About that T2 HD DVD that I have heard about.....

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

Both Windows Media compression and MPEG4.AVC (also known as H.264 and MPEG-4
Part 10) offer similar compression ratios. Both are able to record HD with
about half as much data as MPEG-2.

Even with that added compression capability there still is not very much
room to put a full HD movie on a disc. You may be right in that the T2
might be scaled back a little to fit on the DVD. I think the goal of moving
to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray is to be able to put the entire movie (even 3 hr
movies) plus special features also in HD all on one disc. Right now you can
barely fit a 3 hour STANDARD definition movie on a DVD so more space is
definitely needed even with better codecs available.

Brad

"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YfL%c.17626$uK6.7521@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> How do they do it? Is the Windows Media compression THAT good? If its
> already possible to make HD DVDs, why do we need Blu Ray?
>
> I am guessing that the T2 HD-DVD is sub standard HD quality, and thats how
> they do it. Any comments?
>
> Thanks,
> --Dan
>
>

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

dg wrote:

> How do they do it? Is the Windows Media compression THAT good? If its
> already possible to make HD DVDs, why do we need Blu Ray?
>
> I am guessing that the T2 HD-DVD is sub standard HD quality, and thats how
> they do it. Any comments?

When I viewed T2 on my HDTV, I was disappointed. I could hardly see
any difference between T2 HD and T2 lo def.

Jeff B

>
> Thanks,
> --Dan
>
>

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

Mike T (mtallent@u$-i$p.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > I am guessing that the T2 HD-DVD is sub standard HD quality, and thats how
> > they do it. Any comments?
> >
>
> The compression is about twice as good as mpeg2.

The numbers don't agree with this statement.

There are less pixels to start with on the T2 WMV, and so the compression is
only slightly better than MPEG2. Compared to 1280x720/60p (ABC, ESPN, and
Fox) and 1920x1080/60i (other HD), the raw pixel count on T2 WMV is less
than half of either one, and the compressed data is just a little less than
half as big as common ATSC bitrates.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Zits/ [...] abytes.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |

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

Steve Grauman (oneactor1@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> What I can say is that
> the HD presentation of T2 on the 2nd disc of the Ultimate Edition DVD is
> definitely superior to my eye to the standard DVD-Video presentation.

That's definitely true. They used 1440x820/24p, which is *far* better
than the 720x363/60i that the DVD-Video T2 uses (since it's 2.35:1, not
all 480 scan lines are used).

The T2 WMV has the following advantages:
- over 4 times as many pixels
- true progressive encoding
- *might* have a better color gamut...I haven't checked the encoding in
detail

--
Jeff Rife | "Five thousand dollars, huh? I'll bet we could
SPAM bait: | afford that if we pooled our money together...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | bought a gun...robbed a bank...."
spam@ftc.gov | -- Drew Carey

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

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:29:31 GMT, "Mike T" <mtallent@u$-i$p.net>
wrote:

>
>"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:YfL%c.17626$uK6.7521@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>> How do they do it? Is the Windows Media compression THAT good? If its
>> already possible to make HD DVDs, why do we need Blu Ray?
>>
>> I am guessing that the T2 HD-DVD is sub standard HD quality, and thats how
>> they do it. Any comments?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Dan
>
>The compression is about twice as good as mpeg2.
>
>When I play the T2 WMV HDTV version on my computer through the DVI out on my
>ATI 9800 Pro into my 50 inch DLP HDTV it looks much better than the
>standard T2 disk. It took some work to get the dumb player software on the
>DVD to install and run properly and it has to "phone home" for permission to
>play the HDTV version, but it is worth it if you have the right setup to see
>the improvements.
>
>I have been trying to get the "Step Into Liquid" WMV HDTV disk to play, the
>video looks great, but I only get 2 channel sound and no center channel
>dialog.

I've had the same problem with the audio on the "Step Into Liquid"
WMV HDTV Disc. I thought maybe it was because my Turtle Santa Cruz
sound card is 4.1, not 5.1. Anyone else have any ideas?

-Jeff

>
>Mike T
>

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

Jeff B (fake@addy.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > There are less pixels to start with on the T2 WMV, and so the compression is
> > only slightly better than MPEG2. Compared to 1280x720/60p (ABC, ESPN, and
> > Fox) and 1920x1080/60i (other HD), the raw pixel count on T2 WMV is less
> > than half of either one, and the compressed data is just a little less than
> > half as big as common ATSC bitrates.
>
> I think the people who are seeing a 'big difference' are
> victims of the power of suggestion.

No, they aren't. The T2 WMV is far better than standard DVD, and fully
qualifies as HD.

> Your analysis explains why
> visually, T2 doesn't look that much better than
> any other DVD, and much worse than, say, CSI: Miami.

No, this is just your perception, and I don't think it is accurate.

"CSI: Miami" starts out as film and then is scanned at 1920x1080/24p. This
is then converted to 1920x1080/60i for final broadcast (although there may
be some intermediate steps as well). So, "CSI: Miami" has 49,766,400
pixels/second in its source. If we restrict to only the 2.35:1 area (to
make a fair comparison), there are only 37,785,600 pixels/second. T2 WMV
has 28,339,200 pixels/second. That's only 33% less pixels, so it's pretty
close to the same quality. It's certainly not like the 400% difference
between HD and SD.

Last, you probably can only see the difference if you watch both on a
computer monitor able to display a full 1920x1080 resolution, and there
are only about 5 monitors like this, and most people don't own them.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/ToDo.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |

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

Steve Grauman (oneactor1@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >Last, you probably can only see the difference if you watch both on a
> >computer monitor able to display a full 1920x1080 resolution, and there
> >are only about 5 monitors like this, and most people don't own them.
>
> I did my viewing tests using computer monitors. The first was Sony's "Artisan
> Edition" GDM-C520K widescreen CRT monitor,

This monitor isn't capable of handling 1920x1080. Yes, I know the spec
resolution goes to 2048x1536, but the 0.24mm dot pitch limits the
horizontal resolution to 1778 pixels at best. I would guess that 1600x1200
is close to its real upper limit without compromising quality.

> the 2nd was Apple's 23-inch Cinema
> Display.

This is one of the 5 displays I mentioned that can handle 1920x1080. If
you can't see a difference between the DVD-Video T2 and the T2 WMV HD, then
either the video card and monitor aren't working together correctly, or
you need to invest in some corrective eyewear.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/TechBigot.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |