bit-tech.net

Paramount moving to Blu-ray too?

Paramount moving to Blu-ray too?

Is it all over for HD DVD? If the rumours are true then it certainly could be...

After what seems like an age, the rumour is that a major battle in the movie format wars could be over - with Blu-ray coming out as the victor and HD DVD left by the wayside.

According to The Financial Times the announcement that Warner Bros. would start to support Blu-ray only in the future may have had serious repercussions for the HD DVD format - prompting Paramount Studios to abandon HD DVD support also.

The Financial Times has said that the Paramount and HD DVD contract had a specific get-out clause for Paramount, allowing t to legally abandon the HD DVD format and escape the contract if Warner opted to go Blu-ray only. Which it just did.

Apparently Paramount is now ready to go Blu-ray only too, apparently predicting that there is no future in a format which doesn't have support from either itself or Warner Studios.

If proved true, the move could mark an early close to the HD DVD format in the mainstream - which could be both a good thing and a bad thing. Until an official denial or admission is issued by Paramount, we won't know the truth of the matter.

What do you think of the rumour and which format do you support? Let us know in the forums.

48 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
cjoyce1980 8th January 2008, 11:04 Quote
i hope not, as open formats are better value overall. down with blu ray and format licensing!!!!
LeMaltor 8th January 2008, 11:05 Quote
thank god tbh
frontline 8th January 2008, 11:26 Quote
Maybe my impulse buy of a blu-ray only drive will pay off :)

Now all we need are some decent releases to make it worth investing in.
p3n 8th January 2008, 11:27 Quote
Its not looking good for toshie this time around, although I did want to see SONY die an overpriced and fiery death ... ah well one format makes my AV upgrade plan alot less costly!
Icy EyeG 8th January 2008, 11:27 Quote
I like HD-DVD because of the lack of region restrictions and cheaper players. However, my support is just theoretical because here in Portugal you don't see any HD players for sale at a typical store (only PS3), and you see very few HD titles too. And for what I can see, most "Flat TVs" for sale around here lack HDCP...

I saw somewhere in the past months a news about the EU being asking the movie companies why they were supporting only one format. So, these news about WB and Paramount are rather surprising as I thought that, over time, all the companies would follow the example of WB (ie, supporting both formats).

So, for the time being DVD is the way to go for me (with upscaling, if possible).
BioSniper 8th January 2008, 11:28 Quote
Its the exact reason we bought a PS3 at the weekend, shame I have an HD-DVD drive that was a gift though.
mmorgue 8th January 2008, 11:42 Quote
Glad that at least the "VHS/Betamx" war V2.0 is ending early.

However, as far as the actual medium is concerned, I really don't see why we're being forced to use spinning pieces of easily damaged plastic -- we should be getting geared up for the next type of mass media storgage: SSD or ultra-cheap flash mem.

What with SSD starting to take off, flash memories increasing in size (8gb ~ 16gb+) and their respective prices coming down, I'd hope for a [disposable?] "film/movie" memory stick that you buy ala CD/DVD from the shops which contains your film. Plug it in to your player, either PC/dedicated unit/console, etc, and watch what's on it without the typical issues of big bulky spinning mechanisms, etc.
DXR_13KE 8th January 2008, 11:44 Quote
i think i will jump directly from dvd to holographic disks......
Journeyer 8th January 2008, 11:58 Quote
"i think i will jump directly from dvd to holographic disks......"

Quoted for truth.
Veles 8th January 2008, 12:08 Quote
Bit of a pipe dream that :p We won't ever be needing holographic disks for films, BD is already much bigger than it needs to be. It's debatable whether there's a point to BD/HD-DVD.

Looks like HD-DVD might be the loser after all, shame really, as cjoyce said, I'd rather have an open format. Odd really, all of Sony's other proprietary formats have failed pretty miserably, "Compact" flash, Betamax, Minidisk, UMD.

The success of BD is really down to PS3 really, even if the PS3 isn't king of the consoles right now, it definitely got a BD player into a lot of peoples homes compared to HD-DVD.

