http://img206.imageshack...759/hddvdretardsma2.jpg

You know theres two things that come to my mind when you post under someone elses username
(1) You have to resort that low to use really pathetic images attached to unfortunate people to get your message across to people and
(2) You have to use someone elses username because your too ashamed to dribble rubbish under your own?

How old are you? Like 12?

Can you get any more childish in your posts?

That's how they think SGD, as you, I, and most everyone else here knows about the horror stories that go on at blu-ray.com and other BD-related breeding grounds for immaturity, blind faith, and ignorance.

We've come to expect no less than their distasteful tactics and lies, unfortunately.

Hey Dave,

I also noticed your beloved vgcharts.com is a malware site. LMAO!

Sony releases it's movies on HD-DVD, this is classic.

If you like that, this link has an internal link for Bridge to Terrabithia (Disney funded, I believe).

http://thedefinitivehddv...f-international_19.html

It's not Disney releasing it, it's a local distributor. Idiot.

OK Shadow. I personally saw a demo of POTC3 and Die Hard 4 at the Digital Projection booth at CEDIA. The funny thing is they were using a Toshiba XA2 hooked up to a D-Box for the demo.

Somebody needs to explain why they weren't using BD and why two Studios movie who are supposed to be exclusive BD releases were being shown on HD-DVD.

Believe me, they tried to hide the player so no one could see it except they were having problems with the Crestron panel which was suppos3ed to run a pre-programmed macro for each demo.

They had to manually change chapters on the disc and that's when I was the XA2, he even had a Toshiba remote in his hand.

I think they used HD-DVD / VC-1 codecs because they were using a quarter million dollar projector and wanted to show the best picture possible.

Since you couldn't be bothered to read the link, here ya go, psuedo-holly...

While of course it's not Disney who is directly supporting HD DVD through the release of this high profile title, it's certainly a big deal for HD DVD owners out there who simply can't bear the thought of having an HD format with no Disney titles. However, it is important to note that this is a far cry from an admittance on the behalves of Disney or Buena Vista's regarding their support or intention to serve up films on both formats. With all things considered however, it is without a doubt a step in the right direction towards format neutrality.

The point still remains though: when you look at how restrictive movie companies have become with their rights, there is absolutely no way that they would sign a contract, selling the dist. rights and not know exactly which formats the purchaser intends to release in. It's not a public proclamation of neutral support, but it is a big deal...and yet another reason to look at HD DVD as the most viable format.

I call BS on this. I find it hard to believe that Sony would need to resort to this. Almost everyone agrees Blu-ray is better in terms of picture and sound quality.

Culled from elsewhere...

Here are some actual stats as of August 3rd, 2007.

There are 154 Blu-ray titles in North America with lossless audio.

There are 43 HD DVD titles in North America with lossless audio.

If you look at five of the main review sites for Blu-ray and HD DVD; Home Theater Forum, DVD Talk, Upcoming Discs, Home Theater Spot and High Def Digest, and add up all the reviews there are just over 900 HD DVD reviews and just over 900 Blu-ray Disc reviews. Here are some breakdowns from those numbers.

SQ Studio
4.38 Buena Vista
4.12 Sony
4.08 Fox
3.81 Lionsgate
3.81 Paramount
3.63 Warner
3.63 Universal
3.63 Weinstein

Notice how the two HD DVD exclusive studios have the lowest average SQ rating.

As for Picture Quality:

PQ Studio
4.19 Buena Vista
4.02 Paramount
3.95 Warner
3.94 Sony
3.84 Fox
3.80 Weinstein
3.73 Universal
3.66 Lionsgate

Averaging all the reviews to compare formats gives the following numbers.

Picture Quality overall
HD DVD - 3.85
Blu-ray - 3.94

Sound Quality overall
HD DVD - 3.67
Blu-ray - 3.96

As you can see the difference in sound quality is huge. When you have 48 Mbps bandiwdth for a/v versus the 30.09 Mbps bandwidth that HD DVD is limited to, things happen.

With substantially higher average bit rates on VC-1 and AVC/MPEG-4 encodes and 8 Mbps bandwidth left over above the peaks for audio encodes, Blu-ray has the most consistent results.

No, almost every BD lackey agrees that it's better, naturally. The more intelligent lot know otherwise, and have sided with HD DVD appropriately. Perhaps you would care to clarify what you mean by "lossless audio".

Add yet another username to the ever-growing list of BD Smurfs that do not know how to spell "Blu-ray" correctly.

There's only one person here that I know of that consistently makes that mistake. I'll give you 3 guesses who this is, and the first 2 don't count.

http://www.standards.org.sg/files/vol11no5art4.htm

Finding a better alternative

Despite the interest in lossless audio compression technology which restores all original audio data after compression, without loss or distortion, though at limited compression ratios, Dr Rahardja commented that many applications for lossy audio compression still exist. “Thus, there is a need to develop a solution that offers inter-operability between these two technologies to serve the marketplace as a whole rather than relying on existing isolated and separate solutions,” he said.

In order to find a solution, the Moving Picture Expert Group (MPEG), issued a Call for Proposal (CfP) in October 2002 at its quarterly meeting inviting technical contributions from proponents from all over the world. MPEG is a working group of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in charge of the development of standards for coded representation of digital audio and video.

According to Dr Rahardja, the CfP called for the development of state-of-the-art lossless audio coding technologies that offer good performance, flexible quality scalability and backward compatibility to the MPEG AAC technology

What in the world was that about? What exactly did that prove, other than your inability to respond appropriately to any given question or statement. What you quoted contained absolutely no pertinent information to the question I asked, as usual... not that the question was directed towards you in the first place (reason being, your response just now).

When people talk to you, do you hear some kind of "Charlie Brown's teacher" voice?

I know what lossless audio is, aredo. I asked what he meant by it (as in compressed or uncompressed). Thank you, however, for your definition of it (or rather, Dr. Rahardja's description of the need for it). I feel so... enlightened. *sigh*

I still don't get you, and quite frankly I am done trying to figure it out. You post a link that describes the compressed lossless "better alternative" that contradicts your earlier ramblings further down about the "better" uncompressed lossless PCM offerings that exist on so many Blu-ray titles.

It can mean both. No loss of audio quality is just that... no loss (compressed or otherwise). I was inquiring as to how many of those titles he mentioned included just lossless PCM, or better and more efficient lossless alternatives such as Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD.

I remember when you posted that in a previous thread. That's classic, man.

I'm flattered he picked me to emulate, he's positing a false reality because Hollywood__ is what he wants to be, not the simple unimportant drone he actually is.

It's hard being me sometimes.

HD DVD is dead, everyone knows this, including Toshiba, desperate to make up stories about new versions of HD DVD to keep them in the game.

Even Target are expanding their Blu-Ray shelves, but leaving poor old HD DVD as they ugly sister at the back of the store gathering dust, next to the laserdics.

http://bluray.highdefdig...VD_Levels_Unchanged/968

What, a store that’s allegedly receiving payments from Sony expanding their blu-ray shelf space?
NEVER!

Lol...Oh look since Dave lost all credibility he is now using Hollywood's name to spread his BS. It would be a good plan if everyone didn't know your true identity. I know it is rough having Blu-Ray going under and the PS3 going under with it. Making yourself look like an even bigger idiot is not going to change that...Sorry.

if by going under you mean still outselling HD-DVD even after the big Paramount s***...than yeah its going under alright...

Yeah the PS3 is doing very well, oh yeah last place again. Time will tell it is very early.

Yeah go to target and see what 15 blo titles and 7 HD big fricken deal. They are a real bonus for blo ray to have on their side.

Hey, psuedo-Hollywood___

If HD DVD is such a dying format, why then have 20th Century Fox and (GASP) Sony, started releasing their movies on the format in Europe?

