Re: Why is Microsoft preventing itself from making HD revolution?


"R Sweeney" <DockScience@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

I think you folks are missing it.
The WMV codec is the HD-DVD codec.
EXACTLY THE SAME

So there are no Codec advantages, only the degree of compression.

So the compression ratio and thus the quality of a given codec's output MUST be
better in the 27 GB 2 hour video HD-DVD than the 1/3 the size 9 GB 2 hour DVD-9
version.

Ain't no such thing as a free lunch or an image that gets better as bits are
removed.

I have watched 8Mb/sec WMV videos on my 1080 HDTV using an XBOX360 / Windows
Media Center server and I have watched 30mb/sec using WMV-coded HD-DVD on the
same set-up.

The 8Mb/sec looks nice, but the 30Mb/sec looks better.

As for "certified HD", there is no HD certification for image quality that I am
aware of.
HD carriers mess with the bit rate all the time.

The cable guys routinely dial down HD bit rates and the image quality suffers
noticeably, still 1920x1080, but not truly all the image quality it started
with before re-coding.

Well of course a stream at 30Mbps is going to be better than at 8Mbps (when
created from the same original source). I think the point is that 8Mbps HD can
still look darn good. Is it as good as 30? no. Is it good enough that you can
enjoy a movie without being annoying by compression artifacts...absolutely. I
think that is the only thing Lyrik is trying to point out.

(*>


.