Re: Toshiba CEO talks about life after HD DVD
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Member since:
January 2008
January 2008
The rest of the world is not suffering outside of the United States. Canada's economy is kicking the crap out of us right now. Canadians by far have more expendable income than any other coutry in the world. Maybe that's why Skyhawk is contantly gloating! 
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Member since:
November 2007
November 2007
Quote:
Sorry guy's, this one just really pissess me off.
Why should this 'super upconvert' piss you off, it's not even out yet? Did it hurt in some FINANCIAL way? What makes you assume that this new product will not work, have you beta tested the box already?
Quote:
It's never going to get results like a native HD transfer will.
Well THAT'S A REVELATION... thanks for stating the obvious. No one is claiming that it's a HD player.
Quote:
Ok, for slow moving scenes I can picture the algorithm picking out as much information as possible from multiple frames and reconstructing a higher resolution one. BUT for quick moving frames or scene shifts, there's f all the "super resolution" can do.
Again... have you beta tested Toshiba's new technology? Where are you basing this conclusion?
Quote:
Toshiba, stop with this BS.
I think we can all assume WHERE THE BS IS ACTUALLY COMING FROM...
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Member since:
November 2003
November 2003
xplaytendo,
No one said this superconversion player is an HD player? Well, the CEO of Toshiba has this to say: "
If you watch standard DVDs on our players, the images are of very high quality because they include an "upconverting" feature. And we're going to improve this even more, so that consumers won't be able to tell the difference from HD DVD images". The implication is that Toshiba's upconverting tech is so good that it's equivalent to HD-DVD, and thus sounds like he's now trying to downplay the huge image quality delta between SD and HD discs. Well I guess he's right in a way, some consumers can't even tell DVD images from HD-DVD images...but for the rest of us who have decent eyesight (or wear corrective glasses/contacts) and sit within a reasonable distance from our HDTVs, the difference is clear.
Have I tested this specific superconversion technology? No, but I've seen results and comparisons of similar tech, and have some understanding of DSP and imaging. Let me give you an example of why I think this tech has some serious flaws. Like I said, it is possible to extract extra information from multiple frames containing a lot of common data, to reconstruct a new frame with higher resolution than default. But a film is a bunch of moving images, and is put together in edits and cuts. Under ideal conditions, slow panning shots and relatively static shots (dramas etc) will probably benefit the most. As a worst case scenario, fast moving scenes and images between edits (action movies), where there is less common image data between frames will not benefit from this technology. Why? Because there isn't extra data to make a higher resolution frame. There simply isn't a way to accurately recreate the lost data. So in this case, regular upconversion takes place. Regular upconversion can only rescale the image and do some cleaning up to refine lines in the image on data that is there. It can sharpen details in a frame but cannot add any to it.
edit: here's a one page slide of Hitachi's version of super resolution conversion
http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/global/news_pdf_e/crl061003nrde_super_resolution.pdf
Believe me, if Sony were they one to do this if they lost the format war I'd still call this BS as BS.
[Post edited by YCH on Mar 5, 2008]
No one said this superconversion player is an HD player? Well, the CEO of Toshiba has this to say: "
If you watch standard DVDs on our players, the images are of very high quality because they include an "upconverting" feature. And we're going to improve this even more, so that consumers won't be able to tell the difference from HD DVD images". The implication is that Toshiba's upconverting tech is so good that it's equivalent to HD-DVD, and thus sounds like he's now trying to downplay the huge image quality delta between SD and HD discs. Well I guess he's right in a way, some consumers can't even tell DVD images from HD-DVD images...but for the rest of us who have decent eyesight (or wear corrective glasses/contacts) and sit within a reasonable distance from our HDTVs, the difference is clear.
Have I tested this specific superconversion technology? No, but I've seen results and comparisons of similar tech, and have some understanding of DSP and imaging. Let me give you an example of why I think this tech has some serious flaws. Like I said, it is possible to extract extra information from multiple frames containing a lot of common data, to reconstruct a new frame with higher resolution than default. But a film is a bunch of moving images, and is put together in edits and cuts. Under ideal conditions, slow panning shots and relatively static shots (dramas etc) will probably benefit the most. As a worst case scenario, fast moving scenes and images between edits (action movies), where there is less common image data between frames will not benefit from this technology. Why? Because there isn't extra data to make a higher resolution frame. There simply isn't a way to accurately recreate the lost data. So in this case, regular upconversion takes place. Regular upconversion can only rescale the image and do some cleaning up to refine lines in the image on data that is there. It can sharpen details in a frame but cannot add any to it.
edit: here's a one page slide of Hitachi's version of super resolution conversion
http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/global/news_pdf_e/crl061003nrde_super_resolution.pdf
Believe me, if Sony were they one to do this if they lost the format war I'd still call this BS as BS.