Fantastic Four: http://xploitedcinema.co...an-release-p-12469.html

Silent Hill:
http://xploitedcinema.co...an-release-p-12667.html

Underworld:
http://xploitedcinema.co...an-release-p-12664.html

Ghost Rider:
http://www.amazon.fr/Gho...d=1186891774&sr=1-3

On top of this, Resident Evil, and RE Apocalypse have HD DVD pre-order listings on Amazon Germany.

These films were released by companies that are supposedly BR only (SH, GR, Underworld, and RE all have Sony Pictures homepages), and are completely compatable with any HD DVD player worldwide, due to the fact the HD DVD doesn't have region coding (and yes, they're all in English).

Seems even Sony Pictures doesn't want to stay BR exclusive anymore...

No...By going under I mean having everyone start jumping ship. Not to mention the fact that HD-DVD has a cheaper player on the way that will start to get in to the average consumer range. Blo-Ray right now has .06% and HD-DVD has .04% of the movie sales. Not a lot to brag about there.

Haha

/spank

what company has the distribution rights in Europe? its rather common for different companies to distribute films in other countries...

Apparently it is also rather common for BD fanatics to miss the point entirely... or ignore it.

I'll concede the point that many times films are picked up by other companies for distribution.

However, the fact remains, each one of these titles has been touted as Blu-ray only. There's no way that Fox and Sony could not have known that this company intended an HD DVD release. This fact would have been in the contract when the release rights were sold.

Or to be too busy to respond to his useless tripe.

He is obviously an idiot, as he can't work out that in Europe, different companies distribute movies, so allegiances on movies on the US, is different in Europe.

There are also HD DVD studios releasing on Blu-Ray in europe, but nobody bothers posting those.

The war will be over soon, and the nonsense will be long gone. Warners THD has been dumped, so this will mean an even earlier death to HD DVD.

The funny thing is, you actually think I am daveBG. How wrong you are...

You have to have credibility to lose it. He has nothing and obviously I am getting to him.

That's exactly what a liar would say.

Let's see...I'm the idiot, when you're the one who:

A) couldn't read the posting admitting that yes, different companies distribute films in different areas.
B) grasp the fact that your beloved Sony signed contracts with the distributors, which in this day and age must have contained the information of an HD DVD release.

The reason that nobody bothers posting about Blu-ray releases from HD DVD companies is simple: BR is region coded, which means that a European disc won't play in a player bought in North America or Japan. Given the fact that HD DVD has no regional restrictions, this makes the fact that Sony funded films are being released in HD DVD fairly significant.

The only chance that blu-ray has of winning this war, is if they can find a way to finalize the format, and make it economically feasible for the average consumer to jump on board. Financially, HD DVD is the only format that makes sense.

More misinformation from the brainwashed HD DVD supporters.

1. Region Coding is optional on Blu-Ray, there are many releases that are region free.

http://tinyurl.com/2oer6l

2. HD DVD has region coding in the spec, but it's not used by any discs. This could however change at any point in time. In the extremly unlikely event that HD DVD lasts past holiday season, don't think for one momemnt, as that studios won't start using it once it's not a deciding factor in the format war.

http://www.reghardware.c...vd_to_get_region_coding/

OK, I AM THE MESSIAH.

Whatever you say Dave.

Sorry, that job is already taken .... by me.

"Brainwashed"? How well are you acquainted with that kettle there, pot?

Here's something a little bit more current about HD DVD's region coding:

http://thedefinitivehddv...f-international_19.html

It's true, as your link pointed out, that they began investigating region coding of HD DVDs...11 months ago; however, at the moment, nothing has come from it. There hasn't been a single news item since Oct. 06 about it. Furthermore, as the link I posted points out, every HD DVD player currently out bypasses the region check (if the machine doesn't check, a region coded disc won't matter). Seems like one more reason to adopt HD DVD sooner, rather than later.

As for BR's region coding: Why is it surprising that their RPC is broken, when they can't seem to achieve a finalized spec for their menus?

Until the region coding actually appears on an HD DVD disc, I'll just import the a bunch of blu-ray 'exclusives', knowing that I can enjoy them, without having to check to see if they'll play.

What is truly pathetic is that you actually believe this, MinuteMaid...

Who do you think your fooling? How much do you get paid by Sony anyway. I may want to try it. Though I'd probably get fired because I wouldn't be able to say anything good about Sony.

Yeah, even with their clearance sale on their 60gb model, they still couldn't outsell the Xbox 360 during that month. Sad.

There are over 60 of those supposedly 'Blu-ray exclusive' movies available on HD DVD (which being region-free everytime work perfectly with anybodies' HD DVD player anywhere).

That's why HD DVD has more available content, more exclusive content and thanks to those world-wide publishing & distribution deals it's also why HD DVD has the largest potential catalogue.

.....so go on then Dave or whoever you are today, where are the 60 or so HD DVD exclusives out on BD?

It's simply not true to say Blu-ray's region coding is switched off at the moment (as a look at the forum threads from disappointed & mightily pi*sed off Blu-ray owners who believed this lie have found to their cost).

Some old Blu-ray titles do not have region coding.

.....but then when has the Blu-ray fanclub (like the BDA itself) not been feeding people lies and half-truths about this?

(Great customer relations btw.)

All Warner and Paramount Blu-Ray releases are region free, many Disney releases also are, all the Pirates series are.

It's not old releases as you say.

You mean Dave ..... that's right, they're all Dave.

You can always tell when I've got his paties in a bunch because he tries to piss me off by using a clone of my username (what a surprise). I love the fact that he probably thinks about me 24 hours a day and spends all of his time looking up BD stories.

It just shows what a loser he is. Which is exactly what I want.

Hi Dave.

Haven't seen Benjamin or Ray lately. I wonder if he forgot the passwords to those accounts...

yup dave, the one and only tv-boy

He is back ab bluray forming his blu blood army to come here and set the record straight as he says. You want to see a bunch of pathetic creatures check them out.

What "Paramount releases"?

You haven't got any anymore.

(and when I said "old" it ought to have been obvious - considering neither format has been around that long - that I was referring to movies that had been around for some time, nothing to do with when they had a Blu-ray release)

.....and that leaves Warner (not even one of which is exclusive btw).
61 Warner movies out of 304 Blu-ray releases.
Wow.
Pretty cr@p when set besides the competing format which is guaranteed 100% region-free everytime.

Cribbed from elsewhere, this makes as good an explaination of what is going on as I've seen anywhere.

"The DVD Forum Steering Committee approved the TL51 spec (and Twin disc) on Wednesday; however, Toshiba is referring to it as a "preliminary" spec.

I'm not certain, but it seems as though the correct interpretation may be that this spec is now to be formally compatibility tested. If results are satisfactory (however that will be defined), then the preliminary spec can become the approved final spec.

That does seem like a logical solution to the conundrum of how do you get a final-approval spec, without first performing needed compatibility testing -- yet a spec has to be approved before formal testing can be initiated!"

......and btw it's pretty odd that it's been over-looked but the 'twin disc' mentioned above is likely to be hugely important and as big a deal as anything related to this.

http://www.engadgethd.co...ple-layer-dvd-twin-disc/

Who cares.. Blu-Ray or HD-DVD have not used more then 25gb of data on any of their DVD's. The only reason someone would need more then that is for more then 1 HD movie to be put on one single side and we are a bit away from that. Im sure a year or two from now with 50+ GB disks actually being filled up you will see Lethal Weapon 1-4 on 1 side of a disk.

To start with yes
I think Toshiba realised that eventually that extra space is going to be needed. When these formats become mainstream (if) the studios will be making full use of them including space so having less of a space restriction is a must.
My guess would be some of those interactive abilitys in a few years time might be quite large themselves to almost full blown applications.

