Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080? (Read 10890 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Just go to http://www.highdefdigest.com/ and read the review on the title you seek out.  Mainly if the picture is crap and looks upsampled, in reality it isn't, it just has a lot of DNR done to it.  When you see the term that they used the same master as the DVD, it isn't that they scanned at only DVD resolution and upsampled it.  They scanned film well beyond DVD of HD resolution, they just mean it's the same scan.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #1 –
24 fps is crap for movies.  48 fps would also be a stupid number.  60 fps is the only logical future, and Blu-ray doesn't support that in 1080p, nor will it ever.  James Cameron wants 48 fps for cinema, not the home.  I don't see how an ancient technical limitation like 24 fps makes a movie artistic.  That's just a retarded stoner excuse.  There will always be movies in physical format.  Now with net neutrality overturned streaming will not be viable, and also the fact that the ISPs are greedy vs. what their technology actually can do.  UHDTV is the next step up.  Once holographic discs are perfected then that technology can become viable.  I really don't see the need for more than 5.1 sound, though, much less 22.2 channels.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #2 –
If 48 gets going in the theaters, why would 60 be better at home? You'll have to deal with strange pulldown issues again. Blu-ray can be updated to 60p, and with the 3D spec at least bandwidth-wise it does support it, IIRC.

And for something higher than current 1080/24p HD for movies, some very unlikely things have to happen. That people start buying physical format like they did on the DVD and CD heydays, that people are willing to upgrade to ever-more expensive equipment (the size of the HDTV must scale with the resolution, if you wanna keep watching at the same distance), and that there would be a LOT of new and compelling higher-than-24fps content.

For pretty much 99% of the movies already made and being made for the foreseeable future, 24p is the highest quality framerate-wise you can get.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #3 –
ffs, Woody Allen just in the last couple of years "upgraded" to stereo sound, but only for the music (not dialogue)! For most directors that concentrate on story telling (however you may feel about Mr. Allen), 24p is not much of a limitation. Only "baffle them with bullshit" directors like Cameron (whose older movies I do like) are complaining about it (and I'm not sure if even anyone else is).

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #4 –
Sorry, but I wouldn't want to watch a 60 fps movie on 1x Blu-ray.  Not enough bandwidth for a uncompressed-looking picture.  Commercial releases will look like bit-torrent rips.  They can get away with compression now because motion blur compresses nicely.  But when you have a more detailed image at almost 3x the fps you will easily have blocking with the Blu-ray bandwidth constraints.  Oh, and a BD50 wouldn't be enough for a movie of decent length.  Saving Private Ryan was almost 3 hours and they needed a BD50 for just the movie...they put the extra features on an extra BD25.  I'm saying they shouldn't do 48 fps in ANY domain.  If they want to go higher, do something that can be standardized all over, like 60 fps.  I think if they worked on upgrading the framerate then higher resolution becomes pointless for decades...you will get more detail from higher shutter speed, AND more resolution over time. 

...But people will reject it in the end because of their retarded interpolation algorithms built into 240hz TVs (they don't understand you can't make detail from blur, it's only an approximation.)  <idiot talk> My 240hz interpolation is better than your 60 fps source because my number is bigger </idiot talk>

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: ramicio on
Sorry, but I wouldn't want to watch a 60 fps movie on 1x Blu-ray.  Not enough bandwidth for a uncompressed-looking picture.  Commercial releases will look like bit-torrent rips.  They can get away with compression now because motion blur compresses nicely.  But when you have a more detailed image at almost 3x the fps you will easily have blocking with the Blu-ray bandwidth constraints.

How do you know this for a fact?

-k

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: ramicio on
24 fps is crap for movies.


So all movies filmed since forever are crap are they? The 48fps thing is suggested purely for 3D.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #7 –
The world should just pick one already...50 or 60 Hz.  Japan has 2 power grids for Christ's sake, one 50 and one 60.  So retarded.  48 FPS is a retarded choice outside of cinema.  60 Hz is the only logical choice IMO.  1080p60 @ 1x blu-ray rates WILL suffer from blocking and smearing.  I don't give a shit what kind of super-codec you pull out of your ass to use.  Just because you can cram a 90 minute 1080p24 movie down to DVD9 and not have it look like TOTALL ass doesn't mean it's ideal, it's just a damn illegal download format...no one still wants to download even a whole BD25.  Studios go for as perfect of an image as they can get.  If they didn't care they could just lie and stuff a BD movie onto a DVD9 to save money.  There are cameras that do 1080p60 AVC.  The images look good from what I have seen, BUT no samples I've seen have had really any motion of any kind, and the images still aren't studio quality.