That, and the fact HD-DVD is annoying to type, they really could have thought of a better name, maybe just HDVD.
mclean007 8th January 2008, 12:11 Quote
Awesome. Two down, one to go - as soon as Universal gives up on HD-DVD we will have one format, which is the win. Until then, Heroes season 1 is HD-DVD only :(

Personally I'd rather HD-DVD had won due to the lack of region coding and cheaper hardware. However, as soon as one format wins, I expect a big increase in uptake which will drive down hardware prices. Soon there will be region free players too. Until then, looks like it's a PS3 for me!
Journeyer 8th January 2008, 12:19 Quote
"Bit of a pipe dream that :p We won't ever be needing holographic disks for films."

Possibly.
However, we did not really think, at that time, that DVDs would need replacing as a medium for distributing movies either. Who knows, maybe some ultra-high resolution movie format with x.x surround channels might warrant the 100Gb+ provided by holographic discs - or better yet; non-spinning holographic mediums. Though I was thinking of storage/backup solutions as I have been debating (rather vigorously) with myself whether or not to get a BD-writer. Burning multiple movies in various formats to data-DVDs is no longer fun. Combine that with the fact that a 500Gb HDD somehow fills up much quicker than the good old 500Mb ones in the old days. I curse you 10Mbit cable connection, you hear? Curse I say! (Not really though, I am quite infatuated with my cable connection ;) )
hix 8th January 2008, 12:25 Quote
Man, I hope this is true. I already have a PS3 and I was so close from purchasing the HD-DVD add-on for the X360. I wanna see Transformers on my brand new full HD tv!
mclean007 8th January 2008, 12:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
Bit of a pipe dream that :p We won't ever be needing holographic disks for films, BD is already much bigger than it needs to be. It's debatable whether there's a point to BD/HD-DVD.
Not if you've seen a film in 1080p on a well calibrated HDTV mate. Makes DVD look like a 56k stream of an old silent movie filmed with a camera phone with a cracked lens smeared in vaseline!*

Holographic disks would be needed to store a Full HD movie uncompressed - say 2 hours at 24fps = 3600*2*24 = 172,800 frames. At 24 bpp you're looking at 12MB per frame for 1080p, or 1TB for a 2 hour movie. Factor in increased bit depth (say 48 bpp) for HDR and you immediately double that. An 'ultimate' disk format would also need to cater for movies up to say 4 hours in length, so you can double it again. Add in support for UltraHD (or whatever they might choose to call 2160p) and you quadruple the number of pixels. Add in extra features and multiple angles (also in super high definition), sound tracks etc. and it's conceivable to imagine being able to fill 20TB. Now, obviously you'd use some sort of lossless compression on video and sound, and 2160p may be a bit ridiculous, but even so my extreme example is just an illustration that it is quite within the realms of possibility to imagine a format using more than the 50GB offered by Blu-Ray to good advantage.

One advantage of killing off HD-DVD will be that studios will really start to concentrate their resources on maximising the experience with BD, using the available storage to best advantage and coming up with clever new features to really squeeze the most out of the format. So long as there are two formats, you can bet that even those studios that are "exclusive" to one or the other aren't piling all their eggs in one basket (except maybe SonyBMG!) and are dedicating significant resource to ensuring their existing e.g. Blu-Ray titles could easily be ported to HD-DVD if that format were to win out.

(*may be a slight exaggeration)
Journeyer 8th January 2008, 12:35 Quote
"What Mclean007 said"

Absolutely.
And that's where the non-spinning (or Babylon-5-ish holographic crystal storage) comes into the picture... (pun somewhat intended).
Icy EyeG 8th January 2008, 12:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
Soon there will be region free players too.

I surely hope so... But I have the feeling that is going to be much more difficult to make them than when it was with DVD... As an Anime fan, I import a lot of stuff, so I don't know what is going to happen in the future...
Bauul 8th January 2008, 12:42 Quote
Out of interest, does anyone know how much space is taken up by the films they show at the cinema? I know Episode 2 was the first film to be only delivered digitally, so I'm presuming it's quite normal by now, so anyone know how much space is needed for one of them? Might be a good indication of eventual size requirements?