Actually on Blu-Ray there are many movies beyond 25GB in size, for example:

- The Fifth Element H.264 1080p 36GB
- Black Hawk Down MPEG-2 1080p 34GB
- Apocalypto H.264 1080p 32GB
- Starship Troopers VC-1 1080p 31GB
- Face Off H.264 1080p 31GB

"Actually on Blu-Ray there are many movies beyond 25GB in size"

- Yeah but admit it, the majority of Blu-ray movies available right now are on 25gb single layer Blu-ray discs.

Oh, so you mean to say that based on the examples you've given, many Blu-ray movies barely take up more space than a HD DVD DL30 disc?

That's because each of the ones you mentioned make "excellent" use of the wasteful and unnecessary MPEG2 and PCM 5.1 found on a lot of BD releases... except for Face Off and Starship Troopers, which are curiously absent from the list on blu-ray.com

Sorry, but haven't seen a need for your oh-so-precious 50 GB yet. The 51 GB spec was basically a move to shut you up on one of the only things you and your little blue buddies could actually still brag about anymore.

1) MPEG-2 was born for HDTV. So it's a moot point to tell that it's not up to the task
2) I gave some examples and only 1 of them use MPEG-2, can't you read what I wrote there?
3) There is always need for more space despite improvements in codecs efficiency. (H.265 to be released in 2010 is being designed to achieve 50% better compression than H.264 and H.264 needs 1/3rd the bitrate of MPEG-2 for same quality). The best would always be uncompressed or lossless compression anyway, so the best thing to do is to allow any lossy codec being used to achieve the highest possible bitrate.

That doesn't seem to be the case. Practically all new releases are BD-50:

--
http://bluray.highdefdig...m/memoirsof**eisha.html

Memoirs of a Geisha (Blu-ray)
Technical Specs

* Blu-ray
* BD-50 Dual-Layer Disc

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/AVC MPEG-4
* 480p/i/MPEG-2 (Supplements Only)
---

http://bluray.highdefdig.../wingsofhonneamise.html

Royal Space Force: Wings of Honneamise (Blu-ray)

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray/DVD Two Disc Set
* BD-50 Dual-Layer Disc
* DVD-9 Single-Layer Disc

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/AVC MPEG-4

---

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/niptuck_s4.html

Nip/Tuck: The Complete Fourth Season (Blu-ray)

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray
* BD-50 Dual-Layer Discs
* Four-Disc Set

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/VC-1

----

http://bluray.highdefdig...houseof1000corpses.html

House of 1000 Corpses (Blu-ray)

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray
* BD-50 Dual-Layer Disc

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/VC-1
* 480p/i/MPEG-2 (Supplements Only)

----

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/tmnt.html

TMNT (Blu-ray)

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray Dual Layer 50GB

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/VC-1

----

http://bluray.highdefdig...ntasyspiritswithin.html

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (Blu-ray)

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray
* BD-50 Dual-Layer Disc

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/AVC MPEG-4
* 1080i/480i/MPEG-2 (Supplements Only)
---

Yeah, extra space is needed but what for? I will give an example, I bought a special edition of "Constantine" on DVD last month. The version consists of two double layer discs. And guess what, the extra disc contains "how the film was made". The film is on one layer only, the other one contains commercial crap.
I do not deny that the more space the better. The thing is that the extra space will be not filled by higher bitrate content but rather by crap like ads and so on.

1) MPEG-2 was born for HDTV. So it's a moot point to tell that it's not up to the task

MPEG2 is OLD and has been surpassed by newer codecs. There is no reason to still use it, or to defend it. Let it die.

3 - I agree with you on this point. However, just because the space is there doesn't mean you have to use it. Seriously, what happens when people are able to finally enjoy extras on Blu-ray discs? All of that extra space is going to need to be reclaimed to make room. Yes, PCM offers the highest possible quality, but it is extremely wasteful. When dealing with multi-channel audio, the problem is compounded. Dolby TrueHD, while compressed, is still lossless. PCM is simply not needed to achieve excellent sound quality at high bitrates.

2 - Yes, I can read. I made no mention, nor did I mean to imply, that more than one that you mentioned did use MPEG-2 compression (aside from that fact that an extremely large portion of BD releases do). However, every title you mentioned uses uncompressed PCM, as well as many others. They're using the extra space as a crutch to keep from being innovative. It makes me wonder if someone simply refused to pay licensing fees to Dolby Labs, or if all those optional components of the Blu-ray spec coming back to bite 'em in the rear.

1 - Even though there have been many enhancements to MPEG-2, to say that it was "born for HDTV" is stretching it a bit, don't you think? Despite having advantages such as being frame-editable and having no theoretical bitrate limitations, it is a rather inefficient codec.

The fact that it's old it doesn't mean that it's not good for the job. It needs more space yes, but if the space is available quality is not an issue.

MPEG-2 being an inefficient codec it's your opinion not the truth. MPEG-2 was designed for HDTV in the first place, you can read its history on books and MPEG/ISO documents.
Uncompressed PCM audio is what it is, uncompressed audio. Would you want a compressed Dolby or a quasi-lossless (which is still lossy) stream perhaps ?
Extras can be put on a secondary 25GB disc for a few bucks, they don't need to use the main 50GB disc for extra features.

So, by that logic, I suppose we should all be really grateful if TDK's 100-200 GB Blu-ray discs do show up, then we can all be treated to uncompressed video as well, eh? :)

Listen, it's great that both the BDA and the DVD Forum support such a wide range of codecs for their respective newest generation of HD products. Most of the time choice is good. I'm not saying that MPEG-2 is a bad thing... it's just antiquated, and there are better and more efficient alternatives. I'm not saying that linear PCM is a bad thing. PCM is wonderful but wasteful, especially when the same results can be achieved with lossless Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD (HR or MA). And no, there is no loss of audio information in either one of those codecs.

And no, again... MPEG-2 was not designed for HDTV. MPEG-3 was designed for it from the start, but development was discontinued when it was determined that MPEG-2 would be sufficient after modifications to the standard, incorporating the efforts that went into MPEG-3 development. Just because MPEG-2 can do it, doesn't mean it is best suited for it.

I've got tons of hard drive space. By your reasoning, I suppose I should re-rip all of my CDs to WAV format and skip the MP3/OGG/M4A conversion process... since the space is there, of course (rough analogy, I know, but the same principle applies)? I tend to balk at the idea of packaging a 2nd Blu-ray disc when 50 GB should have been enough for everything on a single DL disc, including extras (even if they don't work... for now). I shouldn't be expected to pay more for extra discs just because the BDA didn't have the foresight to make the more efficient codecs mandatory and use some common sense.

Seriously, using the first of the examples you listed below (Memoirs of a Geisha), it also uses PCM. But if you're going to include uncompressed audio, why in the world would you settle for 48kHz/16-bit? High-resolution? C'mon, that's barely better than CD-quality, and equal to AC3 5.1. It's ridiculous to think that PCM was chosen for its barely-imperceptible superior sound quality, when the decision was made not to use 96kHz/24-bit resolution. I mean, hey... you've got the space, right? What's one more disc? :)

EDIT: Using a quote from one of your previous posts...

"H.264 needs 1/3rd the bitrate of MPEG-2 for same quality"

You admit that there is indeed a more efficient and better option available than MPEG-2, allowing a version of the same film at the same quality to fit on a single-layer disc, thus saving the customer money (and every little bit helps, considering the astronomical prices of the hardware). Why again is MPEG-2 necessary?

If the space is available you could just use uncompressed video, kind of a silly argument. There are far more efficient codecs available today than MPEG2. If you have a codec that looks just as good or better and uses much less space why would you use an outdated less efficient codec like mpeg2?

"That doesn't seem to be the case."

- Why are you lying?

The 'case' (as I correctly stated it) is that the majority of Blu-ray releases are on BD25 single layer discs.