3D should just stop already...at least for the consumer market.  It's completely unrealistic.  Only when each person can control the scene like their own reality and be able to focus on what they want while the fore and backgrounds blur, and other real world things will 3D give someone a realistic experience.  If you have any kind of astigmatism or imperfect sight it doesn't work right, and just gives you a headache and strains your eyes.  If you raise the framerate it will add a little depth to the movie, anyway.  Displays do not need to be more than 60 Hz.  It's just idiotic and a waste of resources that could be pooled into other, more useful enhancements.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: ramicio on
1080p60 @ 1x blu-ray rates WILL suffer from blocking and smearing.
BluRay has a maximum video bitrate of 40Mbps. It's that high because they originally intended to use MPEG-2 only, not because it's necessary for H.264.

40Mbps is overkill for H.264 - you can preserve all of the film grain perfectly and still have some headroom. 60fps isn't going to have film grain(!), is going to have smaller differences between frames, and is already delivered today by some camcorders with real time encoding in cheap consumer hardware without artefacts at a far lower bitrate (e.g. Panasonic HDC-TM700, 27Mbps).

The EBU keeps telling us that 1080p50 doesn't require a higher bitrate than 1080i50. I'm not convinced that's always true, and it's partly a reflection of how bad interlaced content looks on some displays, but it's not complete fiction.

Cheers,
David.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #9 –
Sorry, but it's 36 Mbps, and that's for the whole container, NOT just video.  By the time you get done with multiple languages of audio, a lossless 5.1 track or two, and subtitles, you aren't left with as much as you assume for video...surely not enough IMO for 1080p60 content to look uncompressed.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: andy o on
I think the conversion from 24->50 is done by speeding up to 25 and then doubling, isn't it?


Only when doing releases as PAL on DVD for example and you then end up with a slight pitch increase on audio as well, it's also why the run time of the same film will differ between a PAL and NTSC DVD. I think most BR content will be output at 1080p60 by default even though most is stored at 1080p24?

Ramicio, that's the recording bitrate, see Wikipedia's entry on the subject:

Quote
For users recording digital television programming, the recordable Blu-ray Disc standard's initial data rate of 36 Mbit/s is more than adequate to record high-definition broadcasts from any source (IPTV, cable/satellite, or terrestrial). BD Video movies have a maximum data transfer rate of 54 Mbit/s, a maximum AV bitrate of 48 Mbit/s (for both audio and video data), and a maximum video bit rate of 40 Mbit/s. This compares to HD DVD movies, which have a maximum data transfer rate of 36 Mbit/s, a maximum AV bitrate of 30.24 Mbit/s, and a maximum video bitrate of 29.4 Mbit/s.


Hope that helps.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: ramicio on
Sorry, but it's 36 Mbps
The 1x BluRay write rate is 36Mbps. That's quite different.

The maximum video bitrate really is 40Mbps. Some releases even make full use of it...
http://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-movies-no...rates-here.html

Wikipedia really is correct...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Bit_rate

EDIT: me too slow. What he said ^^^

Cheers,
David.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #12 –
I stand corrected, then.  I sure hope 40 Mbps is enough to preserve the picture.  We shall see what they plan to do.  If they choose 48 FPS I will boycott that and not watch any of those titles nor purchase them.  If they do 60 FPS I will be happy.  Either way they have to convince the Blu-ray people to change their standards to allow more than 1080p24.  Even 1080p30 isn't allowed, which is pretty pathetic.  I don't see the big fuss about interlaced stuff, though.  It only gets the combing when viewed without deinterlacing, or with improper methods.  When viewed with proper bob deinterlacing it basically goes 1080p30 < 1080i60 < 1080p60.  I'd take 720p60 over 1080p24 any day, as that IS already possible on Blu-ray.  Most movies don't earn 1080p and don't need to be more than 720p.

As for the TM700 delivering 1080p60 @ 27 Mbps without artifacts, I'd like to see some REAL samples that have full-scene motion instead of the mostly-still shots that are featured at http://hdcam.web-pda.info/ .  I DO NOT believe an on-the-fly AVC encoder can keep up with cinematic demands of action @ 27 Mbps for 60 FPS.  I don't even believe that 27 Mbps would be good enough for a final production encoding of 60 FPS action.  If you want movies with a DNR plastic-people look, then yes, you could do some processing to have your cake and eat it too for low bitrates.  There is a reason why cameras like that TM700 aren't used for anything more than some amateur indie/emo-people films and haven't broken into REAL cinema...

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #14 –
It means some film transfers are absolute crap in terms of detail.  They either didn't scan the film with very good equipment or didn't use very good film in the first place.  Some movies look like they were scanned at maybe 540 lines and upscaled to 1080 lines.  Or maybe they just had no idea how to focus a lens.  A good example is the Bad Santa blu-ray.  I should have said "some" instead of "most", but "some" seems to make the problem too minor as a lot of movies look like this, and in my mind "some" means a few here and there, when in reality like 1/3 - 1/2 of the releases don't need 1080 to fully resolve the film scan.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: ramicio on
It means some film transfers are absolute crap in terms of detail.  They either didn't scan the film with very good equipment or didn't use very good film in the first place.  Some movies look like they were scanned at maybe 540 lines and upscaled to 1080 lines.  Or maybe they just had no idea how to focus a lens.  A good example is the Bad Santa blu-ray.  I should have said "some" instead of "most", but "some" seems to make the problem too minor as a lot of movies look like this, and in my mind "some" means a few here and there, when in reality like 1/3 - 1/2 of the releases don't need 1080 to fully resolve the film scan.


