bit-tech.net

Sony Vaio Blu-ray Media Center

Comments 1 to 25 of 37

Reply
M4RTIN 19th October 2006, 15:12 Quote
what a waste of money ,and it makes the ps3 look cheap lol. i like the amount of connections on it tho..

also btw on page 3 you have the same piece of text above the first 2 pictures
Cthippo 19th October 2006, 15:14 Quote
So basically, HDCP is a mess like we all thought it would be. woo hoo Sony :(
Bursar 19th October 2006, 15:16 Quote
Page 4 appeared all in bold for me.
DougEdey 19th October 2006, 15:20 Quote
Don't know if I missed it, but what does that sticker say just under the drive?

ANd I thought BD didn't use MPEG-2 anymore?
Buzzons 19th October 2006, 15:36 Quote
could be the laser warning?

and yea it does still use MPEG2 :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
Quote:

Codecs

Codecs are compression schemes that can be used to store audio and video information on a disc. The BD-ROM specification places requirements on both hardware decoders (players) and the movie-software (content).

For video, ISO MPEG-2, H.264/AVC, and SMPTE VC-1 are player-mandatory. (This means all BD-ROM players must be capable of decoding all three video codecs.) MPEG-2 video allows decoder backward compatibility for DVDs. H.264, sometimes called MPEG-4 part 10, is a more recent video codec developed jointly by the same organization (ISO/IEC) as MPEG-2. VC-1 is a competing MPEG-4 derivative codec proposed by Microsoft (based on Microsoft's previous work in Windows Media 9). BD-ROM titles with video must store video using one of the three mandatory codecs (multiple codecs on a single title are legal).

Initial versions of Sony's Blu-ray Disc-authoring software only included support for MPEG-2 video, so the initial Blu-ray Discs were forced to use MPEG-2 rather than the newer codecs, VC-1 and H.264. An upgrade was subsequently released supporting the newer compression methods so the second wave of Blu-ray Disc titles were able to make use of this. The choice of codecs affects disc cost (due to related licensing/royalty payments) as well as program capacity. The two more advanced video codecs can typically achieve twice the video runtime of MPEG-2. When using MPEG-2, quality considerations would limit the publisher to around two hours of high-definition content on a single-layer (25 GB) BD-ROM.

For audio, BD-ROM players are required to support Dolby Digital AC-3, DTS, and linear PCM (up to 7.1 channels). Dolby Digital Plus, and lossless formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD are player optional. BD-ROM titles must use one of mandatory audiotracks for the primary soundtrack (linear PCM 5.1, Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1.). A secondary audiotrack, if present, may use any of the mandatory or optional codecs.[8] For lossless audio in movies in the PCM, Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD formats, Blu-ray Discs support encoding in up to 24-bit/192 kHz for up to six channels, or up to eight channels of up to 24-bit/96 kHz encoding.[9] For reference, even new big-budget Hollywood films are mastered in only 24-bit/48 kHz, with 16-bit/48 kHz being common for ordinary films.

For users recording digital television broadcasts, the Blu-ray Disc's baseline datarate of 36 Mbit/s is more than adequate to record high-definition broadcasts. Support for new codecs will evolve as they are encapsulated by broadcasters into their MPEG-2 transport streams, and consumer set-top boxes capable of decoding them are rolled out. For Blu-ray Disc movies the maximum transfer rate is 54 Mbit/s (1.5x) for the combined audio and video payload, of which a maximum of 40 Mbit/s can be dedicated to video data. This compares favorably to the maximum of 36.55 Mbit/s in HD-DVD movies for audio and video data. [10]
Lazlow 19th October 2006, 15:45 Quote
£800? For a media centre, with BD, that's not too bad. And for a first generation piece of equipment - it looks like they've got most aspects of it right...
mclean007 19th October 2006, 15:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazlow
£800? For a media centre, with BD, that's not too bad. And for a first generation piece of equipment - it looks like they've got most aspects of it right...
Nah mate, £800 EXTRA over the non-BD version of the same HTPC. The all-up price is a shade under £1800 inc VAT.
Lazlow 19th October 2006, 15:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
Nah mate, £800 EXTRA over the non-BD version of the same HTPC. The all-up price is a shade under £1800 inc VAT.
Oooooooooooh, then in that case it's too pricey for most to even consider. I was going by the £800 comment on the last page of the article.
Bindibadgi 19th October 2006, 16:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougEdey
Don't know if I missed it, but what does that sticker say just under the drive?

ANd I thought BD didn't use MPEG-2 anymore?

Yep, most BR disks are mpeg2 but in a higher bitrate to compensate for the larger image, but you loose quality simply because even though the picture is bigger it needs more data to fill it and mpeg2 is like a 10 year old compression technology. Very few BR titles are encoded in h264 which provides more info for the same data rate. In contrast more HDDVD titles are encoded in VC1 rather than mpeg2 as well.
DougEdey 19th October 2006, 16:19 Quote
Ah right, my bad, I remember reading one of the direct HD/BD comparisons linked from this forum. And the main complaint was BD was lower quality, and the guy commented that he was corrected by someone saying MPEG-2 wasn't BD.
Veles 19th October 2006, 16:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazlow
Oooooooooooh, then in that case it's too pricey for most to even consider. I was going by the £800 comment on the last page of the article.

