HD-DVD throws in the towel, Blu-Ray wins

[Paul2]

Progressive player or not, the source is still very interlaced.  In addition to de-interlacing, players also upscale DVD to 1080p, but the source is still 480i.

I think you might be right that the source is interlace.  I think that most DVD movies are 480i @ 48 fields per second.  Honestly, I am not 100% sure on this.

They did this to make it easier to output it as 60 fields per second for interlace TV like NTSC and PAL.

Then for progressive scan tv like EDTV and HDTV.  it still process the 48 fields per second as 60 fields per second by repeating every 4th fields evenly.  Then those 60 fields will be converted to 24 fps by removing the repeating fields back to 48 fields per second, then deinterlace the 48 fields per second to 24 frames per second....Finally, the 24fps will be repeating into 60 frames per second by doing 3 - 2 pull down.

Why bother with this headaches?  I am not sure, maybe it has to do with back in the days, NTSC and PAL are still the norm or something, so by encoding the 24fps as 48 fields per second into the dvd would be easier and cheaper to playback on interlaced TV like NTSC and PAL.

With High Def movies on Blu Ray and HD-DVD.  This is different.  Almost all 1080p movies are encoded as 24 frames per second and for 1080p tv, the player just simply do a 3-2 pulldown.  Easy and straightforward job there, no deinterlacing require so it should has no deinterlacing errors.

And some players allow 24fps output for 1080p film sources for hdtv that support 24 fps, which let the TV do ther "pulldown" whether it\'s 3-2 pulldown for 60fps or 3-3 pulldown for 72 fps...

Some 1080p movies that were mastered early in the days are probably still in 1080i format, but are still encoded into the blu ray disc as 1080p because it was deinterlaced during the encoding.  And if the deinterlacing is done right all the time, you should get the correct progressive frames all the same...

[Paul2]

Blu Ray just not offer the benefits that DVD offered over VHS. People did not adopt DVD due to video quality, they adopted it for low price and convient features such as no rewinding / menus / and other stuff, standard stuff now\'a\'days.

believe it or not, one of the biggest reasons why many people adopted DVD over VHS is because of picture quality too, beside having convenient navigation menu and stuffs.

If picture quality isn\'t important, consumers would have accepted VCDs but they didn\'t.  If navigation menu, and chapter skips, and no need to rewind are really that important to consumers.  Then laserdiscs would have taken off because laserdiscs have those features.

but why didn\'t many consumers accepted laserdiscs? the number reason is the size of these disc is like 12" in diameter or 30 cm.  Too big, in comparison CDs are only 3.5" or 12 cm.

And why didn\'t VCDs taken off since it\'s 12 cm which is more convenient to store than VHS tape?  number #1 reason is picture quality.

VCD has the same resolution as VHS, which is 320 x 240.  but VCD carries more resolution in color for channel blue and channel red than VHS, 1/4th of black compare to 1/16th of black that VHS carries.  But because of compression quality back in the day isn\'t as efficient as nowadays and the encoder is MPEG-1.  It does hurts the picture, which does have a lot of noticable compression artifacts.  Second is, because its a digital signal which is precise, the picture looks really pixelated on 480i TV.  Because 240 has to be output to 480i and with no good upscaler, it doesn\'t look good.

VHS on the other hand, doesn\'t have this problems because its an analog signal.  it can ouput the 320 x 240i into 320 x 480i with no problems.  No need to require a video scaler because its analog.  it can interpolate those pixels into two and still comes out nicely with no pixelation.  Also, VHS don\'t have any compression artifacts because its doesn\'t use any video compression like digital lossy video encoder does...

Also, there is this S-VHS format which doesn\'t get consumers acceptance either even though it has 560 x 420 resolution which is the same as laserdiscs.  Sure the picture quality has 3.5 times more detail than VHS, but because it doesn\'t offer the convenience of menu nagivation, and the such.  so, it bombed.

