More storage space should help Blu-ray look better

[Shadowman82]

Just reading the article on DVDFile I find this quote interesting and I agree with it .


"And I’m still baffled by the few readers who cannot accept the technical explanation that a higher bit rate and less compression for any given CODEC will produce a better image. Sony’s Superbit DVDs demonstrated very clearly that less compression and a higher average bit rate produces a better looking video transfer. Why doesn’t that experience with MPEG-2 convince skeptics that similar improvements will occur with VC-1 and AVC on HD discs? "

[dugpa]

Dan Ramer talking technical, that's a hoot! That's like taking photographic advice from Ray Charles. This from the same guy who usually complains about things that have been explained a billion times on avsforum (like the -10db level he thinks his players put out).

"And I’m still baffled by the few readers who cannot accept the technical explanation that a higher bit rate and less compression for any given CODEC will produce a better image. Why doesn’t that experience with MPEG-2 convince skeptics that similar improvements will occur with VC-1 and AVC on HD discs? "

Because mpeg2 is mepg2 and vc1 and avc are vc1 and avc. Yes, all three are compression codecs, but the latter two work in very different ways to mpeg2. Both have adaptive block-size transform which greatly lessens the space needed. There's a certain point where you get essentially the same quality picture even with the compression. So to make a blanket statement that more space is always needed is to not understand how the new compression codecs work. At a certain point you reach transparency. Just look at the way studio's encode. Mpeg2 works in a completely different way from the new codecs, and thus Ramer's statement about Superbit is not valid.

[Shadowman82]

I don't think Dan was suggesting that more storage space is needed but was saying that once studios had some more experience with the new codecs they maybe able to tweek even better performance out of them if they have more storage space to work with .

While it seems that the new codecs can produce great looking Video on a relatively little amount of storage space it's quite likely that having more and therefor being able to increase bitrate would probably result in less Video anomalies .

[Ruined]

More storage space has proven that it does NOT help Blu-Ray look by as evidenced by this real world data... Look for yourself:

Nature's Journey 18gb/37mbps VC-1 BD25 vs 12gb/26mbps VC-1 HD15:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/naturesj...-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD having over 10mbps more bitrate.

Flags of Our Fathers - 32gb AVC BD50 vs. 20gb VC-1 HD30:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsofo...-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD taking up over 10gb more space (much higher avg/peak bitrate).

The Prestige - 20gb AVC BD50 vs. 16gb VC-1 HD30:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/theprest...-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD having significantly higher peak and average bitrate.


The bottom line is, the new AVC/VC1 codecs do not benefit from the extra space and bandwidth Blu-Ray offers; many BD fans have repeated this mantra but when asked to provide real-world proof such as screenshots demonstrating the difference, they cannot primarily because the difference is nonexistant. These nextgen codecs plateau in quality at some point, and that point arrives well within HD DVD's space/bandwidth territory. The Blu-Ray format was engineered based on a Sony MPEG2 recordable format, therefore its bandwidth/space specs match up mostly with what is needed for top notch MPEG2 quality. HD DVD was engineered with AVC/VC1 in mind, therefore its bandwidth/space specs match up mostly with what is needed for top notch AVC/VC1 quality. Studios aren't going to be able to pull a rabbit out of their hat a year from now and all of a sudden there will be some significant gain when right now a 10mbps+ increase in bitrate over what is possible on HD DVD does jack squat for the image when using AVC/VC1; if anything, HD DVD will benefit more with time because the plateau will simply be reached earlier as encoders become more efficient and require less human involvement. There are diminishing returns with these new codecs after some point, and that point is well within the capabilities of HD DVD.