Yes but this is brand new technology, it's not for the mass market yet, it's for the enthusiast market who would pay stupid amounts of money to buy inferior early models just so they had the latest, greatest kit.

I thought not having HDCP was just meant to downscale your picture? I also thought, since HDCP TVs, GFX cards, etc. have only recently come out, they wern't actually activating it or something for a while.

This would mean that the cheap PS3's BR player would be completely useless (I think they've decided to put in HDCP in the cheaper one now though?)
mclean007 19th October 2006, 16:45 Quote
It's pretty poor form that Vista may only support Blu-Ray within its media center component by launching some kind of third party player. You'd think native support would be the obvious way to go, or at least some kind of add-on that integrates into media center for a seamless experience?! If it natively supports HD-DVD but not Blu-Ray, that would be a pretty significant factor for a lot of people.

Personally, I think this is a let-down all round - MPEG2 has no place on any next gen disc, and you'd think the early discs would be packed with all the next-gen features to differentiate the format. Maybe S.W.A.T. is just a poor example of the early discs, but I'd be pretty disappointed if I shelled out that kind of money for an early player and couldn't show it off to my mates to the best of its abilities.

I will keep waiting for region free 1080p players with DHCP circumvented, and for prices to drop below bleeding-edge early adoption prices.
JADS 19th October 2006, 17:43 Quote
I think ignoring both formats until the manufacturers come up with one better standard would be good idea :)

Just need the papers to throw in some hysteria about the formats, present it to the general populace and you have two completely dead formats :)

Maybe that both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray give off harmful levels of Theta radiation that will slowly kill kids as they watch their movies? Remember it doesn't matter if it is true if it makes a good story :D
mclean007 19th October 2006, 17:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JADS
I think ignoring both formats until the manufacturers come up with one better standard would be good idea :)

Just need the papers to throw in some hysteria about the formats, present it to the general populace and you have two completely dead formats :)

Maybe that both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray give off harmful levels of Theta radiation that will slowly kill kids as they watch their movies? Remember it doesn't matter if it is true if it makes a good story :D
I like it!

I should add also that I will not be joining the HD movie brigade until my mass market price 1080p region-free HDCP-less wonder-player also plays both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (as well as, obviously, standard DVD). No way I'm getting lumbered with several hundred pounds worth of the 'losing' technology (a la Betamax!)
Bindibadgi 19th October 2006, 17:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
It's pretty poor form that Vista may only support Blu-Ray within its media center component by launching some kind of third party player. You'd think native support would be the obvious way to go, or at least some kind of add-on that integrates into media center for a seamless experience?! If it natively supports HD-DVD but not Blu-Ray, that would be a pretty significant factor for a lot of people.

Then Microsoft would have to pay a lisence to Dolby and those who hold the patents to the MPEG compression technology. They didn't in XP either, it can't play DVDs without 3rd party software.
Firehed 19th October 2006, 18:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthippo
So basically, HDCP is a mess like we all thought it would be. woo hoo Sony :(
My thought exactly. I'm not buying into any of the next-gen tech until this stuff is completely dead. And VHS is still hanging in there, so I think I'll have quite a while before it's an issue.
M4RTIN 19th October 2006, 18:22 Quote
is hdcp going to be on all bd players? if so thats going to kill them surely.. unless they support analog outs i suppose which is a nice get around.

the argument for me buying a hd-dvd player for the 360 is stronger everyday
Breach 19th October 2006, 19:37 Quote
Sweet, I can get one and watch....Click
Sord_Fish 19th October 2006, 19:41 Quote
Is it just me or does slot load seem a bad idea?
Fozzy 19th October 2006, 20:46 Quote
I have a Sony Trintron GMD Something or other that has very high resolutions (think Dell 30" LCD and it's a little higher than that) 24inch widescreen and I was wondering if HDTV will play on it? The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about either getting an xbox 360 or a PS3 this christmas (or summer) and I'll probably go with the 360 if i cant play HD.
gpw111 19th October 2006, 21:30 Quote
[QUOTE=]I then hooked up a Dell 2407 24in screen that let me see the full 1080 lines of resolution.[/QUOTE]

As far as I knew I thought the 2407 only supported HDCP encoded upto 720p. Or at least thats what this led me to believe.
Pie_uk 19th October 2006, 21:35 Quote
been selling those at pc world unless this is the newer one
sl1xx 19th October 2006, 22:17 Quote
i love sony vaio euip but thats way tp pricey man but sony is always over priced i would prefair to build my own i love the case tho would be nice if they was sold separate !
Cthippo 19th October 2006, 23:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Then Microsoft would have to pay a lisence to Dolby and those who hold the patents to the MPEG compression technology. They didn't in XP either, it can't play DVDs without 3rd party software.

Does WMP count as third party software? It tries to play DVDs, though TBH it does a piss poor job of it.
Drexial 20th October 2006, 02:51 Quote
We just started setting up a Demo of the samsung BD player and a Samsun 1080p DLP TV. the video though it claimed it was a 1080p BD looked like it was hooked up with composit video cables. we were using a high end Monster HDMI Cable. it wasnt even close to underwhelming, it was downright disapointing. where i could see it being decent on a 24" screen on the 57"DLP it was just horrid. i had hopes that it would look good.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums