Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why are DVD's limited to 480p when the data on the disc ca..

Tags:
  • HDTV
  • DVD
  • DVD Players
  • Home Theatre
  • Product
Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 9:22:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

can someone explain why DVD players on the market now are limiting
resolution to 480i/p when they could actually show at much higher
resolutions?.. the technology exists why are we tolerating lower than
perfect playback?

More about : dvd limited 480p data disc

Anonymous
April 28, 2004 11:22:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"No way" <no@way.com> wrote in message
news:xnNjc.14680$Jy3.12282@fed1read03...
: can someone explain why DVD players on the market now are limiting
: resolution to 480i/p when they could actually show at much higher
: resolutions?.. the technology exists why are we tolerating lower than
: perfect playback?
:
=================
Care to explain what you are talking about?

Current DVDs MIGHT be able to carry 15 minutes of HD material.
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 10:44:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"No way" <no@way.com> wrote in message
news:xnNjc.14680$Jy3.12282@fed1read03...
> can someone explain why DVD players on the market now are limiting
> resolution to 480i/p when they could actually show at much higher
> resolutions?.. the technology exists why are we tolerating lower than
> perfect playback?

if they "showed" at higher resolution, they would have to invent those extra
pixels

dual layer DVD's can only hold 8.7 GB of data... which is insufficient for
storing anything more than a movie's worth of 480i in MPEG-2.

The technologies to store more bits on a completely new disc using blue
lasers and higher compression encoding DO exist but is currently in a
standards battle just prior to release.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 10:57:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

That's because they can't "handle more" you can encode MPEG-2 video
(what DVD calls for) at various resolutions higher than 720x480, but
all the other components are effected by the higher resolutions (it
takes more power to decoder higher resolutions in real-time). So the
DVD standard calls for EDTV quality (720x480) 480p on progressive scan
players (at best). A lot of players share similar chips inside, the
core technology is designed around a minimum specs. Not to mention as
others have pointed out current DVD's couldn't handle the next step
anyway, you'd get an hour of footage per commerical dual layer DVD's
(DVD-9). So all movies would have to ship on two or three disc and
more advanced players would have to be developed.

Where are the HD-DVD players? Well, the big question now is why
confuse consumers and introduce yet another media platform. D-VHS (HD
video tape) has been a failure to large degree. Anamorphic DVDs even
at 480p look extreemly good on HD televisions (though component output
and progressive scanning, 3:2 pulldown). So how much difference will
consumers notice... How many of them will buy to make the production
of the hardware and movies worthwhile? These are the questions that
are keeping this technology, and we have the development of blue ray
lasers and technology and 1080p supported HD televisions (not
available yet, but coming in the next few years).

HD-DVD is traped somewhere between technology advancements on the
horizons and an audience that has yet to enter the building.


-Jeremy
-----------------------------------------
HDTV Buyers FAQ
http://hdtv.0catch.com/
-----------------------------------------


No way <no@way.com> wrote in message news:<xnNjc.14680$Jy3.12282@fed1read03>...
> can someone explain why DVD players on the market now are limiting
> resolution to 480i/p when they could actually show at much higher
> resolutions?.. the technology exists why are we tolerating lower than
> perfect playback?
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 6:08:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

All really good points. Just a couple of thoughts:


On 28-Apr-2004, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:

> Where are the HD-DVD players? Well, the big question now is why
> confuse consumers and introduce yet another media platform. D-VHS (HD
> video tape) has been a failure to large degree.

I think this has mostly been due to the high cost resulting from the need to
enable good HD recording (firewire interface, heavy duty tape transport for
fast rew/ff, good recording/playback heads, etc.) Most of these issues are
mitigated when applied to a disc-based, read-only format. I think the
potential market for HD-DVD is huge! I don't think anyone would be
"confused" by it. Remember, the people buying HD-DVDs are going to be us
geeky hi-def tv guys who are not (generally speaking) easily confused.


> Anamorphic DVDs even
> at 480p look extreemly good on HD televisions (though component output
> and progressive scanning, 3:2 pulldown). So how much difference will
> consumers notice

HD consumers? A lot! Watch Episode II on HBO in HD. Then play your DVD via
480p. Do *you* see a difference?

If anything, it will encourage content owners to step up their HD transfers
(rather than just up-converting the dvd to an HD feed). Yes, 480p DVD is
sweet on my 1080i set. A good HD movie is better. I notice the difference. I
think most of us HD guys will.


> How many of them will buy to make the production
> of the hardware and movies worthwhile?

D-VHS? Not many. HD-DVD? I'd bet close to 80-90% of all HDTV owners would
buy an HD-DVD player. You can buy a DVD player for < $50 today. If HD-DVD
comes out at the price DVD players were when *they* first came out (~$300),
I think it would be readily adopted.

--
Chris

Munged email. To reply by email (each "word" a letter):
see jay bee are oh oh kay ee [AT] em ess en [DOT] see oh em
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 6:09:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On my older JVC 48" HD set I noticed a difference between DVD and HD
movies, on my current set the difference is much harder to notice (due
to a high quality 1080i up converter built into the set). Really the
more I think about my original comments, I have to change my stance.
Because the market doesn't have to be there to push out new technology
(D-VHS is proof of that).

But to be success it (the market) has to be there. Look how long VHS
tape was the standard. DVD's came along and offered consumers many
incentives: 1. They offered higher resolution than NTSC, 2. The
practice of adding "extra features" become the norm, 3. They supported
theater sound standards DD 5.1, DTS (later DD 6.1, THX, etc..) 4. They
had novelity value because the format was a small plastic disc (as
opposed to a bulky tape). All these factors helped push DVD into the
mainstream within a span of about three years and they helped it
overtake VHS within about five years. On top of all this DVD was a
standard that could benefit

What will HD-DVD offer? Better video quality exclusively to those with
HD and HD Ready sets.

This is why I say the market isn't there. But that won't stop
manufactuers from coming out with product (I believe there are already
HD-DVD players that support the WM9 HD codec). HD-DVD movies will cost
more than normal DVDs (laws of supply and demand apply), and at the
begining you'll be betting on technology that's competing for a
standard. (WM9, MPEG-4, etc...)

-Jeremy












>
> > How many of them will buy to make the production
> > of the hardware and movies worthwhile?
>
> D-VHS? Not many. HD-DVD? I'd bet close to 80-90% of all HDTV owners would
> buy an HD-DVD player. You can buy a DVD player for < $50 today. If HD-DVD
> comes out at the price DVD players were when *they* first came out (~$300),
> I think it would be readily adopted.
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 8:48:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

While a 480 DVD (actually about 450) can look very good when the
picture is a close up, the moment a wide shot is shown the picture
can't come close to 1080i. There is no way that existing up converters
can recreate detail that doesn't exist in the signal in the first
place.

This is especially true of live video versus thirty-five millimeter
film transfers. Just watch the difference between the pictures
produced by a 480 camera and one that is capturing 1080i images when
it is cut into a HD sports broadcast. This happened regularly during
the CBS Augusta Golf HD broadcast.

If the difference isn't apparent than the TV receiver isn't capable of
displaying true 1080i resolution. It is a simple law of physics.



On 30 Apr 2004 11:19:02 -0700, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:

>On my older JVC 48" HD set I noticed a difference between DVD and HD
>movies, on my current set the difference is much harder to notice (due
>to a high quality 1080i up converter built into the set). Really the
>more I think about my original comments, I have to change my stance.
>Because the market doesn't have to be there to push out new technology
>(D-VHS is proof of that).
>
>But to be success it (the market) has to be there. Look how long VHS
>tape was the standard. DVD's came along and offered consumers many
>incentives: 1. They offered higher resolution than NTSC, 2. The
>practice of adding "extra features" become the norm, 3. They supported
>theater sound standards DD 5.1, DTS (later DD 6.1, THX, etc..) 4. They
>had novelity value because the format was a small plastic disc (as
>opposed to a bulky tape). All these factors helped push DVD into the
>mainstream within a span of about three years and they helped it
>overtake VHS within about five years. On top of all this DVD was a
>standard that could benefit
>
>What will HD-DVD offer? Better video quality exclusively to those with
>HD and HD Ready sets.
>
>This is why I say the market isn't there. But that won't stop
>manufactuers from coming out with product (I believe there are already
>HD-DVD players that support the WM9 HD codec). HD-DVD movies will cost
>more than normal DVDs (laws of supply and demand apply), and at the
>begining you'll be betting on technology that's competing for a
>standard. (WM9, MPEG-4, etc...)
>
>-Jeremy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > How many of them will buy to make the production
>> > of the hardware and movies worthwhile?
>>
>> D-VHS? Not many. HD-DVD? I'd bet close to 80-90% of all HDTV owners would
>> buy an HD-DVD player. You can buy a DVD player for < $50 today. If HD-DVD
>> comes out at the price DVD players were when *they* first came out (~$300),
>> I think it would be readily adopted.
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 9:37:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"FlyByKnight" <FlyByKnight@example.invalid> wrote in message news:<Y5tkc.45664$fB2.40239@fe10.usenetserver.com>...