As dugpa noted, Ramer made a giant oopsie with his current article and (pseudo) "technical" explanation, and he was called on it shortly after it was posted by some technically inclined folks in the HD software forum such as myself. The only reason BD has better than average looking discs is because BD releases have been much more centered around big budget recent blockbusters while HD DVD has had a big focus on older catalog titles and newer low-budget releases which obviously don't have masters that look as nice; this is simply a result of the differences between what exclusive studios on each format are able to offer - Universal did not have as many recent big-theatrical budget titles as Disney/Fox/Sony did. Paramount going HD DVD exclusive should help balance the scales in this regard, as they have a lot of big budget blockbusters like "Transformers". "Video anamolies" that most note when dealing with a title that has been encoded with nextgen codecs are generally a result of a problem with the master, not a problem with the encoding or space/bandwidth available - therefore Blu-Ray offers no tangible real-world benefit with its increased bandwidth/space.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Ruined

More storage space has proven that it does NOT help Blu-Ray look by as evidenced by this real world data... Look for yourself:

Still there are other benefits to increased space. Picture ain't everything.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Derb

Still there are other benefits to increased space. Picture ain't everything.

If you are referring to lossless audio, that is more a studio/compressionist choice than anything. TrueHD 16bit/48khz has the same average bitrate as and hence takes up the same space on average as DD+ 24bit/48khz - however Paramount and Universal stuck with DD+ as they felt it was a better option (DD+ also is easier to encode as it is CBR and naturally has lower peak bitrate, which likely played a factor as well). Warner, who is the biggest dual format supporter, has more lossless audio tracks on HD DVD than BD. Paramount, who was formerly a big dual supporter, had DD+ tracks with over twice the bitrate on HD DVD than BD in most cases. PCM 16bit/48khz was largely used on Blu-Ray not necessarily because lossless was so preferrable audio-wise, but rather because BD as a format did not have DD+, TrueHD, or any high resolution decoders at all standard on BD players as was the case with HD DVD; therefore the only way to deliver sound higher quality than standard DD/DTS to all users was to use PCM at first. If BD did have those builtin decoders, I'm sure you'd see some the aforementioned studios going the same route as Universal did.

And lets not forget there are other benefits involved unrelated to space, such as:

* Price >> BD players are much more expensive
* DRM intrusiveness/format flexibility >> BD has more intrusive/restrictive DRM
* Software backwards compatbility >> BD cannot put DVD on the same disc
* Interactivity >> BD is far behind the curve

In all of these HD DVD holds a clear lead over BD.

But the argument at hand, and the one Dan Ramer continues to make poorly despite his "revision," is based on video. I think I'm going to compile some statistics and make some charts of my own this weekend to counter Dan's, making his analysis look quite wrong. There is no video advantage from additional space. And no Dan, you can't compare one single title to another single title and make a format judgment based on those two titles. Nor is simply comparing average video scores of your reviews useful; there are many more classic films on HD DVD not to mention films from the 70s-90s on HD DVD than there are comparatively to BD. Of course, this will have a negative impact on video score as older movies won't look as good as newer ones, but this was not factored into your analysis nor its revision. There are many more factors in play here - lets see on the whole how age of master and budget of film correlate to HD/BD score. I think we'll see where the true answer is there, and it has nothing to do with format.

And, when we get to the point of eventually storing our HD discs on media servers, if you have a 20gb video encode and 35gb video encode that look virtually identical - combined with a 5gb audio encode versus 12gb audio encode that both sound virtually identical (i.e. DD+/TrueHD vs. PCM), which encodes do you think you'd rather have then? The more efficient encodes of course, because you'd be able to store nearly twice as many movies on your media server with no A/V quality loss as a result. The more efficient ones will be easier to stream over the network to different TVs across the house from your media server as well.

Dan, if you are reading this, you mentioned Sony's Superbit making a noticable improvement. Guess what, in screenshots that improvement was easily noticable. That same difference is not observable when you crank up the bitrate on VC1/AVC as these codecs were designed not only with high quality but also efficiency in mind - they simply don't benefit from it after a certain point. And this is proved by the screenshots linked above.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Derb

Still there are other benefits to increased space. Picture ain't everything.

The problem is, MPEG-2 needs the "extra space" in order to really compete with VC-1. This means the "extra" space really isn't "extra" anymore, it's now needed or required.

