-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
UMD movies resolution
- Thread starter pcostabel
- Start date
={<SMOKE>}=
Member
i recently got a psp, but haven't heard any impressions of the umd movies... what is the image quality like? keep in mind that i am in no way a videophile. do the movies look nice on the psp screen or what?
pcostabel said:
I dunno know, a UMD disc is only, what, 1,8 GB while a single-layered DVD can store 4,7 GB. We're already seeing UMD movies being released without any extra content, so I don't see it as a replacement for DVDs at all. Unless Sony releases UMD discs that can store more data.
sonycowboy
Member
neptunes said:
One of the early comparisons of MPEG 2 vs MPEG 4 showed a 1/2 file size savings and that's even with MPEG 4 doing a signicantly better job at prediction,motion compensation,frame quality, etc thus giving a better quality.
I also think that that was just straight real-time format encoding without using true authoring tools which would provide better optimizations.
However, that's just a comparison of a single layer DVD.
In the end though, if it's true that UMD movies are stored at 720 x 480, then I don't see any reason why a 2 Hour UMD movie wouldn't be just as good and likely superior to a regular DVD (accepting the loss of extras and the need for multiple UMD's potentially for longer movies, although I'm not sure how many "minutes" can be fit onto a DVD normally)
As a portable player format, it's not only viable, it's superior in pretty much every fashion.
And knowing there's other UMD license holders out there that will likely have their own products, it makes it all the more interesting.
Noone is talking about living loom replacements - obviously for that it will HAVE to be an HD format.
as a portable format, its good. There was already call for a more portable format than DVD, hence Warner with its (hopefully dead in the water mini DVD).
But as PSP is native widescreen, I'd be interested to hear how the current UMDs are mastered.
Are they 720x480, anamorphically squeezed like DVD?
But as PSP is native widescreen, I'd be interested to hear how the current UMDs are mastered.
Are they 720x480, anamorphically squeezed like DVD?
mrklaw said:
If DVD is any indication, even the 3:2 pulldown can be really messy after the cutting and editing, but they still can be less of a problem if the pulldown detection can be done rapidly or the MPEG-2 decoder is smart enough. The same messy problem applies for 30fps materials. But for sure video mode 60fps (fields) will be the major problem (mostly sports, concerts, recorded broadcasts).
Just a point of clarification: most movies are not DVD-5, they're DVD-9. DVD-9 is a dual layer ~7.95 GB disc; and DVD-5 is single layer 4.7 GB disc. So, how can they compress a DVD-9 disc to UMD and maintain full quality at 720 X 480? The best estimates I've seen so far for H.264 is ~ 40%.
What am I missing here?
What am I missing here?
The Faceless Master
Member
:lol :lol :lolGahiggidy said:
sonycowboy
Member
HokieJoe said:
http://www.disctronics.co.uk/technology/dvdvideo/dvdvid_intro.htm
Most movies are on DVD-9 because of the extras. Single layer DVD's can old 2 hours+ of recorded movies (based on individual compression rates). With MPEG 4 being 40% of that size. That would mean that you ~should be able to fit a movie pretty comfortably on UMD without extras. Obviously, for movies that are close to 3 hours or more would require either more compression or multiple UMD's.
Essentially, there's a very specific reason why Sony went with 1.8GB capacity for their UMD and it wasn't games or music.
The perfect low-res "portable player format" when that happens is several years - if at all - is an iTunes-like service.Fafalada said:
DVD is portable now... comes in most notebook pcs, etc. That is portable enough for most. Either way, the original UMD spammer didn't say "portable player format".
HokieJoe said:
You're not distorting the facts to meet a pointless agenda :lol:
Most "extras" come at an expense of bitrate of movies and are there on 2nd dvds (with the movie taking up the full DVD-9) or placed anyways on the DVD-9 (at expense of quality) to try to create more appeal to casuals.
sonycowboy
Member
Vark said:
Yes, that is single layer and single side, if you had bothered to read the rest of the link I provided.
You have no clue what you are posting about. that link is showing 133 minutes at about half the ideal bitrate.sonycowboy said:Yes, that is single layer and single side, if you had bothered to read the rest of the link I provided.
that will look HORRIBLE.
http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/tutorial/bitrate.html
citrus lump
Banned
Gahiggidy said:
gahiggidy= the new olimario?
Video on demand beats any kind of physical storage in terms of convenience, it's completely irellevant if we're talking portable or not. But we're not quite there yet... A phone/phone sized device with UMD playback may happen within next 12months, a similar device that can stream network 480P video at DVD quality - well just isn't happening for a long time yet.chinch said:
Which is precisely why most people don't use them for portable stuff.
So now we're arguing semanthics? He was quoting an article talking about portable gadgets with their own screens. Yeah, I bet he was thinking about home-theater projector setups when he typed his post.
sonycowboy
Member
chinch said:
I was under the impression that ~most studio releases were in the 4-6Mb/s bitrate range, with the "superbit" DVD's being over 7. At 120 minutes, you can still fit almost 5Mb/s (4.853Mb/s movie on a single side DVD.)
I'll admit to not being an expert at all here, but I've been cutting a crapload of video to DVD (and to my PSP) from my digital camcorder, so I am familiar with bitrate choices. But, I appreciate your constructive comments.
They use more... alot more. This is why any movie near 2 hours with many extras has TWO DVDS!sonycowboy said:
One hour per DVD layer is the gold standard. That is 2 hrs per dual layer DVD-9 a bit more if you VBR master in critical scenes. You need room for audio tracks too.
LOL. You know next weeks winning lotter numbers too?Fafalada said:
Now UMD is "dvd quality" 480p huh? With magical compression rates too?
Too bad UMD was not developed by MS cause then you guys would rip it apart like it deserves.
You can buy "portable" dvd players for under $100 now. Jezz some of you guys must only shop at Sony Style.Fafalada said:
the sweet spot is 5-7. NOT 3.maskrider said:
" For Full D1 we can get: Min: 4800-5800, Average: 6400, Max: 8000"
Either way it's storage capacity AND bitrate. You need to STORE alternate audio tracks on the disc also, even though you only play one. 2-3 audio 110 minute audio tracks take up space. Hence more space is required, disregarding the playback bitrate.
You're not getting a 100 minute movie squeezed on UMD at 720x480p that will look anywhere near DVD quality as certain people are suggesting. :lol
chinch said:
I never said (playback) bitrate alone determines the size, it is length and bitrate, and extra content, too.
UMD does not have that many extras, and we are not even sure about the suffix letter "p" in 720x480p.
And BTW, AFAIR, if WMV9 can be of reference, it needs around 2.1Mbps to compare fairly with high-bitrate DVD (pls correct me if I am wrong).
No, but I may know a thing or two about other UMD licensees (not Sony).Chinch said:
H.264 can get ~DVD quality at roughly 4x lower bitrates. It may not be enough to fit a DVD9 movie with no extras to a UMD, but those are rather rare.
Anyway I'm not trying to argue about UMD future being bright or whatever, just its merits for portable media uses (which I believe was the original point of the first post before this thread degenerated into stupid bickering).