OT: Collusion in the format wars?

craftech wrote on 9/5/2006, 8:31 PM
Evan Powell from Projector Central just published an investigative report entitled:

The Retailing of HD-DVD and Blu-ray

In it he exposes what appear to be unfair and unethical business practices in promoting Blu-Ray at the expense of HD DVD by such retailers as Best Buy, Circuit City, Frys, and many others. It makes for a very interesting read.

An excerpt:

" In addition to the favorable Blu-ray staging being done on retail floors, most of the sales reps we encountered were armed with a set of talking points. When we asked about the differences between Blu-ray and HD-DVD we got four stock answers:


1. Blu-ray is higher resolution 1080p, whereas HD-DVD is only 1080i.
2. Blu-ray has more storage capacity, so they can put more video on the disc.

3. Blu-ray is faster, so it can deliver a better picture.

4. Blu-ray has more Hollywood studio support, so you'll see more HD movies in Blu-ray than with HD-DVD.

That's a pretty compelling list of reasons to buy Blu-ray. It is hard to believe anyone would end up buying HD-DVD after a pitch like that. But let's take a look at each of these issues more closely. "

John


Comments

farss wrote on 9/5/2006, 9:40 PM
It's OK, consummers aren't entirely stupid.
Once the see a BD movie on a Bravia they'll realise it's bunk.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 9/6/2006, 4:00 AM

Great article, very enlightening. Thanks, John!


Chienworks wrote on 9/6/2006, 5:02 AM
Someone please explain to me again why and how 1080p is higher resolution than 1080i. Ummmmm, both are 1080 lines. So, one displays a full frame 30 times a second and the other displays two 540 line fields 30 times a second. That's still 1080 lines 30 times a second.

*shrug*

Sounds like exactly the same resolution to me.

And, there's no physical reason why either disc format couldn't be used for both 1080p and 1080i.
craftech wrote on 9/6/2006, 5:11 AM
Someone please explain to me again why and how 1080p is higher resolution than 1080i
============
Kelly,
The excerpt from the article that I cited above was of the sales pitch being used by many retailers to promote Blu-Ray at the expense of HD DVD. The article explains the fallacy quite well.
John
JJKizak wrote on 9/6/2006, 5:12 AM
1080P is 2160I. Also over 2 million pixels instead of 900 thousand.

JJK
Chienworks wrote on 9/6/2006, 5:15 AM
James, do you have a source or reference for that? I've never heard that before. Certainly 480p is not 960i, it's just plain 480p and the same resolution as 480i.

If 1080p was 2160i then all the manufacturers would be talking about the incredible 2160 lines of resolution. None of them are.
grh wrote on 9/6/2006, 5:22 AM
1080P is 2160I. Also over 2 million pixels instead of 900 thousand.

Um, no. That makes no sense whatsoever. The # indicates the number of lines of pixels, which makes your statement one of attempting to make 2 different resolutions equivalent. Doesn't seem logical.

Got an attribution?
JJKizak wrote on 9/6/2006, 5:23 AM
Actually I remembered this from a previous thread on this forum. And I have seen the difference between the two and it is substantial, like the difference between HDV 720P and analog. But I believe the 1080I is a "contrived derivitive" rather than pure 1080 scan.
JJK
craftech wrote on 9/6/2006, 5:27 AM
The marketing hype came from the fact that the first HD DVD player (The Toshiba HD-A1) outputs 1080i while the first Blu-Ray player (The Samsung BD-P1000) outputs both 1080i and 1080p.
The software (movies) are all 1080p, but visually there is no difference in what the players send to the display source. It is the display sources that have the differences that may or may not be noticeable. The sales hype is attributing the differences to the players to downplay one over the other.

However, from the article:

"Now, an important side note is warranted. We are talking about the common form of 1080p in the NTSC world, which is 1080p/60. But another way to output the information is to simply transfer the data on the disc in its native 1080p/24 format without doing any conversion to 1080i/60 or 1080p/60. Contrary to what you might expect, 1080p/24 transmission actually can have some incremental benefit over 1080p/60. However, in order to take advantage of 1080p/24 output on the players, we will also need projectors and TVs that can recognize 1080p/24 signals and convert them to 48 or 72 Hz. The vast majority of HD compatible TVs and projectors that have been installed and are being sold today do not have 1080p/24 capability. However, they are beginning to appear in anticipation that Blu-ray and HD-DVD players will be able to output that particular signal format.

The advantage to 1080p/24 transmission is that it can eliminate artifacts associated with the 2:3 pulldown conversion that is common in the NTSC 60 Hz world. The disadvantage is that it adds cost to both the HD disc players and the video display products. Moreover, the vast majority of consumers are not bothered by, or even conscious of the artifacts that it is intended to eliminate anyway. For the most part, 2:3 pulldown conversion is invisible to the viewer except in certain types of scenes, and even then they would not be noticed at a normal viewing distance on most 40" to 50" televisions.

Nevertheless, for videophiles using larger screen systems, 1080p/24 transmission and processing will eliminate 2:3 pulldown artifacts that they can certainly be aware of and bothered by. So as TVs and projectors come onto the market that are able to accept a 1080p/24 signal, both HD-DVD and Blu-ray players will show up that are able to deliver it. In fact, the next wave of higher priced Blu-ray players to hit the market this fall should have 1080p/24 output as an option. A good percentage of the higher end videophile market will be motivated by 1080p/24 transmission, so HD-DVD will need to follow suit in a timely fashion. "



John
farss wrote on 9/6/2006, 5:37 AM
Agreed, that's totally bogus.

For the majority of content going onto either HD DVD or BD the source is progressive. Scan it into one frame or two fields matter zero to either spatial or temporal resolution.

Avoid using pulldown and encode at 24p rather than 60i saves some space.

But here's a question, how the heck to you encode a 24p source into 60p???
craftech wrote on 9/6/2006, 5:48 AM
But here's a question, how the heck to you encode a 24p source into 60p???
=========
If you use repeat flags, only 'real frame' data would be left in the bitstream. A progressive version of pulldown is being applied. Steve Mullen explains it much better in his review of the JVC GY-HD100 Progressive CCD HDV camcorder.

John
farss wrote on 9/6/2006, 5:52 AM
Doesn't that produce a rather wierd cadence, similar to 24pA?
craftech wrote on 9/6/2006, 5:59 AM
Doesn't that produce a rather wierd cadence, similar to 24pA?
=========
Bob,
I added the link above after your post. Steve Mullen has a PHD and does a much better job explaining than I did.

John
farss wrote on 9/6/2006, 6:26 AM
OK, I follow that much.

I'm wondering how it looks displayed like that, compared to 48p?

Bob.