[Post edited by YCH on Mar 5, 2008]
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Member since:
November 2007
November 2007
YCH, I understand the specs behind 'upconversion', & the consumer perception (or lack thereof) between hd & upconverted video. Whether the $400 blu ray pricetag, is worth the 'perception' over a $50 upconverter player... is a matter of taste, and LARGELY IN PART- a matter of economics (does the average consumer, in RECESSION TIMES would consider the $400 box, or the $50-$100 'upconverter, providing NEAR-HD quality video?).
What I don't understand, is the assumption by some posters in this board, that a product WILL NOT WORK, even before the product is released to consumers! This is BASELESS assumption, no matter how PREVIOUS items (of similar functionality) were reviewed in the past. The item is not out yet. Give it time to arrive on retail shelves. Let everyone test it and review it. Then make your conclusion.
Is that so hard to do?
What I don't understand, is the assumption by some posters in this board, that a product WILL NOT WORK, even before the product is released to consumers! This is BASELESS assumption, no matter how PREVIOUS items (of similar functionality) were reviewed in the past. The item is not out yet. Give it time to arrive on retail shelves. Let everyone test it and review it. Then make your conclusion.
Is that so hard to do?
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Member since:
July 2006
July 2006
Quote:
They are going up 15~20%.
Skyhawk wrote:
HD DVDs demise seem to push Blu-ray prices up
What's New
By Henning Molbaek
FIRST ONLINE Mar 5, 2008
New data shows that the price of Blu-ray players has a upward trend after HD DVDs demise.
The data comes from pricegrabber.com that can show the average price of a given player on a given time.
TG Daily collected the data which shows a upward trend for Blu-ray players.
On January 1st 2008 (Before Warner chose Blu-ray) the average price of a Panasonice DMP-BD30K player was $401. On March 2nd it was up at $495. The Sony BDP-S300 shows a similar trend with a January price of $307 and a March price of $386. Many of the players were also sold with free Blu-ray movies in January but these offers has ended as well.
http://www.dvdtown.com/news/hd-dvds-demise-seem-to-push-blu-ray-prices-up/5310
Skyhawk wrote:
Do you have any credible links to back this up Skyhawk? I would love to see it and please don't link me to bluray.com or bluraystas.com.
Nowhere has it been claimed that these 51GB HD DVD disks would not work on current HD DVD players. In fact since it was approved by the DVD consotium, which includes Disney, so I would guess that it WOULD work with current HD DVD players. I doubt very much they would approve a 51GB HD DVD disk that would require new players. This is not the BDA we're talking about here, it's the DVD consortium which is SLIGHTLY more reputable.
They are going up 15~20%.
Skyhawk wrote:
Quote:
Where did you hear this was going to happen? Oh my... should I then load up on $12.99 to $22.99 Blu-rays from Amazon now then? When is this supposed to happen?
HD DVDs demise seem to push Blu-ray prices up
What's New
By Henning Molbaek
FIRST ONLINE Mar 5, 2008
New data shows that the price of Blu-ray players has a upward trend after HD DVDs demise.
The data comes from pricegrabber.com that can show the average price of a given player on a given time.
TG Daily collected the data which shows a upward trend for Blu-ray players.
On January 1st 2008 (Before Warner chose Blu-ray) the average price of a Panasonice DMP-BD30K player was $401. On March 2nd it was up at $495. The Sony BDP-S300 shows a similar trend with a January price of $307 and a March price of $386. Many of the players were also sold with free Blu-ray movies in January but these offers has ended as well.
http://www.dvdtown.com/news/hd-dvds-demise-seem-to-push-blu-ray-prices-up/5310
Skyhawk wrote:
Quote:
Like those 51GB HD DVDs that were supposed to appear last year without any player incompatibilities I bet
Do you have any credible links to back this up Skyhawk? I would love to see it and please don't link me to bluray.com or bluraystas.com.