But that's still nothing to do with 1080p vs 720p, it's the mastering process. I've got quite a collection and the worst ones would benefit from a new master but it doesn't mean there's no point in them being 1080p. I think you're putting down the format somewhat unnecessarily, or at least that's the way you come across if it's not intentional.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #16 –
There is no point in bad masters being 1080p when they could look exactly the same being 720p upscaled to 1080p at the TV and not need as big of discs.  I love the format, I just don't like how it was supposed to be a Godsend but most of the content is done half-ass.  It's exactly like the music industry these days and the lack of good production.  You might as well put music in some 64 kbps format instead of even bother to take advantage of CD when the music doesn't take advantage of what CD offers...anymore.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #17 –
I'll take an "old" crappy-looking movie any day with good content over visually stunning new crap that is just mental trash.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #18 –
Quote from: ramicio on
There is no point in bad masters being 1080p when they could look exactly the same being 720p upscaled to 1080p at the TV and not need as big of discs.  I love the format, I just don't like how it was supposed to be a Godsend but most of the content is done half-ass.  It's exactly like the music industry these days and the lack of good production.  You might as well put music in some 64 kbps format instead of even bother to take advantage of CD when the music doesn't take advantage of what CD offers...anymore.


I really don't understand your logic with any of this so I'll bow out with a thoroughly confused look on my face.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #19 –
Ramicio's just bitter because he can't appreciate anything good and claims that because only 1/2 to 2/3 of content benefit from something, we shouldn't get that benefit.  It's a severe majority or nothing.  Personally, I'm glad we have it, hell, even some upscales can look better (than consumer end-device upscales) if done with professional algorithms and/or post production corrections.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #20 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: ramicio on
Sorry, but it's 36 Mbps
The 1x BluRay write rate is 36Mbps. That's quite different.

The maximum video bitrate really is 40Mbps. Some releases even make full use of it...
http://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-movies-no...rates-here.html

Wikipedia really is correct...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Bit_rate

EDIT: me too slow. What he said ^^^

Cheers,
David.


Are those the average bitrates listed for those movies?  I have the "Kingdom of Heaven" Director's Cut on Blu-Ray and on certain scenes the video bitrate spikes all the way up to 45 Mbps.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: andy o on
How do you add more frames per second to the content you guys are talking about? There are no magic in-between "frame guessers" either.


It's called motion interpolation.  It's quite messy actually.  I'd rather watch a film in its native 24 fps than the same film interpolated to 240 Hz.  You can notice a different slightly between 60 and 120 Hz, but I don't understand why they expanded to 240 Hz.  That's really pointless.  In a world where people will listen to artifact-laden music you can't expect those same people to care about image artifacts.  These are the people who make up the majority.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #22 –
Quote from: ramicio on
Quote from: andy o on
How do you add more frames per second to the content you guys are talking about? There are no magic in-between "frame guessers" either.


It's called motion interpolation.  It's quite messy actually.  I'd rather watch a film in its native 24 fps than the same film interpolated to 240 Hz.  You can notice a different slightly between 60 and 120 Hz, but I don't understand why they expanded to 240 Hz.  That's really pointless.  In a world where people will listen to artifact-laden music you can't expect those same people to care about image artifacts.  These are the people who make up the majority.

Please read the post I was replying to. onkl was actually defending your position, but s/he was suggesting that bandwidth that is saved by going 720 can be used for higher frame rate.

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #23 –
Quote from: ramicio on
I stand corrected, then.  I sure hope 40 Mbps is enough to preserve the picture.  We shall see what they plan to do.  If they choose 48 FPS I will boycott that and not watch any of those titles nor purchase them.  If they do 60 FPS I will be happy.
?! The perceived difference between 48 and 60 is rather small. 48, 72 or 120 are the obvious numbers to jump to for film. 60fps might suit legacy "NTSC" countries, but not legacy "PAL" countries. 48 is the opposite. It's probably so far off that it doesn't matter. They'll take any excuse to sell you a new TV anyway!

Cheers,
David.

 

[TOS #2] From: Bluray vs DVD at 1920x1080?

Reply #24 –
Quote from: andy o on
Please read the post I was replying to. onkl was actually defending your position, but s/he was suggesting that bandwidth that is saved by going 720 can be used for higher frame rate.

Right. I wasn't suggesting to use frame interpolation either. But for some contents it's feasible to lower the resolution and use the bandwidth for something else. Animation for example could easily be rendered with more then 24 frames or future productions that want to stay within Blu-ray specs. So 720p60 could be supperior to 1080p24 depending on the source material, that's what this discussion was about.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on
60fps might suit legacy "NTSC" countries, but not legacy "PAL" countries.

LCD screens run with 60Hz in europe too, so to avoid any hiccups you want 30 or 60 fps.