[SIZE="3"]So, that led me to believe DVD finally gained consumers acceptance because of picture quality, it\'s the same size as CD, and easier menu navigation.[/SIZE]

what makes DVD picture looks so good is that DVD resolution is 720 x 480i or more than 4 times the resolution of VHS, and the 480i is the same resolution as NTSC so no need of a video scaler to scale to match the tv\'s lines like VCD does.  Another big reason the more efficient encoder of MPEG-2.  Another benefit is the dual layers that DVD can support.  Which means it can store 3 hours or longer of a movie on a dvd disc than any older formats could like VCD, VHS, laserdisc...so no need to flip the disc, change disc, or change tape either...

[clips]

There\'s really alot of great points bein\' thrown around from all sides, but i honestly must say that the leap from dvd to say blu-ray isn\'t as big as it was for vhs to dvd...i mean with vhs we all know that it loses it quality and clarity over time,..dvds?...nope..5, 10 years from now that clear clarity will still be there and i\'m not going to get into the technical side of it, because i really don\'t know about encoding and interlacing and all that,...i\'m only speaking from the consumer side of it.

Now if companies start to just drop dvd\'s altogether and force people to buy blu-ray then i can see blu-ray dominating,...since that is what is happening with cable and satellite tv...(i heard that everybody will have to buy either cable or satellite if they want to watch tv at all)...so those people that live in tha boonies can\'t use those old rabbit ears antennas anymore.....i still think that eventually blu-ray will dominate because everytime a movie comes out on dvd, i always see the blu-ray counterpart being advertised right beside it....but me personally i have seen the difference in the spider-man blu-ray that came with my ps3, but i\'am perfectly fine with my other dvd collection that shows and performs at an already high quality....dvd\'s perform like a high end bmw or benz while blu-ray is like a lambo or porsche....:fro:

lol at "transition format" now
keep refining that argument till you might squeek out something accurate.

Nothing wrong with what I said. I did not refine the agrument, I simply stated my opinion on it and why Blu Ray is a niche format that will not replace DVD.

There\'s really alot of great points bein\' thrown around from all sides, but i honestly must say that the leap from dvd to say blu-ray isn\'t as big as it was for vhs to dvd...i mean with vhs we all know that it loses it quality and clarity over time,..dvds?...nope..5, 10 years from now that clear clarity will still be there and i\'m not going to get into the technical side of it, because i really don\'t know about encoding and interlacing and all that,...i\'m only speaking from the consumer side of it.

And the average consumer speaks.   They don\'t know about all the techincal mumbo-jumbo. They need sure fire reasons to buy into hi-def and so far, they don\'t have any.

the "average consumer" is snatching up BD players at record paces and will certainly continue as more and more titles are released.  not sure why you continue to ignore this.

you fit right into the J6P demographic and sure hopped right in.

[Paul2]

Now if companies start to just drop dvd\'s altogether and force people to buy blu-ray then i can see blu-ray dominating,...since that is what is happening with cable and satellite tv...(i heard that everybody will have to buy either cable or satellite if they want to watch tv at all)...so those people that live in tha boonies can\'t use those old rabbit ears antennas anymore.....

umm...that\'s not true.  If your analog tv or hdtv has ATSC digital tuner built in, then [SIZE="4"]you still can watch digital broadcast with simply using the existing rabbit ear antenna[/SIZE] that you already own that you use on your NTSC aka analog tv.

Its uses the same RF coaxial cable.  Anything that is digital require only one single cable and will still come out precise, while analog video and audio will have lots of interference and noises for using one single cable for video and audio.

Because ATSC tuner uses the MPEG-2 for all digital video broadcast of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i.  The specs for the maximum bandwidth is 19.8 Mbps.  And the antenna can receive that much data, actually higher than that.  As high as 50 mbps or higher.  Even the RF coaxial cable can accept up to 1 gbps of digital data.  1 gbps = 1,000 mbps.  possibly higher.