That is the fact of the matter.

"Practically all new releases are BD-50"

- .....and this is where you swerve the 'case' and try and spin the facts to suit your own agenda.

It's a nonsensical argument.
Who cares if the (according to you) majority of Blu-ray releases today, this week or this month are on BD 50 when that is still very much the minority of Blu-ray relases to date?

.....and the BD25 MPEG2 releases just keep on coming.

I'm looking forward to their attempt at reissuing 'Robocop'.
Another BD25 MPEG2 effort on the way.

There is no truth, its ALL a matter of opinion. The codec mpeg-2 was created in 1970, sorry but they did not know then that we would use it for hdtv. It appears studios favor avc or vc-1 over mpeg2

Actually, I suggest that you do some reading of your own, as the only truth here seems to be that you are quite simply wrong... wrong about what MPEG-2 was "designed for" from the start, and apparently wrong about the readiness of so-called "H.265".

"H.265" is not to be "released in 2010" as you have stated more than once before.

According to the VCEG draft meeting held in January 2007 in Morocco (the purpose of which was to discuss proposals for future work on H.264), it was discussed that "serious work" on a standardization effort probably would not begin until 2010 or later.

Taken from the draft meeting report:

It should be understood that current work in these AHGs is not intended to imply any need for near-term planning to create additional enhancements of H.264 that are not yet under way, or to start drafting of an "H.265" or "H.266", etc., but are rather for study to determine whether and when work on such things should begin in earnest.

Most or all contributions to this meeting seem more in the direction of an “H.264+” as opposed to an “H.265”.

At the moment we do not see evidence of readiness of technical advances sufficient to justify embarking on a concentrated effort toward an "H.265" design project.

When we do get to beginning serious work on an "H.265", we agree that computational efficiency should be one serious and concentrated goal of the effort (obviously, along with coding efficiency and other considerations). In principle, we consider encoder as well as decoder computational efficiency to be worthy of consideration.

http://ftp3.itu.int/av-a...701_Mar/VCEG-AE01d0.doc

2010 it's an expected finalization date, on ITU-T website you can read:

--
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T...oups/com16/sg16-q6.html
# Tasks

Tasks include, but are not limited to:

* Maintenance of existing H-series video coding Recommendations, including H.120, H.261, H.262 | ISO/IEC 13818-2, H.263 and H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10;
* Extensions to H.264: 2004-2008;
* Conformance and reference software development for H.264;
* Complete requirements definition and begin detailed algorithm design for H.265;
* Final Rec. H.265: expected 2009-2010 (given sufficient progress in contribution technology);
* Maintain and extend existing Recommendations regarding still image coding, including Recommendations T.80, T.81, T.82, T.83, T.84, T.85, T.86, T.87, T.88, T.89, T.800, T.801, T.803, T.804, T.851, and T.870.

----

And also you can read:

----
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T...ups/com16/meetings.html

20-26 Oct 2007

Shenzhen, China ISO/IEC/JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 (MPEG) Q 6/16 & JVT Non-JVT topics for Q.6/16:

* Consideration of proposals for new enhancements of Recs. H.264, H.264.1, H.264.2, H.271, and T.851.
* Consideration of proposals and organizational work toward eventual development of an "H.265".
* Maintenance of H.26x, H.271, and T.8x video and image coding standards.

-----

MPEG-2 was designed for HDTV in the first place as you can read on various documents:

---
http://web.mit.edu/6.933/www/HDTV.pdf

B. Video Compression
The video compression was conceived as the core technology of HDTV. The GA HDTV system
used an MPEG-2-compatible video compression scheme that consists of Motion Compensation
(MC) and Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT). The basic idea of motion compensation is to
reduce the transmitted quantity of information by transmitting the differences between the
original sequence of the raw images and a corresponding sequence of estimated images
generated by a motion estimator. The concept of discrete cosine transform is to express the 2-D
image data in frequency domain. Since human visual perception is less sensitive to the high
(spatial) frequency components, a part of the whole set of frequency coefficients can be
discarded, which further reduced the quantity of required information. Figure 5 depicts the block diagram of a MC-DCT encoder/decoder loop.
---

terminalx: What ? MPEG-2 in 1970 ? Where did you read that ? I imagine you read HDTV analogue standard on HDTV history documents on some websites telling that initial development began in the '70s but that surely doesn't mean that MPEG-2 was developed during those years, even considering that in practice the MPEG Forum didn't exist yet...

Some proper documents and sites regarding MPEG-2:

----
http://www2.sims.berkele...ort1.html#_Toc447982110

MPEG-2

The MPEG-2 standard, established in 1994, is designed to produce higher quality images at higher bit rates. MPEG-2 is not necessarily better than MPEG-1, since MPEG-2 streams at lower MPEG-1 bit rates won't look as good as MPEG-1. But at its specified bit rates between 3-10Mbits/sec, MPEG-2 at the full CCIR-601 resolution of 720x486 pixels NTSC delivers true broadcast quality video. MPEG-2 was engineered so that any MPEG-2 decoder will play back an MPEG-1 stream, ensuring a side-grade path for users who enter into MPEG with the lower priced MPEG-1 encoding hardware. MPEG-2 has also ousted MPEG-3 as the standard for HDTV, and has also received a lot of attention because it's the standard specified for DVD. The primary users of MPEG-2 are broadcast and cable companies who demand broadcast quality digital video and utilize satellite transponders and cable networks for delivery of cable television and direct broadcast satellite.

-----

MPEG-2 is and ISO/IEC standard also known as H.262, standardization drafts were published in 1995:

----
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/241496.html

ISO/IEC 13818-2: 1995 (E) Recommendation ITU-T H.262 (1995 E)

http://www.chiariglione....dards/mpeg-2/mpeg-2.htm

-------

Because it takes a lot of time to debug and develop proper software for new codecs and older ones like MPEG-2 do require less processing power due to their simpler algorithms. That's the simple reason why 90%+ of satellites,cable and other digital networks HDTV and SDTV transmissions are still using MPEG-2 as the main codec and slowly adopting H.264 MPEG-4 AVC.
The Microsoft WMV9 HD (an hack of MPEG-4 ASP actually) that has been standardized as VC-1 it's used on HD-DVD mainly but practically no one is promoting adoption in broadcasting and satellite/cable transmissions. Simply because it's way worse than H.264 and it's a Microsoft trojan horse to set its own standards. MPEG-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,MPEG-7,MPEG-21 and so on were and are being developed by the joint effort of many companies and not estabilished by a single one like Microsoft would like to do.

You are the one that lies here. Robocop is going to be a single layer 25GB release yes but it will be H.264 1080p, so size constraints won't be such a real issue:

-------
http://bluray.highdefdig...m/1086/robocop_fox.html

RoboCop (Blu-ray)
MGM Home Entertainment / 1987 / 102 Minutes / Rated R
Street Date: October 09, 2007

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray
* BD-25 Single-Layer Disc

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/AVC MPEG-4

-------

And some of the upcoming BD-50 releases are:

--------
http://bluray.highdefdig...bramstokersdracula.html

Bram Stoker's Dracula (Blu-ray)
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment / 1992 / 128 Minutes / Rated R
Street Date: October 02, 2007

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray
* BD-50 Dual-Layer Disc

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/TBA
-------

http://bluray.highdefdig...4/dayaftertomorrow.html

The Day After Tomorrow (Blu-ray)
Fox Home Entertainment / 2004 / Rated PG-13
Street Date: October 02, 2007

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray
* BD-50 Dual-Layer Disc
* BD-Java Enhanced
* D-Box Enhanced

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/AVC MPEG-4

----------

http://bluray.highdefdig...8/dayofthedead1985.html

Day of the Dead (1985) (Blu-ray)
Starz Home Entertainment / 1985 / Unrated
Street Date: October 02, 2007