If you counter that argument with "well, VC-1 can be used on Blu-Ray too", then we're contradicting the point about MPEG-2 in the article.

Peace...

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Ruined

And lets not forget there are other benefits involved unrelated to space, such as:

* Price >> BD players are much more expensive
* DRM intrusiveness/format flexibility >> BD has more intrusive/restrictive DRM
* Software backwards compatbility >> BD cannot put DVD on the same disc
* Interactivity >> BD is far behind the curve

In all of these HD DVD holds a clear lead over BD.

But these things are more on the implementation side than on the design/spec side. Sure Blu-Ray releases might have the characteristics you describe above but that's not due to limitations in the Blu-Ray design specs, right?

That same difference is not observable when you crank up the bitrate on VC1/AVC as these codecs were designed not only with high quality but also efficiency in mind - they simply don't benefit from it after a certain point.

Good point and one that I don't understand why people don't get. VC-1 is new, meaning it's in a position to do things MPEG-2 can't do or can't do well AND these kinds of things can be (and are) designed into the codec. I don't get why people are clutching on to MPEG-2 so tightly.

Peace...

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

But these things are more on the implementation side than on the design/spec side. Sure Blu-Ray releases might have the characteristics you describe above but that's not due to limitations in the Blu-Ray design specs, right?

Not really, pretty much all of them are on the design/spec side.

Software backwards compatibility first - Sony has been unable to make an economically feasible "combo" disc with BD as a BD layer is so much different than a DVD layer; an HD DVD layer, on the other hand, is very similar to a standard DVD layer so they could simply sandwich the two together much like we saw with dual-sided standard DVDs. This may change in time, but for now I'd consider it a design limitation as the BD layer's far different characteristics from a standard DVD layer makes combining the two much more difficult.

As for DRM, BD+ Advanced Countermeasure is part of the BD spec. While some studios might not implement it right now, since it is part of the spec it gives the opportunity for all studios to implement it in the future if they wish - therefore it is also a part of the design of the format. This sort of DRM cannot be implemented on HD DVD because its not in the spec - therefore the more intrusive DRM is inherent to Blu-Ray's spec as well as its implementation.

As for player price, that too is due to the design of the format. The lens needed to read the tightly packed, close to the surface Blu-Ray layer is very different than a standard DVD lens and is much more expensive to make. HD DVD players, on the other hand, use the same DVD lens that a $49 Walmart DVD player uses. In addition, BD players require output of 1080p60 which is arguably unnecessary with 99% of modern 1080p HDTVs using inverse telecine on 1080i signals, resulting in deinterlacing 1080i to 1080p without quality loss. These two facets of BD make the players more expensive with the pricier lenses and deinterlacing chips not needed by the HD DVD format/spec (and not needed in general, to be honest).

Finally in terms of interactivity, HDi is a much more user friendly authoring environment while BD-Java is more or less a programming language. The former has standards and great authoring tools while the latter does not. So while out of the four this one is the least attributed to design of the format, as it is impossible to implement HDi in Blu-Ray due to not being included in the specifications, I'd consider Blu-Ray's hampered interactivity a result of making a half-backed interactivity layer the standard because Sony didn't want to pay their competitor interactivity royalty fees. So while BD's interactivity itself could be considered a result of poor implementation, that poor implementation can be attributed at its root to poor choice of an interactivity layer when deciding on the BD spec.

[videoworx]

it gives the opportunity for all studios to implement it in the future if they wish

Just as region coding is an option for Blu-Ray distributors - yet more than 75 percent of currently available Blu-Ray discs don't use it (source: http://blu-raystats.com/). I would argue that Blu-Ray distributors are not as obsessed with copy-protection as you believe them to be.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

The problem is, MPEG-2 needs the "extra space" in order to really compete with VC-1. This means the "extra" space really isn't "extra" anymore, it's now needed or required.

If you counter that argument with "well, VC-1 can be used on Blu-Ray too", then we're contradicting the point about MPEG-2 in the article.

Peace...