Nowhere has it been claimed that these 51GB HD DVD disks would not work on current HD DVD players. In fact since it was approved by the DVD consotium, which includes Disney, so I would guess that it WOULD work with current HD DVD players. I doubt very much they would approve a 51GB HD DVD disk that would require new players. This is not the BDA we're talking about here, it's the DVD consortium which is SLIGHTLY more reputable.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Member since:
November 2003
November 2003
Well the thing is I want HD disc media to move forward. I don't like the idea of another obstacle getting in the way of mass adoption of HD discs. The best way to get all studios to quickly release their library on HD discs is to see that consumers buying them by the truckload. At least HD-DVD is a worthy rival against Blu-ray, because each provided similar visual and audio quality. To me, Super-conversion of standard definition media is by far an inferior solution.
HD discs are, bar none, the biggest visual leap in home entertainment in a long time. To a discerning eye, no amount of processing on DVDs will *EVER* make it anywhere as good as a good HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc. I really have to say this once again, for emphasis. For the same good transfer used on a DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray disc, a super-converted video will never ever even come close (to my standards) to the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray version.
Let me first state the strengths of upconversion. In an image with very little texture detail (like faraway building details, or skin texture, fine hairs etc), upconversion of an SD image will do rather well against a HD transfer of the same image. Obviously, this does not occur often in a film. Unless the director is happy to use a soft-focus lens throughout the film, or the film contains a lot of imagery on walls and smooth object. However, on a regular movie with plenty of detail all the time, regular upconversion falls apart, yielding only a slight improvement by producing cleaner lines than regular un-upconverted SD video.
Regular upconversion faces similar problems as enlarging a digital photo. As a photography enthusiast, I have looked into a bunch of different upsampling (ie upconverting) software, and the very best ones are only able to refine lines and detail from a good image. That's it. No extra details. If you're interested, have a look at results from GenuineFractals (it uses fractals to interpolate boundaries and lines). In my opinion it's one of the very best upsampling software for photos there is. It may not look the best for minor upsampling operations, but for big enlargements it yields, perceptually, the most pleasing result, especially on print. And to bring this back to regular video upconversion, a result similar to Genuine Fractals is about the best they can achieve. Example comparison:
Genuine Fractals produce sharp and clean looking lines, but notice that there is no extra detail between the boundaries of those clean sharp lines. Those leaves would have shown a lot more detail if the photo was taken zoomed-in in the first place. Limitations of available data at work.
Super-conversion will do one better than regular upconversion by taking into account multiple images to produce a higher detailed image, but since I've already kinda covered this in my previous post I'll stop here. Some may like to use the astrophotography example as proof that super-resolution works. Well it works so well because static images are very easy to super-upconvert (compared to movies) when you have boatloads of repeat images covering the same area. It's just a much more controlled environment than a movie will ever be.
So, in summary, I'm using my current knowledge and available evidence to predict that Super-Resolution upconversion will yield better results than regular upconversion, but still be way behind a HD-DVD or Blu-ray disc using the same transfer.
[Post edited by YCH on Mar 5, 2008]
HD discs are, bar none, the biggest visual leap in home entertainment in a long time. To a discerning eye, no amount of processing on DVDs will *EVER* make it anywhere as good as a good HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc. I really have to say this once again, for emphasis. For the same good transfer used on a DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray disc, a super-converted video will never ever even come close (to my standards) to the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray version.
Let me first state the strengths of upconversion. In an image with very little texture detail (like faraway building details, or skin texture, fine hairs etc), upconversion of an SD image will do rather well against a HD transfer of the same image. Obviously, this does not occur often in a film. Unless the director is happy to use a soft-focus lens throughout the film, or the film contains a lot of imagery on walls and smooth object. However, on a regular movie with plenty of detail all the time, regular upconversion falls apart, yielding only a slight improvement by producing cleaner lines than regular un-upconverted SD video.