Edit: Turns out an 'average' digital cinema movie, with compression, is between 50Gb and 80Gb in size, so there's a requirement for more storage space right there. However, in the future, a system known as "D-Cinema" will utilise 4096 x 2160 resolution (4k resolution) and even 5k resolution (extra, extra widescreen), by combining multiple HD Projectors which display a seamless image. Uncompressed, this format averages around 20TB for a movie, so it looks like we really have got a long way to go before we have unused space in our portable disks.

More info on D-Cinema
Veles 8th January 2008, 13:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
Not if you've seen a film in 1080p on a well calibrated HDTV mate. Makes DVD look like a 56k stream of an old silent movie filmed with a camera phone with a cracked lens smeared in vaseline!*

I have and I was highly impressed. Worth all the money, confusion and aggravation? Not really IMO. It's not just confusion whether someone should buy BD or HD-DVD, but trying to find a TV that is actually good and doesn't cost you thousands of quid is impossible. I don't think anyone in their right mind is willing to pay thousands of pounds worth of equipment to get a tiny difference. Using DVDs for video was a huge leap, we went from the awful analogue VHS players that required you to fiddle with a knob if your tape was old so you didn't get stripes all over the screen to a digital player that allowed you to skip to any part of the story instantly and allowed you to view extras like "making ofs". That was a difference everyone could see and make use of, with HD there's a increase in picture quality and resolution, it's not that great really.

As for holo, there's a limit to what your eye can discern, anything higher than 1080p isn't really worth bothering with because we wouldn't really be able to tell the difference (1080p for many people is pointless, there's no point in 1080p for a screen less than 40", which is most screens sold), why would consumers bother going through the effort and confusion of another format upgrade so they can see an even more negligible difference than they got with HD? Holodisks just aren't viable for the video market, it's use is for data storage unless the video market gets a massive change like projectors being able to produce holographic films and stuff like that.

Your example is just a little extreme, that's getting into uber videophile territory, that kind of quality just isn't necessary or see-able by the majority of humans.

2160p? Unless you own your own cinema (full size) that kind of resolution is pointless. What kind of idiotic company is going to cater for less than 0.01% of the market? This kind of thing is for millionaires who would buy the disks special order from the studios. Even then, they'd probably just get several disks that rip to a hard drive, it would certainly be a lot cheaper.
Journeyer 8th January 2008, 13:31 Quote
Holographic movie projection is in the pipeline, and as such will eventually make its way onto the private consumer scene. This is just a question of time - and money obviously. However, being severly hardware addicted I for one would surely be willing to showel the necessary cash at the salesman in order to get one for myself. ;)
Veles 8th January 2008, 13:41 Quote
We've got a very long way to go before we get proper holograms. Currently the best way of doing it involves rotating a mirror in a circle at very high speeds so it deflects a laser to make an image, hardly suitable for a user. We've still got a decade or two to go.
TreeDude 8th January 2008, 13:43 Quote
While BR is definitely the superior format, I was hoping HD-DVD would win out. It is cheaper, region free, and had support for it's advanced features earlier than BR (like 300's PiP, I hope they re-release the BR version now).

I personally don't have an HDTV yet. I am hoping to get one by the end of the year. If BR wins out for sure I guess I'll just buy a PS3. No point in buying a stand alone player for the same damn price.
Veles 8th January 2008, 14:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDude
While BR is definitely the superior format

Not really, it's just bigger, and even that isn't strictly true.
Journeyer 8th January 2008, 14:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
We've got a very long way to go before we get proper holograms. Currently the best way of doing it involves rotating a mirror in a circle at very high speeds so it deflects a laser to make an image, hardly suitable for a user. We've still got a decade or two to go.


This is true.
I have seen the demonstration videos myself, and while they look incredibly cool they are, as you say, not really suitable for movie projection yet. However, two decades? Not so sure it will take that long, but then again, as with all these things, time will tell.