> > Anamorphic DVDs even
> > at 480p look extreemly good on HD televisions (though component output
> > and progressive scanning, 3:2 pulldown). So how much difference will
> > consumers notice
>
> HD consumers? A lot! Watch Episode II on HBO in HD. Then play your DVD via
> 480p. Do *you* see a difference?

I don't know about Episode II in particular. I subscribed to HBO HD
for three months, their movies were no difference from my DVDs in
picture quality. I watched them on a 65" big screen HDTV. If there
is a difference, I would have seen it. You might have picked a bad
example. The movies on INHD and INHD2 are definitely better than my
DVDs.
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 12:29:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Garth <garth09@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<k5h590l4ca9csn2hg77v65kgsf3o0mel4b@4ax.com>...
> While a 480 DVD (actually about 450) can look very good when the
> picture is a close up, the moment a wide shot is shown the picture
> can't come close to 1080i. There is no way that existing up converters
> can recreate detail that doesn't exist in the signal in the first
> place.
>
> This is especially true of live video versus thirty-five millimeter
> film transfers. Just watch the difference between the pictures
> produced by a 480 camera and one that is capturing 1080i images when
> it is cut into a HD sports broadcast. This happened regularly during
> the CBS Augusta Golf HD broadcast.
>

For movies it is hard to tell, the 1080i up converter is extreemly
good. You don't have to believe me, that's fine, untill I got this set
and saw the picture for myself I wouldn't have believed it (Hitachi
51F500 is the set in question). I've had two other HDTV models to
compare it against (an RCA and a JVC). On live HD content (non-film
transfer) HD quality shines though, but we're talking about DVD and
movies (almost all of which originate from film sources anyway).



> If the difference isn't apparent than the TV receiver isn't capable of
> displaying true 1080i resolution. It is a simple law of physics.
>
>

The set is very capable, find a dealer in your area that carries
Hitachi HDTVs (rear-projection) any model will do since they all share
the same 1080i up conversion technology, have the sales rep put in a
DVD for you and then compare what you're seeing on this set to
everything else (all the other sets on the floor. If the DVD player is
just an average mid-grade model (something that cost less than say
$800), even the Pioneer Elite and Mitsubishi Diamond models will pale
in comparison. It's not that the technology in the other sets is poor,
it's just they don't have up converters built in. Almost all the other
manufactuers have chosen to make the upconverter an extenral add-on
(for example, I believe Pioneer provides this in some of their Elite
series DVD players). HD quality will produce different results.

I don't know if Hitachi's up conversion technology is propritary, but
the only other DVD quality look this good is when the signal is
proceed though a Faroudja chip. As mentioned, I went though two other
HDTV sets before coming to this one, I had the same DVD player
connected using the same component cables...