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray
* BD-50 Dual-Layer Disc

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/AVC MPEG-4
* 480p/i/MPEG-2 (Supplements Only)

--------------

http://bluray.highdefdig...eofthesilversurfer.html

Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer (Blu-ray)
Fox Home Entertainment / 2007 / Rated PG
Street Date: October 02, 2007

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray
* BD-50 Dual-Layer Disc
* BD-Java Enhanced
* D-Box Enhanced

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/AVC MPEG-4

--------

http://bluray.highdefdig.../966/halloween1978.html

Halloween (1978) (Blu-ray)
Starz Home Entertainment / 1978 / 90 Minutes / Rated R
Street Date: October 02, 2007

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray
* BD-50 Dual-Layer Disc

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/AVC MPEG-4
* 480p/i/MPEG-2 (Supplements Only)

----------

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/283/gothika.html

Gothika (Blu-ray)
Warner Home Entertainment / 2004 / 98 Minutes / Rated R
Street Date: September 25, 2007

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray
* BD-50 Dual-Layer Disc

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/TBA

--------

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/985/blackbook.html

Black Book (Blu-ray)
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment / 2007 / 145 Minutes / Rated R
Street Date: September 25, 2007

Technical Specs

* Blu-ray Dual Layer 50GB

Video Resolution/Codec

* 1080p/AVC MPEG-4

----------

DVD Sony Superbit titles make full use of DVD-9 disc space:
http://www.sonypictures....t/what_is_superbit.html

Also, Lord of the Rings Extended Cut was released on two DVD-9 discs at the highest possible bitrate by Warner. And I expect they will do the same with Blu-Ray by using two 50GB discs for each movie and make full use of the maximum muxed 50Mbps approx bitrate.

"You are the one that lies here. Robocop is going to be a single layer 25GB release yes but it will be H.264 1080p"

- Well no surprises that the fanzine is lying to it's devoted -

Reportedly, the remastered, unrated edition will land on October 9th for around $39 MSRP, but will strangely not include any bonus features. Nevertheless, the content has apparently been "authored in MPEG2" and will be delivered on a 25GB disc with DTS HD and French / Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital audio tracks.

http://www.engadgethd.co...nally-coming-to-blu-ray/

.....and you still just can't bring yourself to admit that the majority of Blu-ray movies are on BD25 discs.

.....but the unintended admission that BD50 has been an unnecessary 'feature' for Blu-ray for anyone using a modern codec was amusing.

I really hate to think that you went through all that trouble for nothing, aredo. That rather lengthy document has only one instance of the term 'MPEG-2', and it mentions absolutely nothing of it's roots geared towards HDTV resolutions.

It merely mentions that the video compression technology used for GA HDTV was based on an MPEG-2-compatible scheme... which itself implies that MPEG-2 already existed before that. That does not mean MPEG-2 was developed for it.

That was a good read, however. Thank you.

You can glean whatever information you wish from those statements. Neither one of your links prove that it is going to be released at the time frame you have given. In fact, both links only reinforce what I had already posted: eventual development, given enough reason to pursue it (which as of right now, there is none).

MPEG-4 AVC at this point in time is perfect for HDTV distribution. VCEG and ITU have only discussed possibilities of enhancing it, and if the need is there, to consider additional plans above and beyond H.264.

Nevertheless, I will no longer argue with you about something that may or may not happen 3 years from now. It is pure speculation, especially when even the maintainers of the standard do not know yet, and have committed to nothing.

It doesn't matter what MPEG2 was designed for. The reason blu-ray needs more space and a higher bitrate is simply because of MPEG2. MPEG2 at a lower bitrate just doesn't look as good.

VC1 or AVC looks fine at either.

From Keith Jack, Video Demystified 3rd Edition, page 557 Chapter 13 MPEG 2 :
"The primary application targeted during the definition process was all-digital transmission of broadcast-quality video at bit rates of 4-9Mbps. However, MPEG 2 is useful for many other applications, such as HDTV, and now supports bit rates of 1.5-60 Mbps."

------------

From Al Bovik, Handbook of Image&Video Processing, page 603 6.4 MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 Video Standards:
"The MPEG-2 committee started working in late 1990 after the completion of the technical work of MPEG-1. [...] MPEG-3, which was originally intended for HDTV (high-definition digital television) at higher bit rates, was merged with MPEG-2. Hence there is no MPEG-3. The MPEG-2 video coding standard (ISO/IEC 13818-2) was also adopted by ITU-T,as ITU-T Reccommendation H.262"

Okay, seriously... why do you persist in trying to prove that which you cannot?

Yet another quote that does not reinforce what you are spouting:

"However, MPEG 2 is useful for many other applications, such as HDTV, and now supports bit rates of 1.5-60 Mbps."

Words such as "useful for..." "such as HDTV..." "and now supports..."

See, that's the key, and as smart as you claim to portray yourself, why do you choose not to see the difference? You say it was designed for HDTV, when in the reality most everyone else lives in, it was designed for digital broadcast transmissions. HDTV was an afterthought... a "hack" if you will (since you are quite fond of that term).

For the last time, MPEG-2 was not designed for HDTV. MPEG-3 was. MPEG-3 was abandoned when it was determined that MPEG-2 could handle the task with modifications. Why would modifications even be necessary if it was designed for it in the first place?

Please be so kind as to enlighten me where it is said anywhere that MPEG-2 was "designed for" or "born for" HDTV as you claim... because the material you have been referencing does no such thing.

"Because it takes a lot of time to debug and develop proper software for new codecs"

VC1 and H.264 is already working on Blu-Ray. And for the rest of your comment, who cares?

"H.264 1080p, so size constraints won't be such a real issue"

That's the whole freakin' point! 50gb isn't needed yet.

Use H.264 and compressed lossless = 50gb's not needed. Sony's just trying to use MPEG2 and Uncomperessed Audio so that it 'appears' that you need 50gb's when you really don't. Thanks for helping me point that out.

MPEG-3 was merged into MPEG-2, so everything it's about MPEG-2.
HDTV being an hack of what ? You don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Broadcasting uses standard resolutions, nowadays movies are CGI rendered and filmed for the next planned standard which is UHDV also referenced to as 4K.
What I am referencing is correct, it's you that you are trying to spin it as much as you can in order to prove your moot points as right.
It's useless that you keep repeating the word "MPEG-3" like that, all the work started as MPEG-3 became MPEG-2, so it's a moot point to tell that MPEG-2 was not for HDTV.
You clearly don't understand how the organizations behind these standard actually work. And you really look childish trying to insult me, you are the one wanting to look smart and cool, I work in the field and I know what I am talking about, you and others here are spreading false and totally wrong info about standards and how things work, I wonder if it's just due to ignorance about the argument or you are getting paid to do this sort of debunking.

http://bryan.cs.byu.edu/...deo.slides.printing.pdf
"Other Video Compression Standards
MPEG-2 Similar in principle to MPEG (designed for HDTV)
MPEG-4 Extension to MPEG-2 using overlapping “object planes”
H.261 Most commonly used standard (ITU) for video conferencing
H.26* Successors to H.261
H.320 Successor to H.261 designed for higher bandwidths (ISDN)"

http://stason.org/TULARC...happened-to-MPEG-3.html
"130 What ever happened to MPEG-3 ?

MPEG-3 was to have targeted HDTV applications with sampling dimensions
up to 1920 x 1080 x 30 Hz and coded bitrates between 20 and 40
Mbit/sec. It was later discovered that with some (syntax compatible)
fine tuning, MPEG-2 and MPEG-1 syntax worked very well for HDTV rate
video. The key is to maintain an optimal balance between sample rate
and coded bit rate.

