Don't Believe the Low Bit-Rate 'HD' Lie

[wraggster]

As I've tried to educate my readers last year with my blog "Why HD movie downloads are a big lie", these so-called HD movies [from on-demand download services] use very low bit-rates compared to even standard definition DVDs let alone something like HD DVD or Blu-ray. Raw uncompressed 1080p video at 60 frames per second is about 3000 mbps so even HD DVD's 28 mbps needs to be compressed about 107 to 1 with the H.264 or VC-1 codec. By all reasonable standards this needs to be the minimum bit-rate for acceptable loss in quality on 1080p video.

Standard definition 480i DVD movies are typically 5 to 8 mbps (megabits per second) MPEG-2 whereas these so-called HD wannabes weigh in at a pathetic 1.5 to 4 mbps of 720p H.264. Apple's new HD service is capable of 4 mbps which simply isn't enough to be considered HD. XBOX360 downloads are 6.8 mbps 720p VC-1 so they're semi-decent borderline HD. Marketing will push the nicer sounding "720p" aspect of the video but they don't tell you it's way too compressed to offer good video fidelity. Blu-ray has a maximum bit-rate of 40 mbps while HD DVD offers a maximum of 28 mbps. Over the air broadcasts can be up to 19.38 mbps.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=959

[bah]

Downloadable HD content may suck compared to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, but 4mbps 720p H.264 is going to look a lot better than 5mbps MPEG2 from a DVD.

I know that's taking the best of the downloadable specs and the worst of the DVD ones, and I personally want physical media to stay, but comparing bitrates irrespective of the enormous leap in the performance of lossy codecs from MPEG2 to H.264 is stupid.

[rokobungi]

frankly how many scenes in any movie need a CONSTANT 4mbps? most movies would be impossible to tell the difference between 3 mbps and 40 most of the time but in the action or very detailed scenes you would jump to around 20mbps

the movie industry just wanted a new format because with the rise of the $5.00 (or there are even $1 dvd's) dvd the format became 'devalued' when many realized how much the disks themselves cost to produce

that said.. new release movies 'should' and DO cost more but the new HD format disks DO NOT cost an extra $10-15 to produce EACH disk (more likely an extra $1-2 for 'features' and 'the making of' stuff and an extra $1.50-$2.00 per disk as there are replication services that will press and silkscreen blu-ray disks for 1.99 for 5000 and I'm sure in house replication costs even less.


oh and by the way most if not all DVD's are 480P not 480i theres a HUGE difference

[mcdougall57]

i have the HD-dvd player for the xbox and also occasionally download the hd content and i truly cannot tell the difference

[Ewan]

Honestly what I'd want would be to see a bunch of side-by-side comparisions. There are plenty of movies that are available in HD-DVD, BluRay, and Download services at this point. One of these blokes that wants to prove one is crap and the other is bliss needs to show "the sheep" what they are talking about.

Thing is - they don't want to. If they did a side by side with upconverted DVD/MPEG2, BluRay/HD-DVD, and Download service with any currently popular movie (take Pirates of the Carribean, Spiderman, or Transformers.. or all 3!), I'd bet most folks would think the upconverted DVD is "good enough", and not worth the cost.

The "all you can eat" download to your media player DVD service is coming, and then the @TV and 360 will be in a bigger price/quality war. Point is - even folks that are into movies need justification to spend $300+ on a new player, and another $30 per movie. I already spent $20+ a movie for my favorites in a format that doesn't decay, I don't want to spend another $30 just for slightly better fidelity.

Save I don't want to sign up for ZDNet, I'd challenge this George guy to put his money where his mouth is, and put up side-by-side comparisons at high resolution online to show folks why one is better.

Doubt he'd take the challenge, though.