Regular upconversion faces similar problems as enlarging a digital photo. As a photography enthusiast, I have looked into a bunch of different upsampling (ie upconverting) software, and the very best ones are only able to refine lines and detail from a good image. That's it. No extra details. If you're interested, have a look at results from GenuineFractals (it uses fractals to interpolate boundaries and lines). In my opinion it's one of the very best upsampling software for photos there is. It may not look the best for minor upsampling operations, but for big enlargements it yields, perceptually, the most pleasing result, especially on print. And to bring this back to regular video upconversion, a result similar to Genuine Fractals is about the best they can achieve. Example comparison:
Genuine Fractals produce sharp and clean looking lines, but notice that there is no extra detail between the boundaries of those clean sharp lines. Those leaves would have shown a lot more detail if the photo was taken zoomed-in in the first place. Limitations of available data at work.
Super-conversion will do one better than regular upconversion by taking into account multiple images to produce a higher detailed image, but since I've already kinda covered this in my previous post I'll stop here. Some may like to use the astrophotography example as proof that super-resolution works. Well it works so well because static images are very easy to super-upconvert (compared to movies) when you have boatloads of repeat images covering the same area. It's just a much more controlled environment than a movie will ever be.
So, in summary, I'm using my current knowledge and available evidence to predict that Super-Resolution upconversion will yield better results than regular upconversion, but still be way behind a HD-DVD or Blu-ray disc using the same transfer.
[Post edited by YCH on Mar 5, 2008]
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Member since:
July 2006
July 2006
Let's not forget the hidef audio you get on HD DVD and bluray. Sound after all is half the experience and although Dolby Digital and DTS do have great sound, Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD are much improved.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Member since:
March 2008
March 2008
Quote:
As a worst case scenario, fast moving scenes and images between edits (action movies), where there is less common image data between frames will not benefit from this technology. Why? Because there isn't extra data to make a higher resolution frame.
Frames will be analyzed and panned before extrapolation begins.
Super Upconversion is very computatoinally expensive. According to Toshiba, an hour of SD video can be super upconverted in real time on CELL, 3 hours on SpursEngine, and 24 hours on a Core 2 Duo. This is the reason realtime super-resolution technology wasn't available in consumer electronics domain until now.
Quote:
Well the thing is I want HD disc media to move forward.
But consumers aren't williing to pay for Blu-Ray prices.
Quote:
I don't like the idea of another obstacle getting in the way of mass adoption of HD discs.
Well, Super Upconversion wouldn't take root if Sony and fellow BDA buddies didn't insist on pricing Blu-Ray players so high. But then again, Sony has no choice since a Blu-Ray player does cost a lot to build and Sony has to recoup $1 billion payment to studios(Warner $500 million, Fox $200 million, Disney Unknown)
Quote:
The best way to get all studios to quickly release their library on HD discs is to see that consumers buying them by the truckload.
The current mass market price is $17 for new releases. Very few people are willing to pay any kind of premium for Blu-Ray.
Quote:
To a discerning eye, no amount of processing on DVDs will *EVER* make it anywhere as good as a good HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc.
Most people don't have discerning eyes. Toshiba CEO does have a point when he claimed most people wouldn't be able to tell Super Upconverted DVD from HD-DVD.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Member since:
July 2006
July 2006
Quote:
Toshiba CEO does have a point when he claimed most people wouldn't be able to tell Super Upconverted DVD from HD-DVD.
I don't know why he would say that. That's not exactly an endorsement for HD DVD and they were claiming it was "The Look and Sound of Perfect" and 6 times the resolution of DVD.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Member since:
March 2008
March 2008
Quote:
It isn't a first that Asian corporations, celebrities, and politicians exhibit such behavior...
Actually it was Sony that kept dead BetaMax and MD on the market to save faces. Toshiba's speed of exit surprised everyone, calling it very unJapanaze-like.
Quote:
in fact it's a given in this sort of situation. They aren't crapping on HD DVD supporters - just trying to save face the best they can which is a better alternative than having the entire BOD and executive branch of the company hang themselves from shame.
No, Toshiba's simply trying to protect its DVD royalty revenue. DVD still accounts for 99% of movie sales, and Toshiba can continue to earn big bucks from DVD royalty for another decade as long as they manage to marginalize Blu-Ray like LD.
By giving consumers Super Upconversion alternative, Toshiba can make it extremely hard for average consumers to see the benefits of going Blu-Ray, and keep them on DVD instead.