Edit: Just remembered these. http://www.io2technology.com/
They might be quite expensive, and not truly holographic, but you've got to admit - they are cool.
airchie 8th January 2008, 15:47 Quote
I was rooting for HD-DVD too but as has been said, the sooner the format war ends the sooner people can start buying the hardware with confidence and drive consumer takeup and drive costs down.

I just wish we could get rid of region encoding etc.
Until its easier to buy legit media and use them properly, downloads (and cinema visits) are gonna be my preferred medium...
Lucidity 8th January 2008, 16:03 Quote
This is really horrible if it happens. From what I have read HD-DVD now has a better attach rate, and did more sales over the holiday which means a lot of consumers will be getting screwed. With HD-DVD out of the way, Sony is free to keep player prices high, in order to promote purchase of their PS3. Competition would have driven them to cut BR players prices, and then the PS3 would be a more expensive unit, HD-DVD would have won out because the cheaper cost, and PS3 would have less sales because people would discount the fact that it has a BR drive.

Edit: Apparently those sales were only US figures, and Blu-Ray sold better worldwide.
Paradigm Shifter 8th January 2008, 16:11 Quote
The quicker this format war ends the better, but I'm sure people can (and will) argue the pro's and con's of going one way or the other long after one of the formats has died. I've got a PS3, so I've got Blu-ray... but if HD-DVD 'won' then I wouldn't have a problem with buying an HD-DVD player. That is, of course, dependent on pricing being acceptable and a range of titles I consider worthwhile buying being available.
Skill3d 8th January 2008, 17:06 Quote
hmmm i prefer hd-dvd, open format, and a lot cheaper (79 euros for a hd-dvd drive)
alextwo 8th January 2008, 17:58 Quote
If Paramount switch then it's almost certain that HD DVD will fail pretty soon.
It looks like the better marketing force of the BDA and the Sony/PS3 affiliation has been the the deciding factors. It's a shame that people will be missing out on the far more consumer friendly HD DVD. Oh well I guess when people are stuck with mpeg2 encoded, DRM infested BDs that can't be backed up onto a computer; the movie studios will be blaming record levels of piracy for poor sales. :(
TreeDude 8th January 2008, 18:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDude
While BR is definitely the superior format

Not really, it's just bigger, and even that isn't strictly true.

In terms of just movies it is really a toss up. HD-DVD may be a nudge better at the moment. But the raw space that BR gives you is better overall because once prices go down people will be using those disks for easy back ups or recording a **** ton of home movies. Not to mention that both formats have room for improvement because players can get firmware upgrades to support more features as the format progresses. In the end I think BR should win because it's movie playback faults will be ironed out at some point anyways.
fwalm 8th January 2008, 19:44 Quote
Thought you where able to get triple layered hd-dvd, which was bigger than the Bluray discs, plus I will not codole any sort of sonynis, so I'll stick with the cheaper DVD since on my 720p TV. There really is very little difference between them. Plus the price of the discs at the moment is seriously overpriced here.
HourBeforeDawn 8th January 2008, 20:18 Quote
good Im glad HD-DVD is going bye bye it was pretty limiting anyways and now it makes it easier for me so I can start focusing on Blu-Ray now. ^_^
Kingston 8th January 2008, 22:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
As for holo, there's a limit to what your eye can discern, anything higher than 1080p isn't really worth bothering with because we wouldn't really be able to tell the difference (1080p for many people is pointless, there's no point in 1080p for a screen less than 40", which is most screens sold),

What? How big is that screen your using right now... your telling me on a 20" LCD you can't notice the difference between 640x480 (480p) and say 1680x1050 (1050p) Get some glasses