Actually, AVC was the codec in Ramer's blog being touted as best in his opinion. Both VC-1 & AVC are simular in space saving thou VC-1 has the edge. I check out average bitrates for both next-gen codecs & VC-1 usually has an average bitrate of 15mbps compared to AVC's 25mbps.

Here are a few things that can be put on 1 BD disc. Actual film Video aside,

PIP, BD-J enhanced features, menus, 1080p trailers, 1080p extra features, 2 lossless tracks, 3 lossy tracks, 30+ different subtitles....

OR

How about Lord of Rings extended editions? I bet New Line will have the whole 251 minute third film of the trilogy on 1 disc, 1 side.

OR

Tv on BD sets. Smallville for example. 5 disc HD DVD set, 4 disc BD set.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by videoworx

Just as region coding is an option for Blu-Ray distributors - yet more than 75 percent of currently available Blu-Ray discs don't use it (source: http://blu-raystats.com/). I would argue that Blu-Ray distributors are not as obsessed with copy-protection as you believe them to be.

They may not be now, because if they displayed this then it would turn people off from the format. But the trojan horse ability is there in the spec.

I think you should take a look at the what some of the studios are doing on *standard* DVD. That is a format that doesn't have any of the allowances that the BD format has, and there is some really intrusive stuff going on these days. Reason being that studios want this more intrusive DRM and now that DVD is an accepted format they have the freedom to piss off customers without losing a format war.

Many talk about Blu-Ray "potential" but what is most frightening is its potential in the DRM market. It allows studios to include executables that have free reign over your computer and/or player, and that is plain dangerous IMO. Of course, we won't see this in full effect until the consumer has no option but Blu-Ray, and hence cannot buy the competition without the intrusive DRM instead.

[videoworx]

That is a format that doesn't have any of the allowances that the BD format has, and there is some really intrusive stuff going on these days.

Of the several thousand DVDs I've purchased over the last 9 years, none have ever stopped playing on any of my DVD players, due to DRM. Neither have they bricked any of my players. Do some titles employ nasty DRM to prevent copying? Sure, but that's the point. BD+ will be used to prevent casual un-authorized copying. It is not designed to go out and make players self aware, and turn against their owners. Get over it.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Many talk about Blu-Ray "potential" but what is most frightening is its potential in the DRM market. It allows studios to include executables that have free reign over your computer and/or player, and that is plain dangerous IMO. Of course, we won't see this in full effect until the consumer has no option but Blu-Ray, and hence cannot buy the competition without the intrusive DRM instead.

But can't these same executables be done for hd-dvd? I mean, if you are arguing that somehow the bd players will be compromised by loading of a disc that has a virus, can't the same thing happen to hd-dvd? You put in a disc that is unauthorized as an hd-dvd, and it has some kind of faux firmware code on it that bricks your player, isn't that the same thing? You keep putting out the spector of players that don't function, but the ways that it can be compromised seem to be no different to me than what it could be for a toshiba player.

It seems to me that if you put in a legally purchased blu-ray disc into your player, that it will play. However, if you want to play footsies with the copyright law and put in discs that are not legal copies, then you can run into problems. I know you are all into "casual copying" of your movies to hand out to your friends, but we've been over the content issues in other threads.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by videoworx

It is not designed to go out and make players self aware, and turn against their owners. Get over it.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by videoworx

Of the several thousand DVDs I've purchased over the last 9 years, none have ever stopped playing on any of my DVD players, due to DRM. Neither have they bricked any of my players. Do some titles employ nasty DRM to prevent copying? Sure, but that's the point. BD+ will be used to prevent casual un-authorized copying. It is not designed to go out and make players self aware, and turn against their owners. Get over it.

I am not saying BD+ will cause a Cyberdyne-esque players turning against their owners, however it does open the possibility for studios to install some really nasty crap on your computer - or simply cause compatibility problems with standalones as we've seen with the first wave of BD+ discs. Brick players? Maybe. We'll see what happens down the line, but it is in the specs that BD+ can do this if it deems necessary.

