ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
Nothin' but pure science fiction!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

HD-DVD

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Off-Topic Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Randy
Space Ranger


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 127
Location: Ohio

PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:24 pm    Post subject: HD-DVD Reply with quote

Below is some of my collection of movies and series in HD-DVD format. I prefer the video quality of HD-DVD over Blu-ray. I am heart-broken that HD-DVD lost the war with Blu-ray. If you ever get the chance to see a movie such as Forbidden Planet or Dune in HD-DVD, you will see a more colorful, sharper and smoother picture.

By the way, you cannot play HD-DVD discs on a Blu-ray player.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pye-Rate
Starship Co-Pilot


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 625

PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with you HD-DVD was better. The advantage to Blue Ray is that it is at the beginning of it's development cycle and has room to improve.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist


Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 472

PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was an early supporter of HD DVD and I still have about 40 HD DVD discs. When the format was drawing to a close, I even bought an extra player (which I still have) for future use! Nobody could accuse me of bias against HD DVD.

One further advantage of HD DVD was the lack of region coding so HD DVDs from anywhere in the world would play on all HD DVD machines. Blu-ray has region coding although there are a good number of region free discs that will play anywhere.

That being said, HD DVD had some serious limitations which would have been almost impossible to overcome.

The biggest problem was disc capacity. This is not a problem that could have just been "developed away". The physical data paths were bigger. This was an actual physical limitation like having wide grooves on and LP. You could only fit so much on a layer of disc and once you get past two layers, problems go up exponentially. The paths had to be of a larger size because of the limitations of the red laser used to read them.

Like Blu-ray (and plain DVD for that matter), HD DVD came in single and dual-layer discs. The HD DVDs held 15GB (single layer) and 30GB (dual-layer) respectively. Blu-ray Discs hold 25GB (single layer) and 50GB (dual layer) respectivley.

That makes it difficult to fit a number of major movies on HD DVD without excessive compression.

For example, THE RIGHT STUFF runs for 3 hours and 12 minutes. The feature alone (excluding extras) takes up 44GB which significantly exceeds the capacity of HD-DVD. THE BLUE MAX takes up 43GB of disc space, WHITE CHRISTMAS takes 33GB for the feature but includes almost 12GB of extras and uses 45GB of disc space. Blu-ray makes quality double features possible with more than one movie on a disc...like THUNDERBIRS ARE GO and THUNDERBIRD 6 which are about 20GB each and both fit together on one, dual layer Blu-ray Disc.

Those movies now represent the norm, not the exception. Most HD movies come on dual layer BDs and, with extras, often use 40GB. Just 2 days ago I watched THE NIGHT PORTER...34GB feature with almost 10GB of extras...a 44GB disc.

Given the use of the red laser and large data paths, HD DVD was a format that just didn't have room to grow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Randy
Space Ranger


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 127
Location: Ohio

PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to disagree with your debate on disc capacity, HD-DVD licensed anti-aliasing technology used on the video which smooths the "jagged edges" which not only "smooths" the video image, but also decreases the file size without reducing the resolution. Therefore the video was cleaned of rough edges, unlike the Blu-ray video, and it's resultant file size compared very closely with a larger Blu-ray file size at the same resolution.

I have software which will directly convert an HD-DVD (.evo) video file to a .m2ts stream file (without re-rendering) which will then allow the .evo file to be played on a Blu-ray player. The differences between the HD-DVD video and the commercial Blu-ray version of the same video become apparent when both are played on the same Blu-ray player.

I have sent a copy of the HD-DVD version of "Aeon Flux" and others to Bud Brewster. The HD-DVD version with anti-aliasing is sharper and the colors are richer then the commercial Blu-ray. The same can be said for "Forbidden Planet".

I have to end this with one note:

These differences are only apparent to a video fanatic.
The ordinary viewer might not notice or even care as both formats are excellent.

(The difference is much more noticeable when up converted to 4K and viewed on my 60" 4K Television)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist


Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 472

PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
Not to disagree with your debate on disc capacity, HD-DVD licensed anti-aliasing technology used on the video which smooths the "jagged edges" which not only "smooths" the video image, but also decreases the file size without reducing the resolution.

In my opinion, anti-aliasing technology is a crutch to hide lower resolution.

Anti-aliasing is used primarily to combat moire patterns. Moire patterns are less of a problem with less compression. If HD DVD had more capacity, it would not have needed hide moire and jaggies with anti-aliasing.

One popular modification for serious photographers is to have anti-aliasing filters removed from cameras. Smoothing jagged edges is a trick to fool the eyes. It makes people think they see a sharper image. I put it in the same category as edge enhancement which is used to make people think an image is sharper than it is.

http://www.lifepixel.com/shop/anti-aliasing-filter-removal/nikon-dslr-anti-aliasing-filter-removal

"Capture more detailed images by having us modify your Nikon DSLR by removing the AA Anti-Aliasing filter stack and replacing it with our non-AA replacement filter. This allows you to capture more image detail that would otherwise be blurred internally by the anti-aliasing filter. The main drawbacks are occasional moire patterns in some images and slight WB shift. For more information please visit the Anti-Aliasing Filter Removal blog post."

From another site:

"One of the things that I like the most about the Leica M9 is the crispness and incredible detail of the files. This is due to two things 1. those fabulous little Leica lenses and 2. the lack of an AA-Filter (Anti-Aliasing Filter) in the M9. Something which the big medium format digital backs like Phase One, Hasselblad, Leica S2 etc also lack. The main purpose of the Anti-Aliasing Filter or also called the Blur Filter (which is exactly what it does to our precious images)"


Last edited by Brent Gair on Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Randy
Space Ranger


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 127
Location: Ohio

PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ahh ... beauty is always in the eye of the beholder ...

Everyone appreciates that which pleases their own eyes ...

No two eyes are alike ...


But one thing is for sure ... My dog is better than your dog cuz he eats Kennel-Ration!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist


Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 472

PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
Ahh ... beauty is always in the eye of the beholder ...

Everyone appreciates that which pleases their own eyes ...

No two eyes are alike ...





Agreed.

I've had a similar discussion with people who looked at images which, to my thinking, had excessive edge-enhancement but they felt such images looked much better.

I didn't see it as pleasing but they did.

If they like it, who am I tell them otherwise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Off-Topic Discussions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group