XstreamHD Launches HD Home Satellite > ?

reply to bogey780

Re: ?

reply to imrf
'They could have done it if they felt the real need for it.'

Incorrect. All HD DVD recievers can output TrueHD. They didn't have the bandwidth for it and PiP though so it had to go.

'I'm sure once more receivers with HDMI inputs they will release a special edition with it on there, like all studios love to do.'

Then why argue in favor of a format that will double dip?

BTW... blu-ray released Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind with all 3 versions of the film (theatrical, video release, and 2nd theatrical release) all on one blu-ray in 1080p with lossless audio.

'You do realize that there are plenty of BR discs that don't have HD audio. But you'll probably skirt the issue like you always do.'

Some 2/3 to 3/4 of them have lossless. Which is almost the inverse of HD DVD. Size matters.

reply to Sly
I actually didn't contradict myself.

If you take the same VC-1 stream and put it on blu-ray and HD DVD the end result should always look the same. That's the problem with comparing dual format releases. They almost always use the same encode.

The only thing close to a comparison was when Nature's Journey came out and they maxed the bandwidth for each format. They were nearly identical but a few shots tipped towards blu-ray.

nm

reply to bogey780

reply to bogey780

reply to imrf
'Incorrect.'

And here's the proof you're wrong, naturally:
Indeed, I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps). Unfortunately, this confirms the long-held theory that the 30Gb capacity of an HD-30 dual-layer HD DVD disc has forced studios to choose between offering a robust supplements package (as they've done here) and the very best in audio quality.

From »hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/tra···ers.html

'Do you even know what you're talking about? The format isn't the one double dipping, it's the studio producing the disc. And I hate to break it to you but they all do it.'

And it helps when you have a format that encourages it. Blu-ray has working seamless branching (such as CEof3K) so they have less of an excuse to double dip.

'All they have to do is keep the parts that weren't there originally and insert them when needed'

Ok, let's get technical for a moment. To do seamless branching you need a certain buffer size. HD DVD can do seamless branching but due to lower bandwidth the compressionist has to branch from a relative minimum to relative minimum as the branching requires more bandwidth for the seeking and buffering. Thus making for a sloppier more difficult time for the compressionist. It's easiest to just transfer from any point to any point and not have the bandwidth be a concern.

'There could be a ton of reasons why they don't and all we can do is speculate why they don't. '

But it's not speculation. they stated why before.

'If they took out the extras they could have added the better audio track. But they simply felt the demand was not there for the better audio track and felt that extras were worth it.'

Uhhhhh..and the reason why they had to make that decision is because they didn't have room for it in either disc size or bandwidth.

Please someone tell me they at least understand this!

'Seamless branching has nothing to do with compression. All they do is insert markers on where to put a different file. It isn't tough to do and has been around for many years.'

Ahhh...see this proves my point. You just confused seamless branching with multi-angle. You see, multi-angle is not a problem. You just flag the spots and an identicle length segment will be inserted. Branching is different in that it can insert a whole new scene and change the movie's audio and video track completely.

Don't confuse the two.

'No, it was one blogger's comments.'

... quoting the studio. He didn't come up with the excuse. It's what the studio told him. And he loves HD DVD!

reply to bogey780
No... BD-Java was not required up until this month in players.

And almost immediately, BluRay content makers all went and used it for one thing - DRM.

HD-DVD uses HDi for the interactive menus and stuff, and has been available from the start. Why else do you think that 300 has so many more extras on the HD-DVD release, that Warner has only said that they will have to re-release the movie on BluRay again after BD-Java was made required in the next version/revision of the "standard" ?

Doesn't seem very standard if they have to keep re-iterating on it this way. But then again, I don't expect Sony to understand the meaning of an industry standard - usually implies something that does not change on a whim, which they are prone to do. They can't even decide on a single version of their own Memory stick "standard". Why would I expect them to agree on how their own BluRay media is supposed to work?

'No... BD-Java was not required up until this month in players.'

No, it was required from start. Otherwise Java based titles such as Pirates would not be able to play in the 1st Samsung player. Again, you're confusing 1.1 with Java.

'And almost immediately, BluRay content makers all went and used it for one thing - DRM'

Just stop. You're getting everything wrong. Java is not used for DRM. You're thinking of BD+. Please, I've corrected you. Please research your assumptions before restating them.

'Why else do you think that 300 has so many more extras on the HD-DVD release, that Warner has only said that they will have to re-release the movie on BluRay again after BD-Java was made required in the next version/revision of the "standard"?'

Stop it. you're getting it all wrong. HDi is not the reason for the extras. The reason is the PiP. 1.1 is the PiP profile and has nothing to do with Java. that's the reason why they'll double dip on the title. All the "extras" had nothing to do with Java.

'But then again, I don't expect Sony to understand the meaning of an industry standard - usually implies something that does not change on a whim'

Toshiba just changed and added to the HD DVD standard. Comment?

Like I said, you're getting the most basic of info wrong.

reply to imrf
'Do you know how to read and comprehend? If they took out the extras, they could have. But again, felt the extras were worth it and the HD audio wasn't.'

And I can fit 20 people in my saturn...just not all at once. The fact you're missing from basic English is that they HAD to choose one or the other because HD DVD did not have the ability to put BOTH on the disc. I don't know how a native English speaker who graduated any formal education could not understand such a simple concept. The desire to exclude one came about not from capriciousness but from necessity.

'Seamless branching has been done on DVDs for years'

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamless_branching

Now for the guts

»formatwarcentral.com/index.php/2···anching/

and why?

Because you need to have enough bandwidth to buffer the change or else it isn't seamless. That's where encoding comes into play.

It's not common on DVD because it requirs extra effort. Though multi-angle is because bandwidth isn't a concern.

'Either way, I wouldn't believe it until there is an official press release showing their stance. If you want to believe it, go for it, but I'm not.'

Your dismissiveness of Peter Bracke's credentials kinda shows just how out of the HD loop you are. The guy is a HD DVD fanboy but he's not meritless in his claims(including what Paramount insiders have told him). He's not stupid enough to quote a marketing exec for a technical reason.

'Again, that doesn't prove a damn thing. Bandwidth does not have anything to do with this and neither does compression.'

You know nothing about it. The encoders and actual tech heads on the AV sites who've said such have more weight than you.

'BTW, you've been a member of this site for over 3 years now and you still haven't figured out how to quote people.'

I've been on the web from before "quote" tags existed and I've been doing it too long to change. Nice ad hominem though. You have no technical argument to back up your assertions.

reply to bogey780
Wow! those are some pretty broad statements that scream I am a snob.

I would agree with the first person that corrected you by saying there is virtually no difference in the quality of HDDVD or BluRay.

reply to imrf
You have claimed the equivilancy that a person could put 20lbs of dung into a 5lb sack...but they just choose not to.

You've said the insiders and those they talk to are liars/idiots and you know it all because you have an HD DVD player.

You simply do not understand the most basic of tech issues when it comes to AV technology.