We've already seen the damage that can be done with overly intrusive DRM as evidenced by the Sony/BMG rootkits that wreaked havoc on people's computers and subsequently was used as the basis for numerous trojan horse viruses.

I am most concerned with computer security more than anything. The idea that BD+ allows executables to run without your permission as part of the spec means that feature must be supported in your computer BD software. IMO that is just a security nightmare waiting to happen. Bottom line, it gives the studio too much control and compromises security for the end user. And, in the end, the end user will be the one burdened with this as pirates will crack it and be enjoying movies DRM free.

Finally, this isn't just about "copying" movies. Many want to store movies they have bought on their media server for streaming to other TVs around the house - its the next big thing. BD+ is an annoying obstacle standing in the way of this. While it will likely be cracked in the next two months, it still becomes an added hassle for the paying user, a hassle that is most definitely not needed.

In the end, BD+ further restricts the rights of the end user and the control the end user has over the content they bought. Why in the world would any consumer actually argue that they want their rights restricted more? If you are the type of guy who just pops in a movie into your player now or then, fine, I can understand that you don't care. But for those of us techheads who use computers religiously BD+ is definitely not something most of us are going to accept, ever. Freedom to tinker.

[videoworx]

If you are the type of guy who just pops in a movie into your player now or then, fine

This accurately describes 99 percent of all DVD-Video consumers, so migrating to Blu-Ray shouldn't be too harsh.

But for those of us techheads who use computers religiously BD+ is definitely not something most of us are going to accept

Which is why companies like Slyosft exist to help you stick it to the man.

This is what you're saying:

1. Casual users won't be affected by BD+, because they won't attempt to copy movies.
2. Hardcore computer users that don't like BD+ (or any DRM, including AACS), will use software to bypass it (just as they have done for years), to allow "backups".

Nobody loses here.

For the slightly-above-average casual user, but not quite computer-geeky, there will be managed copying, something that is mandatory for both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Since it doesn't exist yet, speculating on whether or not it can, or cannot, work is futile.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by videoworx

2. Hardcore computer users that don't like BD+ (or any DRM, including AACS), will use software to bypass it (just as they have done for years), to allow "backups".

Nobody loses here.

For the slightly-above-average casual user, but not quite computer-geeky, there will be managed copying, something that is mandatory for both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Since it doesn't exist yet, speculating on whether or not it can, or cannot, work is futile.

The main problem is that even if you bypass BD+, you can't remove the code from your BD software player that leaves open that BD+ Advanced Countermeasure executable security hole. It is not a problem so much of breaking BD+ which will happen, but more that by using BD software you are exposing a security hole on your computer due to BD+ spec forcing the player to allow executables to be run w/o user permission. I disable BD playback on my HD software to prevent this, but I can see it being used as a way to launch malicious code w/o user permission - and obviously if I disable BD playback I can't watch BDs on my computer.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Ruined

The main problem is that even if you bypass BD+, you can't remove the code from your BD software player that leaves open that BD+ Advanced Countermeasure executable security hole. It is not a problem so much of breaking BD+ which will happen, but more that by using BD software you are exposing a security hole on your computer due to BD+ spec forcing the player to allow executables to be run w/o user permission. I disable BD playback on my HD software to prevent this, but I can see it being used as a way to launch malicious code w/o user permission - and obviously if I disable BD playback I can't watch BDs on my computer.

Ironically, if this perceived threat were to ever be realized, I wonder if this will only be the case for Windows users and not for Mac users.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Ironically, if this perceived threat were to ever be realized, I wonder if this will only be the case for Windows users and not for Mac users.

The BD spec states that the advanced countermeasure host process code payload must run without user permission. This means any OS could be affected assuming the BD software complies with the spec. Whether it specifically hits Windows or Mac will depend on the coding of the executable that is being run - if it is Windows specific then it will only hit windows and vice versa of course. It depends how clever and comprehensive the coder wants to be (be it a studio-hired coder for copy protection or a rogue trojan virus writer for kicks).