Even on my monitor 15feet away i could tell a difference
leexgx 8th January 2008, 22:37 Quote
can an 20" LCD do 1080p

upto 40" tv 720p is good
above that number 1080p

moot point any way as most HDTVs can do 1080P (some are pretend 1080p but are infact 720p downscalers {the Screen res Must be bigger then 1960x1080 for 1080p })
DXR_13KE 8th January 2008, 23:37 Quote
when i say holographic media i say small disks of holographic media...... like mini DVDs...... not 12cm wide fragile disks......
Veles 9th January 2008, 03:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingston
What? How big is that screen your using right now... your telling me on a 20" LCD you can't notice the difference between 640x480 (480p) and say 1680x1050 (1050p) Get some glasses

Even on my monitor 15feet away i could tell a difference

No I can tell the difference, what I'm saying is that 720p is perfectly adequate for <40" displays, and 1080p won't really help much unless you like sitting really close to the TV. You're doing it wrong if you do that.
airchie 9th January 2008, 03:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by alextwo
It's a shame that people will be missing out on the far more consumer friendly HD DVD. Oh well I guess when people are stuck with mpeg2 encoded, DRM infested BDs that can't be backed up onto a computer; the movie studios will be blaming record levels of piracy for poor sales. :(
LMAO & QFT!! :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
can an 20" LCD do 1080p?
Nope, but my old 24" dell could. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by veles
what I'm saying is that 720p is perfectly adequate for <40" displays, and 1080p won't really help much unless you like sitting really close to the TV.
I disagree.
Yeah, you'd be hard-pushed to spot the differences between 720p and 1080p from a normal viewing distance.
But surely then, by your logic, the step up from SD to 720p is just as pointless??
Veles 9th January 2008, 20:48 Quote
No, because the p makes a big difference to picture quality, remember we're on 480i for SD. Combined with the increased resolution, a 32" 720p set looks noticeably better than a 32" 480i set. But at the proper viewing distance your eyes are going to have trouble telling the difference between a 32" 720p set and a 32" 1080p set unless you have some kind of superhuman vision. It's not that the picture isn't better quality, it is, it's just beyond the limits of human vision to see the difference in that quality (at least most of it) unless you move closer to the screen.

I find it easier to think of it this way, pretend the TV is a picture frame. Take say, a 1MP, 7MP and a 20MP camera. Pretending that all other factors are the same, only the resolution is different. So you'd immediately think, oh the 20MP is better, it's got a bigger resolution, it can capture more detail. But it's not, to view the picture you're going to have to shrink it down to fit the frame. There is obviously going to be a difference between the 1MP camera and the 7MP camera, because the 1MP image is so small it has to be enlarged to fit the frame, the 7MP is about just the right size so you get all the detail. The 20MP image has to be shrunk down to the size of the 7MP image so it can be displayed on the picture, this means it will lose all of it's extra details.

However, change the size of the frame, like for some marketing project you want a big poster or to project the image onto the side of a building, the 20MP camera will obviously be better.

The analogy doesn't work too well with SD (the 1MP camera) though because it's more like a 1MP image that someone has pissed all over then put through a shredder and reconstructed with half of the image missing.

TBH people shouldn't really need 1080p either, even above 40" it's just people buy TVs that are too big for their room.
E.E.L. Ambiense 9th January 2008, 21:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by alextwo
...Oh well I guess when people are stuck with mpeg2 encoded, DRM infested BDs that can't be backed up onto a computer...

A rather amusing recurring misconception about Blu-Ray which seems to be quoted by HD backers generally. HD DVD and Blu-Ray are both capable of using the exact same video and audio codecs. Some of the early Blu-Ray titles did in fact use MPEG2 compression rather than MPEG4 and WMV based codecs at first, but all Blu-Ray players can play back the same formats as HD DVD. Current Blu-Ray transfers (98%) are MPEG4-based, AVC/h264. Many of the studios who release on both formats actually use the same transfer to save money!

Region encoding, and in fact copy-protection flags aren't even turned ON on all the Blu-Ray discs I personally have, which is a choice made by studios themselves regarding their discs. I'm connecting a PS3 via component to a first-gen Samsung CRT HDTV, and watching it in 1080i res.

