Pioneer's latest Blu-ray drive caters to disc diehards

[mountains]

I'm surprised no one mentioned the widely held theory that optical media in general has a reputation of having a much longer lifespan than other forms of data storage. It allegedly is one of the only forms of storage that can withstand an EMP attack.

The M-Disk format is supposed to have a 1000 year shelf life. Now that obviously can be debated, but the disks are also more durable than standard disks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC

 

[wiyosaya]

It IS a UHD player. Go to the product page and let Google translate it:

"Ultra HD Blu-ray movie playback compatible drive
※Ultra HD Blu-ray playback software is not included.

With compatible PCs, playback software and displays, you can enjoy immersive images with enhanced dynamic range and rich color gamut in addition to 4K images that are higher definition than full HD.
Of course, you can also play Blu-ray movies and DVD movies.
You can download the Ultra HD Blu-ray Advisor Tool on your PC for the PC environment."

UHD Support on a PC under Windows is a slippery slope of no longer supported hardware - at least in an official sense. According to the Blu-ray Forum (the official source of the Blu-ray standards) official UHD playback requires Intel's, now no longer included with new Intel processors, SGX (which turned out to be a train wreck of hardware security issues) "Software Guard eXtensions", and only Cyberlink's PowerDVD supported it - but not anymore. You can see Cyberlink's requirements here.

I don't know that this drive will be compatible, but if you have a "compatible" drive (that can be flashed with unencrypted firmware), a combination of MakeMKV and AnyDVD HD could possibly support UHD playback. I won't get into specifics other than what I already said, but those details can be found on the AnyDVD HD/MakeMKV forums if you care to look.

IMO, the Blu-ray forum, with such restrictive requirements, is just shooting UHD Blu-ray in the foot. There are lots of people out there, myself included, that would buy a PC/Windows UHD solution in an instant if the hardware restrictions were not so stringent. In fact, those hardware restrictions, because of a flaw in SGX, might just lead to someone cracking AACS 2.X

 

[thewelshbrummie]

Years ago, when EA used to do free game giveaways on Origin, they had C&C Red Alert 2 on it. I got a copy of it.

Doesn't seem like they offer it for purchase anymore...just red alert 3.

It's not available individually but you can buy it as part of Command & Conquer The Ultimate Collection for USD$20 from Origin - which includes all of the C&C games from the original through to C&C4, or everything released between 1995 and 2010. Everything except the remastered games.

The last time I installed it on Windows 10 it did work but not without making some changes e.g. compatibility mode being set to Win XP. I may has also had to download a different .exe but it was a few years ago so can't remember what I did - just be aware that it may not work out of the box.

 

[Mark Fuller]

captaincranky said "You didn't mention whether or not, this turd burns discs. If it doesn't, you're way better off buying a free standing 4K Blu-ray player, and hooking it up to the TV."

I did what captaincranky said and bought a 4k Bly-ray. I suppose I could replace my USB dvd burner with a USB Blu-ray burner, but most of the material you would need to burn can be downloaded to the hdd from the internet and all of the videos that I care about like on you tube are old mostly standard definition and that means I don't really need to do that.

 

[ZedRM]

It's not available individually but you can buy it as part of Command & Conquer The Ultimate Collection for USD$20 from Origin - which includes all of the C&C games from the original through to C&C4, or everything released between 1995 and 2010. Everything except the remastered games.

That is not true at all. Red Alert 3 can be purchased on Steam on it's own.

 

[Hotlynx16]

Agreed. I'd rather own/rent/borrow the media than stream something. Blu-ray simply cannot be matched in terms of video/optical quality.

Also, I will not rely on cloud storage for anything.

I Have a 55" in the bedroom, too much of a pain to try to stream from desktop in the living room, burn all the seasons from TV shows to Blu-ray, can see the peach fuzz on women's faces!Wow!

 

[Squid Surprise]

I Have a 55" in the bedroom, too much of a pain to try to stream from desktop in the living room, burn all the seasons from TV shows to Blu-ray, can see the peach fuzz on women's faces!Wow!

That’s what Plex servers are for

 

[Hotlynx16]

I remember stories about companies sourcing parts/machines to read old media.