Also, the standardization window for HDTV was rapidly closing. Europe
and the United States were on the brink of committing to
analog-digital subnyquist hybrid algorithms (D-MAC, MUSE, et al). By
1992, European all-digital projects such as HD-DIVINE and VADIS
demonstrated better picture quality with respect to bandwidth using the
MPEG syntax. In the United States, the Sarnoff/NBC/Philips/Thomson
HDTV consortium had used MPEG-1 syntax from the beginning of its
all-digital proposal, and with the exception of motion artifacts (due
to limited search range in the encoder), was deemed to have the best
picture quality of all three digital proponents in the early 1993
bake-off. HDTV is now part of the MPEG-2 High-1440 Level and High Level
toolkit."

yountmj: You just demonstrated to not understand how things really work, how these organizations work to set the standards. For your way of thinking there would be no MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 standard right now because you weren't expecting them to be finalized by the supposed time frame...

bobthegoat2001: Then keep being ignorant about how things really work and the reason why H.264 BD titles took more time to be released...

Who really cares that you are good at cutting and pasting. Mpeg2 is just a waste period. One would almost think that you are geting royalties for this antique form of compression the way you defend it. We all know it is old and a waste so move along already.

SGD: You got so emotional just because it's something you don't know anything about. If you read a bit you would know that royalties are needed to be paid for practically all ISO approved codecs like MPEG and Microsoft own VC-1.
MPEG-2 it's far from a waste, if it were for you 98% of networks worldwide would have gone bankrupt in a rush to upgrade their hardware and software.

I'm still waiting for Retardo Montalban here to understand what I meant when I said "prove it". Do you see how he has managed to dodge it completely? If anything, he has actually been helping me make hims look like a clueless buffoon, as each of his links say exactly what I have. He contradicts himself repeatedly.

Maybe it needs to be spelled out in great big pretty colorful wooden blocks for him? What do you think?

...and yet another link that says exactly what I've been saying. You're amusing.

Still waiting for you to prove it.

yountmj: Insulting me just proves that you are getting really emotional, you don't have a clue of what you are talking about. As I told you, I work in the field, I know this stuff. Period.
You proved nothing, you kept repeating "MPEG-3" to prove what, your ignorance ?
Whoever reads your answers can only see how arrogant,childish and rude you really are. Stop insulting others and Grow up!

Hi Dave.

"MPEG-3 was merged into MPEG-2"

Duh? You don't say! *sigh*

Why are you choosing to be stubborn and a complete idiot about this? You have been the one spinning this into dizzying proportions, trying to swerve it back to suit your argument (of which there is none).

Spin? Do you need a reminder of exactly how this all began?

You started this by saying that MPEG-2 was born for HDTV and designed for HDTV repeatedly.

I have said that it was not.

I have proven that you are incorrect.

You have not proven that you are right... still.

The references you have been posting links to recently are correct, because so far they say the exact same thing that I have said, and you haven't referenced anything that contradicts what I have been saying... still.

The only thing you've managed to scrape up is something from (who I can only imagine is) a student from Brigham Young University stating that is was designed for it... and that's pretty weak. And if he's a faculty member, that's just sad.

"It's useless that you keep repeating the word "MPEG-3" like that, all the work started as MPEG-3 became MPEG-2, so it's a moot point to tell that MPEG-2 was not for HDTV."

No, apparently it's only useless to keep repeating it around you, because you refuse listen. Your "moot points" are really getting tiresome. MPEG-2 IS for HDTV... NOW. MPEG-2 WAS NOT... ORIGINALLY. What that means is (and I'll try to type slowly so you can understand)...

MPEG-2... WAS... NOT... designed... for... HDTV... ORIGINALLY.

You prove your own spin wrong with all the quotes and links of yours.

I know about MPEG-3 already... I brought it up, remember?

"HDTV being an hack of what ?"

What??? That proves you have not read what I have said...

FACT: MPEG-2 was not designed for it (as you still try to claim).
FACT: MPEG-3 was.
FACT: MPEG-2 was modified to incorporate parts of what was learned with MPEG-3.

There's your hack. MPEG-2... not HDTV.

MPEG-2 was originally incapable of those resolutions and bandwidth until it was modified (hacked) to do so. It was not in the original specifications. Period.

MPEG-2 was oringally conceived for 4-9 Mbps. That's SDTV, "Professor"...

Your spin is that you have said that it was designed for it from the start. "Born and designed for HDTV", you said.

This is simply wrong, and you will not concede that, despite finding nothing (still) to prove me wrong, and you right.

Instead, you constantly repeat what I have already stated, and you appear to go to great lengths finding articles that say the same thing I have already referenced. This proves what? That I am right?

I have to admit, this is pretty fun... you're kinda like a punching bag. Are you sure you know how this argument thing works?

Yep... you can tell by the way they all spell "Blu-Ray" the same way.

For being such loyal Sony fanatics, you'd figure at least one of them would learn how to spell "Blu-ray" correctly. :)

Sneaky...

Even after I mentioned below that your original reference proves nothing, you add a second reference (after my time stamp) that does the same thing?

All you are doing is helping me out... seriously. You continually post links and quotes that say what I have already told you.

You are proving nothing, except that you are not as smart as you portray yourself to be. I'm sorry, but you're doing this to yourself. I'd stop now...

He is good at copy and pasting but fails to see the light. The technology works but is extremely outdated and not up to the standards of the newer codecs. Blu-ray should avoid the 50 gig disks since the chances of making a good disk is so low it is not worth the risk. It looks like Sony pushed blu-ray out the door before it was really ready for prime time that goes for hardware and software.

No, basically I see how you work now. You keep the "argument" going (one that you cannot win, and apparently know it), trying to spin the situation to your own advantage, avoiding and dodging questions posed to you, selectively choosing what you wish to respond to, until someone insults you. Then you spin it in an entirely different direction attempting to psychoanalyze the other party, claiming "emotion" is clouding their judgment, therefore rendering them clueless about the subject at hand (I guess humor and amusement could be considered emotions).

The numerous MPEG-3 references prove that you are not as knowledgeable as you claim, as you fail to acknowledge that without the efforts that went into MPEG-3, MPEG-2 would never have been considered for HDTV distribution or transmission (had it never been discovered that MPEG-2 could be "hacked" to incorporate it). Do you know why? Because it was not designed for it from the start (as you continually fail to admit that you were wrong about with your original statments).

If you would have simply conceded that MPEG-2 is a viable option for HDTV now, but was not when it was originally conceived (as you try to make everyone else believe), this could have all been avoided. You were wrong, and I called you out on it. Don't blame me.

"Stop insulting others and Grow up!"

Is that the same as "I'm taking my ball and going home"? Hey, no need to get all emotional on me, now. :)

On a serious note, I don't know you well enough to dislike you, and I am not actively trying to make enemies of anyone here. However, when you make bold claims that sound just a little preposterous to others, be prepared for someone to expect you to back them up with facts. There is always someone else who is just a little more passionate and knowledgeable about a particular area of interest than you are (not to say that I am, but I hope you get the point).

The wonderful world of anonymity we call the Internet permits the use of such bold claims as "I work in the field, I know this stuff". It is something that everyone knows cannot be proven and has to be taken with a grain of salt. But I'll bite... If I may ask, what exactly in this field do you specialize in?

He appears to be quite adept at pwning himself.