;)
mclean007 9th January 2008, 21:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.E.L. Ambiense
Region encoding, and in fact copy-protection flags aren't even turned ON on all the Blu-Ray discs I personally have, which is a choice made by studios themselves regarding their discs. I'm connecting a PS3 via component to a first-gen Samsung CRT HDTV, and watching it in 1080i res.
I'm sure they'd all LOVE to use the image constraint token to restrict viewing at HD resolution to screens with HDCP, but the fact is they would have a whole lot of mightily annoyed people who (like you) have perfectly serviceable HDTVs which are fully capable of displaying HD images but which lack HDMI connectors with HDCP capability. Only recently have computer monitors and graphics cards started to emerge with HDCP, so it would be quite disastrous for the studios to be pushing out image constrained discs which force a large proportion of hardware to degrade to standard def simply because the security hardware is not in place.

TBH I really don't undersdand the whole HDCP/image constraint thing - no-one in their right mind is going to make pirate copies of HD material by ripping the decompressed HD from an HDMI or component connector and re-encoding it onto blank BR discs - total waste of processing power and will necessarily introduce generation loss. Far better simply to rip the encoded video from the disc, strip out the AACS and write it to a blank disc, recoding to remove unwanted material and compress if required to fit on a single layer etc., much as is done with pirate SD DVDs. That and HDCP has been shown to be inherently mathematically flawed means I don't see any advantage for the studios in turning it on.
alextwo 9th January 2008, 21:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.E.L. Ambiense
A rather amusing recurring misconception about Blu-Ray which seems to be quoted by HD backers generally. HD DVD and Blu-Ray are both capable of using the exact same video and audio codecs. Some of the early Blu-Ray titles did in fact use MPEG2 compression rather than MPEG4 and WMV based codecs at first, but all Blu-Ray players can play back the same formats as HD DVD. Current Blu-Ray transfers (98%) are MPEG4-based, AVC/h264. Many of the studios who release on both formats actually use the same transfer to save money!

Region encoding, and in fact copy-protection flags aren't even turned ON on all the Blu-Ray discs I personally have, which is a choice made by studios themselves regarding their discs. I'm connecting a PS3 via component to a first-gen Samsung CRT HDTV, and watching it in 1080i res.

;)

Although Fox, in all their infinite wisdom have decided to encode all of their recent releases in MPEG2. :|
E.E.L. Ambiense 9th January 2008, 22:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
I'm sure they'd all LOVE to use the image constraint token to restrict viewing at HD resolution to screens with HDCP, but the fact is they would have a whole lot of mightily annoyed people who (like you) have perfectly serviceable HDTVs which are fully capable of displaying HD images but which lack HDMI connectors with HDCP capability. Only recently have computer monitors and graphics cards started to emerge with HDCP, so it would be quite disastrous for the studios to be pushing out image constrained discs which force a large proportion of hardware to degrade to standard def simply because the security hardware is not in place.

TBH I really don't undersdand the whole HDCP/image constraint thing - no-one in their right mind is going to make pirate copies of HD material by ripping the decompressed HD from an HDMI or component connector and re-encoding it onto blank BR discs - total waste of processing power and will necessarily introduce generation loss. Far better simply to rip the encoded video from the disc, strip out the AACS and write it to a blank disc, recoding to remove unwanted material and compress if required to fit on a single layer etc., much as is done with pirate SD DVDs. That and HDCP has been shown to be inherently mathematically flawed means I don't see any advantage for the studios in turning it on.