I just really wonder about reliability - it always seem a dark art .
Yeah run verify disc - then find out later - only the actual burner was good at reading .
I mean 5tb portable drive is $99 on special - buy 2 and transfer every x years .
Fire in your house - best of luck grabbing optical media .
5Tb drives easy to store offsite , easy to put in fire proof safe

Not saying don't use it - but have another string to your bow

Hope you are using 5TB mechanical drives Heard solid state only hold data about a year unless powered!Have an old drive from 1998 with all it's files intact!

 

[Hotlynx16]

I can't even install an optical drive in my case

They make external ones with USB connections! Or a USB Holder for the Drive!

 

[Hotlynx16]

I'm surprised no one mentioned the widely held theory that optical media in general has a reputation of having a much longer lifespan than other forms of data storage. It allegedly is one of the only forms of storage that can withstand an EMP attack.

The M-Disk format is supposed to have a 1000 year shelf life. Now that obviously can be debated, but the disks are also more durable than standard disks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC

Only problem is M-Disks are expensive! wow!

 

[Hotlynx16]

I did what captaincranky said and bought a 4k Bly-ray. I suppose I could replace my USB dvd burner with a USB Blu-ray burner, but most of the material you would need to burn can be downloaded to the hdd from the internet and all of the videos that I care about like on you tube are old mostly standard definition and that means I don't really need to do that.

A lot of YouTube videos have been remastered to 1080p, DVD is only 480p. Saw Green Acres on local TV, quality was crap, must have been shot on early video tape?? Hogan Heroes & original star trek crystal clear, must have been shot on film!

 

[Hotlynx16]

That’s what Plex servers are for

I guess I need to learn about plex, can they see your personal vids? I might want to play some of me and my wife but for no one else to see!!

 

[Squid Surprise]

I guess I need to learn about plex, can they see your personal vids? I might want to play some of me and my wife but for no one else to see!!

As long as you don’t share it - it’s just for you -> plus you can give limited access to anyone you want
I have a dedicated NAS that also runs Plex… terabytes of data just for me and my family’s viewing pleasure

 

[Hotlynx16]

As long as you don’t share it - it’s just for you -> plus you can give limited access to anyone you want
I have a dedicated NAS that also runs Plex… terabytes of data just for me and my family’s viewing pleasure

Thanks I guess I will learn on how to set that up! I have the old Pioneer BDK209DBK burner that came out in 2017 bought in 2020. It is starting to get a little flaky. The program I am using to burn with is sensing the media (Verbatim 25GB) is corrupted but after wiping with a microfiber cloth it goes ahead and burns fine. I thought it was flaky disks at first. Went and ordered the Pioneer BDR-213JBK! We will see how that goes!

 

[captaincranky]

A lot of YouTube videos have been remastered to 1080p, DVD is only 480p. Saw Green Acres on local TV, quality was crap, must have been shot on early video tape?? Hogan Heroes & original star trek crystal clear, must have been shot on film!

OK, "Green Acres", isn't actually "Game of Thrones", with respect to its potential for sales of units. I would imagine that makes the producers largely unwilling to spend the big bucks on remastering it. Its target, after all, amounts to a "niche audience".

As for the quality on the TV "side band" digital channels, first they're 480i, not the 720p or 1060i of the primary channel. Second, I'm pretty sure you'll find the bit rate to be much less than a DVD playing the same content. The result is with anything less than a "5 x 5" signal, you'll get "compression artifacts". Those little squares in the picture which outline the Mpeg compression area.

Despite your contempt for DVD's low resolution, its high bit rate allows it to be scaled up quite respectably. No, it's not 4K Blu-ray, but given good production, it's quite adequate for a pleasant viewing experience.

As for your, "must have been shot on film" observation, keep in mind most movie film is ISO 100, and pretty darned grainy as well. The lack of apparent grain is "visual retention", which is the inability of human mind to "refresh the scene", before the next frame is displayed. So, the grain is basically jumping to different points in the image, and your eyes can't keep up with it. So, for all intents and purposes, the lack of grain in movie film, is naught but an, "optical illusion".

BTW, the standard cinema frame rate is only 24 fps.

 

[Hotlynx16]

OK, "Green Acres", isn't actually "Game of Thrones", with respect to its potential for sales of units. I would imagine that makes the producers largely unwilling to spend the big bucks on remastering it. Its target, after all, amounts to a "niche audience".

