Sony Blu-ray to use old Mpeg-2 format

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Erm, many of the 720p trailers that are encoded in h.264 at Apple Traillers run fine on my Sempron 2600.

He was talking about a Mac =/

[gigapixels Veteran]

Yeah, but what codec? I can play WMV 720p video perfectly fine, with only about 50% CPU usage, but if I try the same with 720p H.264 QT videos, my PC really chugs.

Mine plays H.264 720p trailers from Apple's website just fine. No stuttering or anything of the sort.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Politic aside... what they said is true. Mpeg 2 Still provide the best quality at those high bitrate.

Or not.

Have you ever compared MPEG-2 and H.264 or WMV-HD at the same bitrate?

The problem is that you're used to decoding H.264 or WMV-HD at lower bitrates on your PC. At higher bitrates, decoding them becomes even harder. So you need more aggressive hardware. Sony is having a hard enough time getting BluRay to a reasonable price.

However, I believe Microsoft's licensing costs are cheaper than the alternatives - which is one reason HD-DVD is probably going to use VC-1 for most discs.

[villiansv]

to those claiming MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2 at the same bitrates (quality-wise): don't forget that Blu-Ray is supposed to have a higher capacity than HD-DVD (25GB vs 15GB according to wikipedia), so a Blu-ray disc encoded in MPEG-2 can have almost twice the bitrate of a MPEG-4 movie on an HD-DVD, ultimately resulting in better picture quality.

[psyko_x]

the point is we would be getting better picture quality at the same bitrate and it's a disappointing move from sony for not pushing technology forward

also the argument that h.264 takes more processing power is moot here. you shouldn't be comparing a general purpose computers ability to decode video to a dedicated piece of hardware. the circuitry that will be used for the players will be dedicated to decoding video and will be very effient.

plus why not put that super powerful cell chip to some use!!! isn't that what sony, ibm etc has been saying all this time? that the cell will be used in so many applications and will revolutionize blah blah blah. if the cell with 7spe's can decode 48 hd signals at the same time i'm sure it'd be cheap and easy to create a player than can decode one h.264 file

Edited December 20, 2005 by psyko_x

[DeadOnArrival]

There is no such thing as uncompressed MPEG2.

K WELL you better tell my cannon xl1 differently because it records direct uncompressed mpeg2 to tapes... the video files on my mac editing station easly reach 20g or more in size for just 1 hour of footage.. but you know I only do maybe 6 videos a month, so I just dont understand... :rolleyes:

[Jesse Carlton]

the point isn't whether mpeg 2 or 4 is better, the point is it doesn't matter. using mpeg 2, the files will be bigger for the same quality...but there's 25-50 GB to use up, so it's not an issue. There's no gain if they push the movie industry to start using mpeg 4 to encode all their movies and buy new equipment and invest more capital. They can just say hey, use a higher bit rate and more pixels per frame and it'll still work and fit fine.

it's the same as turning up a volume knob to get louder sound, compared to buying a new amp and speakers to get more sound at the same setting.

[trad]

until nVidia managed to create something like AVIVO, Blu-Ray will be natively on MPEG-2

H.264 resource hungry, if PS3 is a super computer for home entertaiment, as stated by them (Sony), people will use it to watch H.264 video anyway, i hope PS3 support the decoding of H.264 video

nVidia, i waiting NVIVO :lol:

mitodna

[BajiRav]

knowing Sony in recent times, I am not surprised :-s They were a good company...now just full of :x

just try doing a MPEG-2 to H.264/VC-1 comparison and even a blind person will be able to tell the difference. And lol at people who say space is not a problem...just use higher bitrate :D

[BajiRav]

K WELL you better tell my cannon xl1 differently because it records direct uncompressed mpeg2 to tapes... the video files on my mac editing station easly reach 20g or more in size for just 1 hour of footage.. but you know I only do maybe 6 videos a month, so I just dont understand... :rolleyes:

It is still compressed, only at a very high bitrate ...what you are talking about is DV dump on your mac. But as you said, you know better, I am just guessing here. ;)

[Ryan Hoffman]

Guys, go learn about video and report back.

There is more nub'ism in this thread then in Intel fanboy threads...

[Brandon Live Veteran]

K WELL you better tell my cannon xl1 differently because it records direct uncompressed mpeg2 to tapes... the video files on my mac editing station easly reach 20g or more in size for just 1 hour of footage.. but you know I only do maybe 6 videos a month, so I just dont understand... :rolleyes:

Dude, if it's MPEG2 it's compressed. Most cameras will record to DV, though (also compressed). Don't know much about your Canon. If it's like the XL H1 and you're recording at HD resolutions, do you really think that uncompressed video would fit an hour in 20GB? Try 220GB (for 1080i 30fps).

[Miuku.]

K WELL you better tell my cannon xl1 differently because it records direct uncompressed mpeg2 to tapes... the video files on my mac editing station easly reach 20g or more in size for just 1 hour of footage.. but you know I only do maybe 6 videos a month, so I just dont understand... :rolleyes:

Nice, let's do a little calculus while we're at it:

Capturing 800x600 video, 30 frames per second at 24 bits (I use 800x600, because it's common in digital video cameras)

800x600x3x30 = 43 200 000 bytes per second, that's 43.2MB/s, 60 seconds 2592MB, 60 minutes is 155520MB aka 155GB for one hour of uncompressed, raw 24 data.

At 640x480x3x30 = 27.6MB/s, 60 seconds 1656MB, 60 minutes is 99.3GB.

[Glowstick]

But do you know have hard it is even for quite a modern computer to render a HD h.264 (To just prove my point a few of the trailer on the apple website wil only run smoothly on a Dual-core Dual-processor Power Mac G5)so think about the commerical DVD players (Well Blu-ray players) their hardware isn't as powerful as desktop PC so most players would prob stutter and stall while trying to play HD h.264 films.

Apple Quicktime doesn't exactly have the most performant H.264 decoder. What plays at roughly half the framerate in QuickTime, because QT can't keep the decoding up, plays fine and dandy in VLC.

[dagamer34]

Nice, let's do a little calculus while we're at it:

Capturing 800x600 video, 30 frames per second at 24 bits (I use 800x600, because it's common in digital video cameras)

800x600x3x30 = 43 200 000 bytes per second, that's 43.2MB/s, 60 seconds 2592MB, 60 minutes is 155520MB aka 155GB for one hour of uncompressed, raw 24 data.

At 640x480x3x30 = 27.6MB/s, 60 seconds 1656MB, 60 minutes is 99.3GB.

Nothing is ever recorded in an uncompressed stream. Otherwise 10 minutes of a black screen use the same amount of space as an action video which is stupid.

[Miuku.]

Nothing is ever recorded in an uncompressed stream. Otherwise 10 minutes of a black screen use the same amount of space as an action video which is stupid.

Hey, the guy said his camera did uncompressed MPEG2. :whistle:

[dagamer34]

Hey, the guy said his camera did uncompressed MPEG2. :whistle:

More or less, he's just said that DV cameras can burn 1.4GB in a second because that's all they are going to be able to record. Lol :rofl:

[canuckerfan]

Holly ****! Guys! Uncompressed video formats are hard to find these days because of their humungous size. Home video cameras almost always will use a codec at high bitrates (ex. DV stream/16 or 32 bit PCM in an AVI container)

[viciv]

is this the reason why HP turns to HD-DVD?