

29098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10209

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#73819 7-Jun-2007 13:43

A majority of playback problems on DVD are poor deinterlacing either by player or displays. There is no reason that they had to do the 3:2 pulldown on the disc, that was just done because at the time the only use of mpeg really was for digital TV which had to transport the existing interlaced video signals.

Had they at the time decided to simply make the disc hold the native 24 FPS scans of the film, and let the playback device do the pulldown if necessary, then it would be a whole lot neater. It would have also allowed for output at a multiple of 24 FPS like you can do on a PC when playing a progressive AVI file making the 3:2 judder that you even get on an upscaled output not happen.

Richard rich.ms

TomAckroyd

105 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5

#73836 7-Jun-2007 15:18

richms: A majority of playback problems on DVD are poor deinterlacing either by player or displays. There is no reason that they had to do the 3:2 pulldown on the disc, that was just done because at the time the only use of mpeg really was for digital TV which had to transport the existing interlaced video signals.

Had they at the time decided to simply make the disc hold the native 24 FPS scans of the film, and let the playback device do the pulldown if necessary, then it would be a whole lot neater. It would have also allowed for output at a multiple of 24 FPS like you can do on a PC when playing a progressive AVI file making the 3:2 judder that you even get on an upscaled output not happen.

1. Why would you want to de-interlace anything? What players and displays have the *option* to deinterlace? (Computers deinterlace by default and don't support interlaced video.)
2. What happens if you want to author and play DVDs that have interlaced video content?
3. Progressive signals do not have 3:2 pulldown. 3:2 pulldown could not exist without interlacing. It is a hack to allow 24fps pictures to play on 29.97 fps systems.

The standard def DVD format is actually very flexible. Discs and players were designed to be able to playback a multitude of formats: full PAL interlaced, NTSC video, NTSC film material at 29.97 with pulldown, 24fps progressive with player able to output progressive or with pulldown, and widescreen material played back either full height anamorphic or 4:3 letterboxed.

Tom

chiefie

I iz your trusted friend
5877 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 151

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#73931 8-Jun-2007 07:51

Looks like POC has BD-J issue.

Internet is my backyard...

«Geekzone blog: Tech 'n Chips Takeaway» «Personal blog: And then...»

Please read the Geekzone's FUG

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

richms

29098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10209

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#74120 9-Jun-2007 17:24

TomAckroyd:
1. Why would you want to de-interlace anything? What players and displays have the *option* to deinterlace? (Computers deinterlace by default and don't support interlaced video.)

Since the data stored on a DVD has seperate odd and even fields, it has to be deinterlaced to display on anything thats not a CRT, so deinterlace has to be done in either the display or the player. You enable that on a player by setting the output to 480 or 576p, leaving it on 480/576i makes it pass the fields out in the order they are on the disc. Any flatscreen display will have to deinterlace, so your only option is which end of the component cable you do it at.

TomAckroyd:
2. What happens if you want to author and play DVDs that have interlaced video content?

Then it should be flagged as such, the idea of splitting progressive video up into seperate fields, compressed seperately with the hope that they will be correctly reassembled is just plain dumb.

TomAckroyd:
3. Progressive signals do not have 3:2 pulldown. 3:2 pulldown could not exist without interlacing. It is a hack to allow 24fps pictures to play on 29.97 fps systems.

60 frames still has to have 3:2 candence with the framerate applied to get it from the 24 that are on the source material, there is nothing else that you can do unless you interpolate between them, which is going to look even worse. If there was an option to output 72FPS like you can on a computer then you can play it at an exact multiple framerate, of course the scan doubling would be better applied in the display, not the player, and isnt going to happen since the discs content is 60Hz interlaced.

TomAckroyd:
The standard def DVD format is actually very flexible. Discs and players were designed to be able to playback a multitude of formats: full PAL interlaced, NTSC video, NTSC film material at 29.97 with pulldown, 24fps progressive with player able to output progressive or with pulldown, and widescreen material played back either full height anamorphic or 4:3 letterboxed.

No, there are 2 formats that DVD can hold, and any disc can only hold one of them or the other and still be in spec

They are 576 lines at 50Hz i and 480 lines at 60Hz i - sure, there are flags for repeat last field, but they are unreliable, and not used in the deinterlacing process, and there is support for different horizontal resolutions, not too sure how extensive that is since I dont bother converting to DVD. And it can apply a simple scaling to make anamorphic fit into a letterbox on a 4:3 output.

Richard rich.ms

1 | 2