>
> On 30 Apr 2004 11:19:02 -0700, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:
>
> >On my older JVC 48" HD set I noticed a difference between DVD and HD
> >movies, on my current set the difference is much harder to notice (due
> >to a high quality 1080i up converter built into the set). Really the
> >more I think about my original comments, I have to change my stance.
> >Because the market doesn't have to be there to push out new technology
> >(D-VHS is proof of that).
> >
> >But to be success it (the market) has to be there. Look how long VHS
> >tape was the standard. DVD's came along and offered consumers many
> >incentives: 1. They offered higher resolution than NTSC, 2. The
> >practice of adding "extra features" become the norm, 3. They supported
> >theater sound standards DD 5.1, DTS (later DD 6.1, THX, etc..) 4. They
> >had novelity value because the format was a small plastic disc (as
> >opposed to a bulky tape). All these factors helped push DVD into the
> >mainstream within a span of about three years and they helped it
> >overtake VHS within about five years. On top of all this DVD was a
> >standard that could benefit
> >
> >What will HD-DVD offer? Better video quality exclusively to those with
> >HD and HD Ready sets.
> >
> >This is why I say the market isn't there. But that won't stop
> >manufactuers from coming out with product (I believe there are already
> >HD-DVD players that support the WM9 HD codec). HD-DVD movies will cost
> >more than normal DVDs (laws of supply and demand apply), and at the
> >begining you'll be betting on technology that's competing for a
> >standard. (WM9, MPEG-4, etc...)
> >
> >-Jeremy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > How many of them will buy to make the production
> >> > of the hardware and movies worthwhile?
> >>
> >> D-VHS? Not many. HD-DVD? I'd bet close to 80-90% of all HDTV owners would
> >> buy an HD-DVD player. You can buy a DVD player for < $50 today. If HD-DVD
> >> comes out at the price DVD players were when *they* first came out (~$300),
> >> I think it would be readily adopted.
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 1:19:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

What make and model of DVD player and HDTV do you have?

-Jeremy

caloonese@yahoo.com (Caloonese) wrote in message news:<ee67c74a.0404301637.4c952acf@posting.google.com>...
> "FlyByKnight" <FlyByKnight@example.invalid> wrote in message news:<Y5tkc.45664$fB2.40239@fe10.usenetserver.com>...
>
> > > Anamorphic DVDs even
> > > at 480p look extreemly good on HD televisions (though component output
> > > and progressive scanning, 3:2 pulldown). So how much difference will
> > > consumers notice
> >
> > HD consumers? A lot! Watch Episode II on HBO in HD. Then play your DVD via
> > 480p. Do *you* see a difference?
>
> I don't know about Episode II in particular. I subscribed to HBO HD
> for three months, their movies were no difference from my DVDs in
> picture quality. I watched them on a 65" big screen HDTV. If there
> is a difference, I would have seen it. You might have picked a bad
> example. The movies on INHD and INHD2 are definitely better than my
> DVDs.
Anonymous
May 2, 2004 6:55:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Really! After spending eight grand on a TV, another 3-5 hundred for an
HD-DVD player would be a no-brainer for me. Lets move past the standards
battle and get on with it already.

> > How many of them will buy to make the production
> > of the hardware and movies worthwhile?
>
> D-VHS? Not many. HD-DVD? I'd bet close to 80-90% of all HDTV owners would
> buy an HD-DVD player. You can buy a DVD player for < $50 today. If HD-DVD
> comes out at the price DVD players were when *they* first came out
(~$300),
> I think it would be readily adopted.
>
> --
> Chris
>
> Munged email. To reply by email (each "word" a letter):
> see jay bee are oh oh kay ee [AT] em ess en [DOT] see oh em
>
Anonymous
May 2, 2004 9:32:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Within these hallowed halls, Richard C. of <post-age @spamcop.net>
added the following to the collective conscience:
> "No way" <no@way.com> wrote in message
> news:xnNjc.14680$Jy3.12282@fed1read03...
>> can someone explain why DVD players on the market now are limiting
>> resolution to 480i/p when they could actually show at much higher
>> resolutions?.. the technology exists why are we tolerating lower than
>> perfect playback?
>>
> =================
> Care to explain what you are talking about?
>
> Current DVDs MIGHT be able to carry 15 minutes of HD material.

More than that Richard. At 20Mbit per second a minute of HD takes only 1200
million bits or 150 million bytes so a 4.7GB disk can hold at least 30
minutes of HD material. This is the same time a CAV Laserdisk held, just to
show a 30 minute per side videodisk isn't out of the question (especially
when it shrinks from 12 inches to 12 centimetres.)
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 7:29:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

True, but thanks to the nature of films and television, almost nothing is
shot as a wide shot besides scenic pans.

After awhile even the far-away shots of all those HD demos of trees and
forests and mountain villas in Italy, they all look soft......then you see a
close up shot and you go "WOW! HD!"...then a far away shot and go "Its nice
but...gimme more close up shots!".