^QFT. I read somewhere that the reason given by the studios is (washjob), "when piracy gets to the point where it's necessary, we'll turn it on." lol. More like, "we'll lose sales because everyone just bought a last-gen HDTV on closeout, and we can't get them to buy another one next week that has the new version HDMI ports from this week in order to be able to display properly with lock-and-key copy-protection!" :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by alextwo
Although Fox, in all their infinite wisdom have decided to encode all of their recent releases in MPEG2. :|

I'm not suprised. Title to title difference. I have a copy of Final Fantasy: Spirits Within on BR, that was an earlier MPEG2 encode...and it looks amazing. It's like painting; it doesn't necessarily matter what you're painting with, as long as it comes out looking good! :)
talladega 10th January 2008, 02:48 Quote
I can display 1080p on my 19" LCD monitor. and there is a slightly noticeable differenece between 720p and 1080p. i am very close to it but just regular distance in how you use a pc monitor.

you shouldnt need 1080p? <40" its not noticeable? ya right. how far do you think you should be away? 30feet?

many people cant im sure but any techy person should easily be able to tell the difference.
Lucidity 11th January 2008, 05:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by talladega
I can display 1080p on my 19" LCD monitor. and there is a slightly noticeable differenece between 720p and 1080p. i am very close to it but just regular distance in how you use a pc monitor.

you shouldnt need 1080p? <40" its not noticeable? ya right. how far do you think you should be away? 30feet?

many people cant im sure but any techy person should easily be able to tell the difference.

In sizes 32 and below it is hard to tell the difference, easy to a trained eye, and not really worth the extra cost. If 40 and above there is a huge difference, and most people cannot tell because they really aren't comparing 2 tvs from the same source, but at different resolutions. Basically if you go to a store, and you look at to sets next to eachother, if they are all running the same images, they are all running a 1080i source, so you can't really see the ability of a 1080p unless it is an ultra high-end set that is built with very good upscaling abilities under the hood. If I hooked up two tvs, one 40inch that is 1080p and its older counterpart that was 720p, and ran let's just say Transformers on them both, you would totally see the difference. Edges would be clearer, details would be more pronounced, and the sense of depth to the image would be increased.
Tyinsar 11th January 2008, 06:55 Quote
Well, so much for porn deciding the fate of the universe then. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmorgue
... I really don't see why we're being forced to use spinning pieces of easily damaged plastic...
But if it breaks or scratches easily we have to buy another copy = increased sales :(. Actually I think the reason is that those disks cost significantly less than flash-RAM etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
...there's a limit to what your eye can discern, anything higher than 1080p isn't really worth bothering with because we wouldn't really be able to tell the difference (1080p for many people is pointless, there's no point in 1080p for a screen less than 40", ...
Ask anyone running a 30" monitor (almost twice the res of 1080p) if they'd prefer a lower resolution. I'm running my computer desktop at 3840 x 2048 and I Love the resolution - a 1080p TV would be just over a quarter of that resolution. I realise it's not exactly the same thing as a TV but I think the lines between monitors & TVs are being blurred and are stepping into each other's territories. It would not surprise me to see TVs that upscale from 1080p - maybe not for 10 or more years but they are coming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
...and HDCP has been shown to be inherently mathematically flawed means I don't see any advantage for the studios in turning it on.
Since when has reality played into their game plan? :D

Edit: for full 1080p you need at least a 24" monitor - 20" - 22" ones are close but not close enough.
20->22"=1680*1050
24->28"=1920*1200
1080pTV=1920*1080
talladega 11th January 2008, 07:21 Quote
my monitor has hdcp and when i do 1080p it says 'recommended resolution is 1680x1050' but if i go in the menu it says it is 1920x1080 @ 60Hz.
Veles 11th January 2008, 11:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyinsar
Ask anyone running a 30" monitor (almost twice the res of 1080p) if they'd prefer a lower resolution. I'm running my computer desktop at 3840 x 2048 and I Love the resolution - a 1080p TV would be just over a quarter of that resolution. I realise it's not exactly the same thing as a TV but I think the lines between monitors & TVs are being blurred and are stepping into each other's territories. It would not surprise me to see TVs that upscale from 1080p - maybe not for 10 or more years but they are coming.

Since when has reality played into their game plan? :D

Edit: for full 1080p you need at least a 24" monitor - 20" - 22" ones are close but not close enough.
20->22"=1680*1050
24->28"=1920*1200
1080pTV=1920*1080


Monitors and TVs are completely different, you're supposed to sit a lot closer to a monitor than you are a TV, and increased resolution has way more benefits on a PC than it does on a TV, namely, lots more room to put stuff on screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talladega
how far do you think you should be away? 30feet?