So, a single RF coaxial cable should be way more than enough to receive HD broadcast using MPEG-2 compression.

So, no need to switch to Cable TV or Satellite TV in order to watch free terrestrial aka over the air digital broadcast. Unless you want to get more channels, than cable or satellite tv makes sense...but come at price of monthly payment...

[Paul2]

oh, one last thing i would like to add.  By February 17, 2009.  All NTSC ota broadcast will be turned off in U.S.A..  If your old tv doesn\'t have a digital ATSC tuner, then you need to buy an external ATSC tuner in order to watch ota broadcast.

the "average consumer" is snatching up BD players at record paces and will certainly continue as more and more titles are released.  not sure why you continue to ignore this.

you fit right into the J6P demographic and sure hopped right in.

How do I fit into the J6P? I actually know the advantages and disadvantages of both formats and what not. I actually understand viewing distance . The average person does not - the average consumer that is. So, please think before you post (I know that is hard for you).

I\'m not ignoring anything. A few weeks of good sales don\'t mean anything in the long term. Get back to me when the sales are constant. Or when Wal-Mart starts devoting most it\'s floor space to BLU-RAY over regular DVD.

I think the whole screen size vs. viewing distance thing is a bit absurd. I can very easily see the difference on my (after American standards) "miniscule" 32" HDTV from 7-8 feet away. I don\'t understand how you can keep saying otherwise just from some Excel chart. It\'s simply not true. Not at \'normal\' sizes at \'normal\' viewing distances anyway.

And I even have a fairly good upconverting DVD player so the difference in picture quality is smaller than with a more standard DVD player vs. HD.

I think the whole screen size vs. viewing distance thing is a bit absurd. I can very easily see the difference on my (after American standards) "miniscule" 32" HDTV from 7-8 feet away. I don\'t understand how you can keep saying otherwise just from some Excel chart. It\'s simply not true. Not at \'normal\' sizes at \'normal\' viewing distances anyway.

And I even have a fairly good upconverting DVD player so the difference in picture quality is smaller than with a more standard DVD player vs. HD.

So now your personal opinion goes against proven fact?
Quite simply, at a certain distance, certain resolutions are in fact not noticeable. If you see them you are either suffering a placebo effect or you have beyond excellent vision.

Lol... your point is my point, only reversed. You believe some Excel chart, not real life. But whatever, I don\'t expect you to change your opinion.

But please don\'t condescend me. I can very clearly see the difference on a 32" HDTV from 7 feet away. And that\'s just 720P. This is not my \'personal opinion\' or a placebo effect. It\'s a fact. It\'s not debatable.

I\'m not an idiot, I know my stuff and I can tell the difference between SD and HD.

EDIT: Besides, what\'s the point of a HDTV. The contrast ratio is worse than CRT\'s. But calibrated or not the pixel resolution is way bigger than an SD set. This is true for all HDTV\'s and not \'certain sets\' or depending on being properly calibrated.

you can\'t generalize everyone with a \'graph\'.
people buy what they want, and with the ever increasing sales of HDTV\'s, it won\'t be DVD.

graph posted by lic claiming the average person can\'t tell the difference between SD and HD vs millions of sales of HD players.
hmmm, i can\'t decide.

perhaps 6 months from now, you\'ll refine your argument again when proved wrong.  

I give up.
I understand perfectly.

You\'re all idiots.

Thank you.

I can very clearly see the difference on a 32" HDTV from 7 feet away. And that\'s just 720P. This is not my \'personal opinion\' or a placebo effect. It\'s a fact. It\'s not debatable.

It is debatable, by the way.

How is fact debatable? I either see the difference or I don\'t. It\'s like trying to debate whether or not you\'re a human. It makes no sense since it\'s not a question of opinion.

Now whether or not you\'re the idiot is debatable.

classic lic, resorting to insults when losing a debate and backed into a corner.  just like the old days!