As for the quality on the TV "side band" digital channels, first they're 480i, not the 720p or 1060i of the primary channel. Second, I'm pretty sure you'll find the bit rate to be much less than a DVD playing the same content. The result is with anything less than a "5 x 5" signal, you'll get "compression artifacts". Those little squares in the picture which outline the Mpeg compression area.

Despite your contempt for DVD's low resolution, its high bit rate allows it to be scaled up quite respectably. No, it's not 4K Blu-ray, but given good production, it's quite adequate for a pleasant viewing experience.

As for your, "must have been shot on film" observation, keep in mind most movie film is ISO 100, and pretty darned grainy as well. The lack of apparent grain is "visual retention", which is the inability of human mind to "refresh the scene", before the next frame is displayed. So, the grain is basically jumping to different points in the image, and your eyes can't keep up with it. So, for all intents and purposes, the lack of grain in movie film, is naught but an, "optical illusion".

BTW, the standard cinema frame rate is only 24 fps.

Not really dissing 480p, Most DVD's look pretty good! Just wondering why some old shows look great and others don't. I remember reading about some old shows were shot on early video tape and the quality wasn't that good compared to the ones shot on Film!

 

[ZedRM]

Not really dissing 480p, Most DVD's look pretty good!

Agreed. People are spoiled these days my 1080p+ resolutions. I STILL play my Nintendo Wii and SNES. The Wii can 480p widescreen at best and it's still fun and still looks good. The SNES is even lower res and is still perfectly enjoyable. While I am a bit of a resolution snob myself, it something taken to an unreasonable point.

For example; With CyberPunk2077, I have 1440p displays but prefer playing that game at 720p for higher framerates as my display scales perfectly. People call me crazy or even $tup1d for doing that, but 720p is perfectly fine. I don't even notice the lower res anymore, but I sure as hades will notice framerate drops. And I have an RTX 4070! Before anyone asks, 1080p runs at an acceptable framerate but my 1440p display doesn't scale down to 1080p very well and it just looks ugly. 720p looks sooo much better, ironically.

Just wondering why some old shows look great and others don't. I remember reading about some old shows were shot on early video tape and the quality wasn't that good compared to the ones shot on Film!

Early video tape was more dependable than celluloid film, but most importantly, it was reusable. Unless the studio's chose the high quality settings the recordings generally didn't look the greatest. They were still watchable for the NTSC 240i broadcast standards of the time.

 

[captaincranky]

Not really dissing 480p, Most DVD's look pretty good! Just wondering why some old shows look great and others don't. I remember reading about some old shows were shot on early video tape and the quality wasn't that good compared to the ones shot on Film!

Keep in mind there were two competing formats at the time. VHS & Beta Max. The Beta Max was generally accepted as the better looking of the two, yet VHS survived.

"Camcorders" of the period were also available in larger tape widths, 3/4" & 1", if IIRC. These, (again IIRC), were astronomically expensive. So, it goes back to budget, if only in part.

Once in awhile I like to amuse myself, price shopping pro-class Video zoom lenses. These bottom out at about $3200. and top out at about $240,000. Obviously maximum aperture, zoom range, an intended playback format all play a part.

See for yourself https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Lenses/ci/1884

 

[captaincranky]

Early video tape was more dependable than celluloid film, but most importantly, it was reusable. Unless the studio's chose the high quality settings the recordings generally didn't look the greatest. They were still watchable for the NTSC 240i broadcast standards of the time.

OK, NTSC standard, at least at the time of the crossover to digital was 480i (480 x 640) DVDs of the period were offered in 4:3 TV standard, or "letterbox" which is 480p x 720. (You got either black bands on the sides (4:3) or black bands top and bottom of the screen). These were particularly nasty at a direct transfer ratio of "CinemaScope", or 2.35"1.00. (Or thereabouts). And well, you still get the black bands from CinemaScope, it's just that TVs are so much bigger, it's not anywhere near as annoying

As for why 720p scales so much better than 1080p....it's because 720 x 1280 is exactly half the resolution off 1440 x 2560. "resizing" works best at 1/2 or 2x the original resolution. I guess the software doesn't have to do as much "figurin'". Or "FLOP'ing around. The 1/2" or 2x is easier on the compression algorithms. What I think is going on at 2x is, where you once had 1 pixel, you now have 4 identical pixels instead of an oddball 2.75, or whatever.