SGD: You keep spreading lies and nonsense. Blu-Ray Dual Layer 50GB discs are available for BD Writers as well and they can be bought for less that $20 each nowadays, prices are falling pretty quickly.
Telling people that there are manufacturing issues it's telling lies.
"fail to see the light" = tell you that you are smart and cool while telling lies and wrong things you claim to be facts ?
Well, then yes, I surely prefer to have a job in the field than trying to convince arrogant people like you and others here that keep insulting and get so emotional just because you don't know what you are talking about and/or maybe are paid for promoting HD-DVD at any cost...

yountmj: How pathetic you are, really. It's an old trick to accuse others of doing something while actually doing that same thing in the first place--because it's what you keep trying doing.
You keep repeating "MPEG-3" like it was the Holy Grail, sorry but that won't save you from your ignorance about this stuff. Avoiding reading the whole sentence about MPEG-3 and the fact that *MPEG-3 IS MPEG-2* simply because they got merged during the standardization process, actually if you read the references instead of putting so much effort at insulting me maybe you would have read that the work on MPEG-3 was halted simply because MPEG-2 was enough for the job so with some modifications MPEG-2 was adapted to do what MPEG-3 was designed for. It's just that simple.
But no, you must insult me because you don't like the fact that I work in the field and know this stuff, you must show the world how smart and cool you are, so you attack and insult those that know something you don't.
Really pathetic and childish attitude.

So what? VC1 and H.264 is available now, but they keep using MPEG2 when the other is better.

I know how things work. Sony's just using MPEG2 to try to make it look like you 'need' 50gb's right now when you really don't.

But who cares anyway? 51gb HD-DVD's are coming out anyway.

Edit:
I'm going to ignore the personal attack. I know since I have a valid argument, you have to try to make it personal.

Manufacturing issues with the 50 gig disks is not a real secret there hot shot so that is not a lie. The only thing that you have proven is that you can cut and paste info. And I do work in the computer industry by the way. Give it up already. If something in what I said is an insult than you must be one very sensitive person since I really fail to see an insult or name calling in my post. Maybe you are just trying the change the subject or something.

There are many kind of works in the industry and if you are promoting very old news, I'd say ancient since things in the field keep moving at a very high pace, and telling people that Blu-Ray production has many flaws.. well, that was true in the beginning, nowadays it's far from true.
You don't want me to cut&paste info from other sites.. why? Simply because they prove that you and others here are spreading wrong info as the truth in a hope to look smart and cool at any cost? And your insults are so obvious, anyone reading this thread could easily judge how emotional you and others here are.

-----------
http://www.burnworld.net...ing-50-gb-blu-ray-discs/

November 20, 2006
Sony is Producing 50 GB Blu-ray Discs

According to a press release from Sony they have beefed up production of 50gb BD discs. As many as 60,000 discs are being produced each day. Now how's that for media storage capabilities?

Sony DADC has announced that they now have six 50 GB Blu-ray Disc production lines up and running.
The company, which announced its 50 GB Blu-ray production plans in May
of this year, is currently ramping up production to 60K discs per day. High
demand for the 50 GB dual layer Blu-ray Disc is a result of the format's
ability to deliver superior, uncompressed audio and high bit-rate video,
more value added interactive content, as well as more available space to
include additional bonus features such as deleted scenes, interviews and
commentary.

-------

yountmj: You should read entire books since you fail to understand single paragraphs and chapters, whining to be right where you are just wrong.
Really, how old are you, 5 perhaps ?

MPEG-2 was designed for HDTV, organizations like MPEG Forum work in parallel to different standards, it's not uncommon to start developing the next format while still having to finalize the previous one. MPEG-1 was finalized when work on MPEG-2 already began.
Just like MPEG-4 AVC H.264 it's still being extended with additions like SVC while work on H.265 is beginning.

Keep repeating your precious "MPEG-3" magic word won't give you any chance to spin things up so much to negate reality. You are just looking silly in a desperate hope to change history and reality anyone could read in books and articles taken from books like the ones I referenced you to.

Did you understand from those references that MPEG-2 was being developed for HDTV by some companies in the MPEG Forum while others were promoting MPEG-3 with what initially looked like different features that then happened to be not so different at all ?
Very minor modifications were needed to give MPEG-2 all the additional features that MPEG-3 was supposed to be designed for. *Work on MPEG-3 went to an halt, the standard died because it was just copying what MPEG-2 had already achieved* ! Did you read the paragraphs and links ? Either you didn't or you can't read properly.
Companies involved into both projects decided to stop working on MPEG-3, promote the additional features already developed for inclusion into MPEG-2 and joined forces to ensure that MPEG-2 was the best standard for the job. Otherwise there could have been two different codecs for HDTV and no single standard, and that's something that MPEG Forum, ISO,IEC and ITU-T surely wouldn't approve because those are organizations born to find agreements between multinationals in the IT field, not to create and promote different competing standards targeted to do the same job.
This is the basic point you fail to understand. It's business going on, it was business there, and agreements between multinationals inside international associations devoted to develop single standards and find agreements. That's the whole point but you keep missing it and obviously avoid reading what it's clearly stated in the paragraphs.
I can't keep wasting my time replying to you, it's just that I'm afraid for all those people following a thread like this one and having to deal with all the confusion you and others keep putting into discussions by spreading wrong info. Whining and insulting won't make you right.

http://www.erg.abdn.ac.u...igital-video/mpeg2.html

A Quick History of MPEG-2

* 1970's Work in digital compression lead to specification of Discrete Cosine Transform algorithms.
* 1988, Motion Picture Expert Group (MPEG) formed.
* 1992, MPEG-2 (TV) and MPEG-3 (HDTV) combined.
* 1993, MPEG-2 Main profile defined (compatible with MPEG-1).
* 1993, ETSI DVB Project set up to extend MPEG-2 system details
* 1994, ISO 13818-1 MPEG-2 Systems Definition.
* 1996, Standardisation of the 4:2:2 video format.
* 1996, Set of Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) standards published by ETSI.
* 1996, HDTV (1250/50) demonstrated in 16:9 (widescreen) format
* 1996, 2 Million MPEG-1 video disk players in China
* 1996, U.S. adopts a Digital TV (DTV) standard based on MPEG-2
* 1997, Extended CPU graphics instruction sets able to decode MPEG on a PC
* 1997, First interactive Digital Video Broadcast service using MPEG-2
* 1998, Digital Versatile Disk (DVD) using MPEG-2
* 1998, Active Movie API allowing MPEG-2 to be played on a PC
* 1998, Launch of DVB-T terrestrial TV service throughout the UK
* 1998, Launch of DTV service in U.S.A
* 2000, Definition of the DVB Multimedia Home Platform (MHP)

This article gives a better understanding of what was going on between multinational groups and promoted standard for HDTV, there were standards other than MPEG ones which were similar to MPEG-2 but an agreement was found to use MPEG-2 instead, it's just how things work in the industry and you and others here completely fail to understand.

---
http://hdtvmagazine.com/.../06/the_creation_of.php

V. COOPERATION PHASEOn
May 24, 1993 the four digital system proponents announced that they had formed a "Grand Alliance" which would make a single system proposal to the Advisory Committee combining the best features of each of the individual proposals. The proposed system supported two scanning formats. The first proposed format had 720 active lines, 1280 pels (picture elements) per active line, and 60 frames per second scanned progressively. The second proposed format used interlaced scanning with 960 active lines and 1408 or 1728 pels per active line. The proposed ultimate target was 960 active lines with 1728 pels per active line scanned progressively at 60 frames per second. The proposed compression algorithm was similar to MPEG-2 with enhancements from each of the original individual systems. A single audio system was not proposed, but was to be selected from among the original individual systems after performing a comparative test. The proposed transport mechanism was packetized and similar to MPEG-2. A single modulation technique was not proposed, but was to be selected from among the original individual systems after performing a comparative test.

The Advisory Committee's Technical Subgroup examined the Grand Alliance proposal. At the request of the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), the Technical Subgroup suggested that the 960 active line format should be replaced with a 1080 active line format containing 1440 or 1920 pels per active line. The Technical Subgroup suggested also that the video compression algorithm and the transport mechanism should be compatible with MPEG-2. Finally, the Technical Subgroup decided to conduct a paper study of the COFDM (coded orthogonal frequency division multiplex) modulation technique.

At a meeting of the Technical Subgroup on October 21, 1993 the Grand Alliance announced that the 960 active line format would be replaced with a 1080 active line format, that both 60 Hz and 59.94 Hz vertical rates would be supported, that the video compression algorithm would be MPEG-2 (main profile, high level), that MPEG-2 transport mechanism would be used, and that the Dolby AC-3 audio system would be used. The Grand Alliance also announced that a test of three modulation techniques - 4 level VSB (vestigial-sideband), 6 level VSB, and 32 QAM (quadrature amplitude modulation) - would be conducted in January 1994. With the choice of a modulation technique, the Grand Alliance system will be fully specified. Key specifications now include:

Video compression: MPEG-2 main profile, high level
Scanning formats supported: 720 lines x 1280 pels, 60 Hz, progressive scanning

1080 lines x 1920 pels, 60 Hz, interlaced scanning
Film modes: 720 x 1280 at 30 Hz and 24 Hz, progressive scanning
1080 x 1920 at 30 Hz and 24 Hz, progressive scanning
Audio compression: Dolby AC-3
Transport technique: MPEG-2

Construction of the prototype is beginning and will continue through the summer of 1994. Laboratory tests are expected to begin in October 1994. Field tests are expected to be conducted in Charlotte, North Carolina in early 1995.

-------

article is almost a year old and they will be used for additional content hm? Why does the Hd-dvd version of 300 contain much more material?

"more value added interactive content, as well as more available space to
include additional bonus features such as deleted scenes, interviews and
commentary."

Viewable by whom?

aredo: "MPEG-2 was adapted to do what MPEG-3 was designed for. It's just that simple."

You don't say? And what have I been telling you this whole time? MPEG-2 became a suitable codec for HDTV later in its lifespan... not "designed for it from the start" as you continue to claim.

From your own fingertips you acknowledged that you were wrong. That's good enough for me.

While also getting a higher video transfer grade.

Why are you getting all emotional?

SGD: HD-DVD maximum muxed bitrate for audio+video+subtitles can't be over 30Mbps approx, a lower bitrate gives worse video quality and more compression artifacts, whatever codec being used.
HD-DVD higher video quality it's your opinion which is based not on facts, since facts tell you the opposite.

yountmj: You can't read, so it seems. MPEG-2 was designed for HDTV, it was a competing standard for HDTV, there were some among which there was MPEG-3 as well. There are various articles on the subject, I put links to some telling how things went in the business and among various multinationals, but you don't want to read them and/or you don't like what they tell you.

yountmj: Geez, you really don't know what to say, uh? Now you are telling that I got emotional... but it's you the one getting so emotional, you are the one that started whining and insulting me. Now, I referenced to an article that explains how things work in the field quite clearly and you obviously don't know how to reply anymore.
As I told you, grow up, read info and books and maybe one day you could be able to grasp this stuff.

You explained nothing. All you did (again) was type more of the same. If you will look back through this whole STUPID session, you will see that I've already said what you've been referencing, but you're too dense to see that.

You respond to nothing. I ask you to, and all you do is post quotes and links that say the same thing I said previously, which proves what? How can it "prove my ignorance" when it's the same thing I had just said previously? You've got issues...

I love how you claim that I and others are "ignorant" and have the inability to "grasp this stuff", when you yourself cannot make up your mind about what is "better". MPEG-2 is better... no, MPEG-4 AVC is. Uncompressed PCM is better, and then you post something that says compressed lossless is better. You can't even make up your own mind. So how in the world can anyone else be expected to take you seriously with your wishy-washy comments and back-tracking on your previous statements?

Your inability to respond to something you wrote previously when asked about it is causing unnecessary wear and tear on my keyboard. I'm not saying that you're stupid, for that would be rude... but you sure act like it. I'm done with you. You're useless.

You can think that all you want but the reviews give the picture advantage to 300 on HD not blu. Look at the newest edition of SOund and Vision they reviewed both and gave the picture edge to HD. They did however give blu the sound edge. So you are not entirely correct. Why can you not admit that neither format is perfect! I do find your continual posts humours as you almost seem desperate, move along already, let it go.

Yea, but Black Hawk Down is the only GOOD movie that requires that much space. The rest of the movies have no logical reason to use that much.

Rabid HD DVD fanboys with egg on face...

This moderation works great!

HD-Dvd rabid fanboys? There is no rabidness which is funny, its blu-ray that flips their s*** about everything.

You really need to stop being a troll and at the least if you are going to be one, at least use your real name instead of playing someone's shadow.

Not really Dave aka man with no life. Even if not approved yet it will be. This is proof that they are working on and planning to come out with a TL HD-DVD disc.

Also btw if you were trying to look like even more of a loser by trying to pose as Hollywood you succeeded. I know it is tough having everyone automatically know your post are full of BS and all, but perhaps a better way to remedy this would be to stop posting BS eh?

How's the petition going Dave?

"DaveBGisAFairy"

Nice!

Heh... I think I'll stick with Smurfette.

Description, courtesy of bluebuddies.com (how appropriate):

Smurfette was made in the wizard Gargamel's laboratory. She was created by a magical potion. Her list of ingredients include: "Sugar and spice but nothing nice...A dram of crocodile tears...A peck of bird brain...The tip of an adder's tongue...Half a pack of lies, white, of course...The slyness of a cat...The vanity of a peac***...The chatter of a magpie...The guile of a vixen and the disposition of a shrew...And of course the hardest stone for her heart...."

Yep, close enough for me.

Oh dear. you really are getting desperate.

How's the 'profile 1.0', 'profile 1.1' & 'profile 2.0' compatibility going?

Have you guys got the discs and players of each one to work properly with the other yet?

Instead of whining about what HD DVD is up to you might like to worry about your own beloved format's problems.

DaveBG has something to do with this .... IT'S A CONSPIRACY, A CONSPIRACY I TELL YOU!!!!

DaveBG is a retard with no life!!! This IS NOT a conspiracy but confirmed to be a reality!!!

I wonder how come they're choosing to play this down now?

Any guesses?

30 days.

Big splash + movies announced?

It's being downplayed, as all but the latest HD DVD players can't play them.

Looks like intelligence is being downplayed in your house Dave.

Not only are you a troll, you haven't learned how to read either:

"The spokesperson then added that it has not yet been determined whether current HD DVD players or recorders will be able to use the new format, which the headline of an official Toshiba statement given to BetaNews today is now calling "Trip-Layer." "Toshiba will study the performance of current HD DVD player/recorders with the disc after the standard receives final"

"all but the latest HD DVD players can't play them"

- OK Einstein, you made the claim so go on then, prove it.

Goodbye Dave or whoever you've decided to be today.

"Looks like intelligence is being downplayed in your house Dave"

- LMAO.

*Zing*

Oh well, I suppose preliminary is better than Blu-ray's "final".

My guess is, once the final specification is in place, Blu-ray media yields will still be in the crapper.

I don't expect thorough testing to take too long, but I can understand it if they took their time, though... after all, they certainly shouldn't feel rushed or pressured to get it out there (as welcome as it would be).

Sort of unrelated question - Do HD-DVD discs have scratch resistant coating like BD's?

when one chooses to back up ones porn collection on disk, one expects only the most resilient hd format to preserve ones porn long after it has been forgotten and used as a coaster.

They have started to, yes.

I concur.

no, scratch-city HD DVD

To start with hddvd only had the same protective coating DVD had.
Now most manufactures have started using a simular coating as Blu-ray

LOL. Ok that didn't really answer my question, but you raise an interesting point.

Thanks Dave, Mark, Steve, Hoiiywood, Welch's err... I mean MinuteMaid (which a Maid is a woman, you fairy).