Just want to share a good place to buy gift if you are dvd fans,I bought charmed there,it is a happy purchase,so,I recommened here,for more,please check www.dvdsetpro.com
enjoy your visit there!
Thanks!:)

If you buy off it, the admin will give you some discount.

I found a website selling a lot of dvd collects.
Maybe you would find what you are loking for there.
www.dvdcollects.com

I need atlis 50GB DVD singl DVD in available in market plz.replly me & when

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.

Walt Disney's 100 Years Of Magic?
www.dvdcollects.com

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[/i] meant by it (as in [i]compressed[/i] or [i]uncompressed[/i]). 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 [i]compressed[/i] lossless "better alternative" that contradicts your earlier ramblings further down about the "better" [i]uncompressed[/i] 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 [i]better[/i] and [i]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 shift...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[/b] (which being region-free everytime work perfectly with anybodies' HD DVD player anywhere).

That's why [b]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.[/b]

.....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 [b]old[/b] Blu-ray titles do not have region coding.

.....but then when has the Blu-ray fanclub (like the BDA itself) [b]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[/b] 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 [b]need[/b] for your oh-so-precious 50 GB yet. The 51 GB spec was basically a move to shut you up on one of the [b]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[/i] 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 [i]lossless[/i] 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 [i]not[/i] designed for HDTV. MPEG-3 [i]was[/i] designed for it from the start, but development was discontinued when it was determined that MPEG-2 would be sufficient after [i]modifications[/i] 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 [i]should[/i] 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...

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

You admit that there is indeed a more efficient and [i]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."[/i]

- Why are you lying?[/b]

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

That is the fact of the matter.

[i]"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[/i] 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 [i]begin[/i] until 2010 or later.

Taken from the draft meeting report:

[i]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”.[/b]

[b]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

--------