"Garth" <garth09@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:k5h590l4ca9csn2hg77v65kgsf3o0mel4b@4ax.com...
> While a 480 DVD (actually about 450) can look very good when the
> picture is a close up, the moment a wide shot is shown the picture
> can't come close to 1080i. There is no way that existing up converters
> can recreate detail that doesn't exist in the signal in the first
> place.
>
> This is especially true of live video versus thirty-five millimeter
> film transfers. Just watch the difference between the pictures
> produced by a 480 camera and one that is capturing 1080i images when
> it is cut into a HD sports broadcast. This happened regularly during
> the CBS Augusta Golf HD broadcast.
>
> If the difference isn't apparent than the TV receiver isn't capable of
> displaying true 1080i resolution. It is a simple law of physics.
>
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2004 11:19:02 -0700, jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:
>
> >On my older JVC 48" HD set I noticed a difference between DVD and HD
> >movies, on my current set the difference is much harder to notice (due
> >to a high quality 1080i up converter built into the set). Really the
> >more I think about my original comments, I have to change my stance.
> >Because the market doesn't have to be there to push out new technology
> >(D-VHS is proof of that).
> >
> >But to be success it (the market) has to be there. Look how long VHS
> >tape was the standard. DVD's came along and offered consumers many
> >incentives: 1. They offered higher resolution than NTSC, 2. The
> >practice of adding "extra features" become the norm, 3. They supported
> >theater sound standards DD 5.1, DTS (later DD 6.1, THX, etc..) 4. They
> >had novelity value because the format was a small plastic disc (as
> >opposed to a bulky tape). All these factors helped push DVD into the
> >mainstream within a span of about three years and they helped it
> >overtake VHS within about five years. On top of all this DVD was a
> >standard that could benefit
> >
> >What will HD-DVD offer? Better video quality exclusively to those with
> >HD and HD Ready sets.
> >
> >This is why I say the market isn't there. But that won't stop
> >manufactuers from coming out with product (I believe there are already
> >HD-DVD players that support the WM9 HD codec). HD-DVD movies will cost
> >more than normal DVDs (laws of supply and demand apply), and at the
> >begining you'll be betting on technology that's competing for a
> >standard. (WM9, MPEG-4, etc...)
> >
> >-Jeremy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > How many of them will buy to make the production
> >> > of the hardware and movies worthwhile?
> >>
> >> D-VHS? Not many. HD-DVD? I'd bet close to 80-90% of all HDTV owners
would
> >> buy an HD-DVD player. You can buy a DVD player for < $50 today. If
HD-DVD
> >> comes out at the price DVD players were when *they* first came out
(~$300),
> >> I think it would be readily adopted.
>
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 7:34:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Some movies (Matrix Reloaded, Star Trek Nemesis, Road to Perdition, Scooby
Doo) looked significantly sharper in HD than my DVD versions on HBO or
Showtime HD.

But, these are the exception, not the rule.

Mostly, other films look "slightly sharper" to "not really any better" than
the DVD versions of those movies. I've got a 65" Mits with 7" Guns so I
know I'm not seeing true1080i, but the effect is still the same. It just
depends on the source, as usual.

Star Trek Nemesis looked *particulary* good, so good that on some of the
chrome plated props (Phaser Rifle that Will Riker is using towards the end
of the movie) that fingerprints and smudges could be seen on those surfaces
even during shots where his full body was in frame, not just close-ups. The
ships also look astounding, but i'm guessing that its all CGI and not
model-work in that film.

At the same time...some other films...hardly any better than the DVD
version. Mastering and quality of the source I guess....



"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0404301637.4c952acf@posting.google.com...
> "FlyByKnight" <FlyByKnight@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:<Y5tkc.45664$fB2.40239@fe10.usenetserver.com>...
>
> > > Anamorphic DVDs even
> > > at 480p look extreemly good on HD televisions (though component output
> > > and progressive scanning, 3:2 pulldown). So how much difference will
> > > consumers notice
> >
> > HD consumers? A lot! Watch Episode II on HBO in HD. Then play your DVD
via
> > 480p. Do *you* see a difference?
>
> I don't know about Episode II in particular. I subscribed to HBO HD
> for three months, their movies were no difference from my DVDs in
> picture quality. I watched them on a 65" big screen HDTV. If there
> is a difference, I would have seen it. You might have picked a bad
> example. The movies on INHD and INHD2 are definitely better than my
> DVDs.
!