5x the height of the screen, that how far you're meant to be sitting away, a bigger TV means you're meant to sit further away.
Tyinsar 12th January 2008, 06:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
Monitors and TVs are completely different, you're supposed to sit a lot closer to a monitor than you are a TV, and increased resolution has way more benefits on a PC than it does on a TV, namely, lots more room to put stuff on screen.
True but as I said I think the lines are getting blurred. For years I have used a monitor as a TV and I've seen several people use HDTVs as monitors.

Also - I think it's like anything else: movie special effects that looked so realistic 5-10 years ago are now easy to spot and don't look that real at all; same with graphics, same with sound quality, ... Once you get used to higher quality your ability to see / hear / taste / smell (I'm thinking wine experts with the last two)... the difference increases beyond what you might even have thought possible. The human brain has an amazing ability to adapt and trained senses can be quite phenomenal. If we train our eyes & brains with higher resolutions we will easily be able to spot the difference and appreciate even higher resolutions.

Could I be wrong? - quite possibly, but let's wait and see what the next new standard will be in ten years.
mclean007 14th January 2008, 10:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyinsar
True but as I said I think the lines are getting blurred. For years I have used a monitor as a TV and I've seen several people use HDTVs as monitors.

Also - I think it's like anything else: movie special effects that looked so realistic 5-10 years ago are now easy to spot and don't look that real at all; same with graphics, same with sound quality, ... Once you get used to higher quality your ability to see / hear / taste / smell (I'm thinking wine experts with the last two)... the difference increases beyond what you might even have thought possible. The human brain has an amazing ability to adapt and trained senses can be quite phenomenal. If we train our eyes & brains with higher resolutions we will easily be able to spot the difference and appreciate even higher resolutions.

Could I be wrong? - quite possibly, but let's wait and see what the next new standard will be in ten years.
The point is, though, that there is physiological limit of human visual acuity - we can resolve down to approximately 1 arc-minute of resolution. Many people make the mistake of saying that this means the human eye can't discern 1080p from 720p on a screen less than a certain size, but of course this is only true if the viewing distance is fixed - obviously a 40" screen at 5m viewing distance looks smaller than a 50" screen at 5m, but a 40" screen at 4m looks exactly the same size as a 50" at 5m, in that it fills exactly the same proportion of your vision.

Now, recommended viewing distance for standard def content is approx 5 times the height of the screen, and it can be shown by very simple trigonometry that at 5x screen height one pixel of a 1080p display describes just 0.64 arc-minutes of your field of view, while one pixel of a 720p display will describe 0.95 arc-minutes. As such, at 5x screen height, it is probably quite accurate to say that the additional resolution of 1080p is not discernable.

For high def content, however, you could easily have a viewing distance of, say, 3 times the screen height, either by buying a bigger TV or by sitting closer to it. In this case, a single pixel at 1080p describes 1.06 arc-minutes, while at 720p you're looking at 1.59. As such, a person with good eyesight should be able to discern the difference at that viewing distance. For a 50" screen this translates to a viewing distance of around 5'4" (1.63m); at 46" it should be 4'11" (1.50m); for a 40" TV 3x height = 4'3" (1.30m).

The final piece of the puzzle is that most "720p" TVs actually have a weird resolution of 1366 x 768 or similar, so every image has to either be put through some unnatural scaling factor or will not fill the entire screen. 1080p sets, however, have a resolution of exactly 1920x1080, so 1080i/p content exactly fills the screen (with the TV's 1:1 pixel mapping enabled), while 720p content has to be scaled at a relatively round factor of 1.5:1. This should result in a sharper image for both 1080p and 720p content on a good, well calibrated 1080p screen compared to a 720p screen, regardless of how well set up the latter may be. Whether this is noticeable to the average person, who seems to wander around the world with his eyes shut, I don't know. I do know that the difference is quite apparent to me, as a perfectionist and videophile who notices details.
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