I went down the photo resizing software rabbit hole recently, to see if Adobe's bicubic was still state of the art. Today's top rated programs all utilize AI.

As for "all about VHS", I ain't touching this, unless it's with your 10 foot pole,

VHS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Endymio]

OK, NTSC standard, at least at the time of the crossover to digital was 480i (480 x 640) DVDs of the period were offered in 4:3 TV standard, or "letterbox" which is 480p x 720. (You got either black bands on the sides (4:3) or black bands top and bottom of the screen).

To correct a minor error, the original DVDs were all 480i (interlaced 480x720), or 576i (interlaced PAL) with cropping, banding and/or rescaling to adjust aspect ratios.

Soon after initial release, the DVD Forum added progressive-scan 480p support, and it quickly became the de-facto standard. But "letterbox" or no, the underlying resolution doesn't change.

 

[wiyosaya]

Sure Blu-ray or any burned media is no longer the necessity it might of been, but it's still useful for backing up data and installs. 3 systems and all have burned OS images and data backup on 25GB B-RE discs. And yes it take hours to do, but that's only the first time. Unless you don't do incremental backups, but why would you do that?

I recently started using an Nvme drive in a USB-C enclosure for my image backups. Some of my image backups now take less than a minute.

 

[wiyosaya]

OK, NTSC standard,

ATSC 3.0 is slowly taking over - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_3.0

 

[captaincranky]

ATSC 3.0 is slowly taking over - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_3.0

Dear god, please don't tell me that 4K is going to be broadcast standard for OTA TV. The thought of sitting through endless commercials for ambulance chasing lawyers, having to watch HIV prep drug ads with boy on boy action, along with fat women doing Broadway style song and dance routines for diabetes meds, is disturbing and cringe worthy, if not outright frightening. And in quad FHD, no less.

If this is "woke", consider me still, "half asleep".

 

[captaincranky]

To correct a minor error, the original DVDs were all 480i (interlaced 480x720), or 576i (interlaced PAL) with cropping, banding and/or rescaling to adjust aspect ratios.

Soon after initial release, the DVD Forum added progressive-scan 480p support, and it quickly became the de-facto standard. But "letterbox" or no, the underlying resolution doesn't change.

DVD had (?) to be released at 480i, since it happened before HD TVs became standard. I don't think a CRT NTSC standard TV would tolerate P-scan. I distinctly remember using DVD with the "monstrous" 32+" CRT TVs of the time.

You may well be correct that DVD horizontal resolution was always 720. I have some store bought DVDs ostensibly from that era. In the unlikely event that I summon up the ambition, I'll dredge some of them up and read the very fine print at the bottom of the case.

Still, the 4:3 format DVDs were being scaled from 640 Horizontal. You may be correct that he side bands on 720p+ TVs may well have been blacked out overscan

 

[wiyosaya]

Dear god, please don't tell me that 4K is going to be broadcast standard for OTA TV. The thought of sitting through endless commercials for ambulance chasing lawyers, having to watch HIV prep drug ads with boy on boy action, along with fat women doing Broadway style song and dance routines for diabetes meds, is disturbing and cringe worthy, if not outright frightening. And in quad FHD, no less.

If this is "woke", consider me still, "half asleep".

Not that it will ever happen, but

ATSC, the broadcast standards association, is working to add the international video compression method Versatile Video Coding (VVC) as an option in addition to the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) technology used in the current roster of ATSC 3.0 broadcast standards. Even more efficient than current methods, VVC could provide a path to 8K broadcasting via ATSC 3.0 and might also be utilized to efficiently deliver broadcast video services while simultaneously conserving bandwidth.

So, your "half-asleep" comment is pertinent. https://www.atsc.org/news/atsc-expanding-video-compressions-options-for-atsc-3-0/

The "good thing" about it is that ATSC 3.0 is upgradable meaning anyone having an ATSC 3.0 tuner will not need a new one to take advantage of any upgrades - unlike the ill-conceived ATSC 1.0 standard. Anyone that currently has an ATSC 1.0 tuner will need an adapter box or a new tuner to tune OTA ATSC 3.0 stations. Philly probably has a few by now.

Cheers!