Talk:DVD-Video

Split from DVD
Thanks for making this a new article. I was wondering whether there was a specific tag for an unfinished article as this? It does not have a lot of the basic things, like a heading and such. -- Sirius81 | Talk 16:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Details of specifications
I was trying to calculate the maximum video run-time with MPEG-2, but statements like "Up to 9.8 Mbit/s" are not sufficient. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.228.58 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
 * There is no official limit in the specification for maximum movie length. There is an effective lower bitrate limit of 300kb/s ~ 600kb/s due to the hardware restrictions of most DVD players, but that is not part of the DVD-Video standard per se.  (Hence why it is not directly mentioned in the article.  Yet, anyway)  There isn't really anything you can say about maximum run-time that is verifiable or neutral, really. -- Y&#124;yukichigai 09:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

NTSC DVD horitzontal resolution should be 640 instead of 720 (?). User:Faragon 23:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC+1)
 * Another common misconception. Unlike newer resolution specifications, DVD-based resolutions use what could be called "odd" resolutions that are subsequently stretched during playback to the appropriate shape.  720x480 can either be "squashed" to approximate 640x480 (4:3) or "stretched" to approximate 893x480 (16:9) on playback.  The rest of the resolutions are all squashed or stretched to the nearest 4:3 resolution.  As for why, there's a complex mathematical reason revolving around how the numbers can be factored.  Nobody's ever explained it to me in a manner that makes sense but they all assure me that its there. :P -- Y&#124;yukichigai 05:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Minimum bitrate
I think this article should also reflect both the minimum audio/video bitrates dictacted by the official DVD standard and a notation on reasonable minimum values that is expected to work on most playback devices. I have not been able to figure this out myself, which is why i ask here instead of posting the info directly. JoaCHIP 10:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Officially, DVD-Video has no minimum video bitrate. The effective limit due to player compatibility seems to be between 300 and 600 kbps, but there's no citable evidence to support that.  As for the audio bitrate, I believe the page lists the acceptable bitrates for each codec, save for the AC-3 codec. (which I myself am not sure of) -- Y&#124;yukichigai 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Professional video format
Dvd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:C4:531F:9440:FD26:1233:2A9C (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Why the first sentence states that DVD-Video is a professional video format without further explication? I believe that DVD-Video can be used for low-quality video but not for the common professional usage. Could you please provide some examples of professional applications? --pabouk 15:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Professional" here is used in the context of commercial releases, etc. Hollywood studios, the adult film industry, and other such major video production sources use DVD-Video to release their productions, hence the word "professional".  By the same token, "consumer" is used because numerous pieces of easy-to-use software exist specifically for the purposes of allowing the home user to create DVD-Video content, as well as set-top DVD recorders and some digital camcorders.  Both of these are generally accepted definitions or uses.  --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 02:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this usage of term professional is misleading. I have never encountered the word in a similar meaning. I would never say that VHS is a professional format although it is (or was) used in the same "professional" areas as DVD-Video. Here is an analogous example on Dolby noise reduction systems: I would say that Dolby B and C are consumer noise reduction systems while Dolby A and SR are professional noise reduction systems. Please see also professional. Ideally the word "professional" should be removed or the article should contain an explication how was the word meant. I am not a native speaker of English so other participants to this discussion are welcome.

Simply summed up: DVD-Video is a format designed (mainly) for consumer or home equipment (like VHS) thus I would not say that it is a professional format. --pabouk 08:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * cinematic retail ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Framerate
The DVD specification does not permit a display framerate of 23.976 -- that isn't NTSC or PAL, it's 480p24, which is incompatible with an NTSC signal. By manipulating the RFF and TFF flags in the MPEG-2 video stream, you can trick the decoder into performing a 3:2 pulldown and converting video encoded at 23.976fps into 480i60, but the MPEG2 sequence layer must ALWAYS specify a 29.97fps framerate. The distinction between progressive and interlaced video formats and the significance of the MPEG-2 field flags is vital for anyone who is remotely interested in understanding how video assets are prepared and authored for DVD. My additions to the article were relevant, accurate, and necessary for clarity. They were neither "overcomplicated" nor "misleading" (how???) as you claim, and the fact that you perceive them as such strongly suggests that you, Yukichigai, may be be somewhat in over your head here. You speak authoritatively about the MPEG-2 and DVD specs, but you apparently don't even understand the "complex mathematical reason" for settling on the 720x480 resolution. Hence, I don't think you are in a position to arbitrate what is "overcomplicated". I have no problem with someone editing my contributions, but blanket reverts are both rude and arrogant. Azathoth68 10:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is misleading in that the initial sentence implies that the only acceptable framerate for NTSC video is 29.97. Regardless of the how, most video on NTSC DVDs is stored at 23.976.
 * It is overcomplicated in that it is essentially a how-to littered with specialist information that the casual reader is unlikely to care about or even understand, and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.
 * Understanding the method behind 3:2 pulldown is completely unnecessary to "understanding how video assets are prepared and authored for DVD" for anybody but professionals. Exactly 0% of consumer DVD-oriented MPEG-2 encoders or DVD-Video authoring programs require an understanding of 3:2 pulldown in order to properly encode 23.976 fps video.  At most, they require you to select "3:2 pulldown" from a checkbox list or dropdown menu.
 * The manipulation of the RFF and TFF flags, as you put it, was a deliberate design choice in the MPEG-2 spec to specifically accomidate 3:2 pulldown in DVD-Video and to remove the need for the DVD player to intelligently perform the process, as was the case with VCD and SVCD. One of the specified goals of the DVD-Video spec was to store 23.976 fps video accurately.  Again, regardless of the how, the fact is that the DVD-Video spec specifically includes mention of storing video at 23.976 fps.
 * Your comments are grossly incivil. Personal insults (like calling me an idiot as you did above) will only get you banned.  They lend nothing towards furthering your argument. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you seem to have at least allowed the article to acknowledge that 480p24 must be effectively converted to 29.97 before it can be authored to DVD (which is far less ambiguous), and since you seem to have something of a chip on your shoulder regarding this article, I won't push the issue any farther. I will, however, respond to a couple specific things you said:


 * 29.97 is the only acceptable framerate for NTSC. This is not a matter open for debate.
 * "...is essentially a how-to littered with specialist information that the casual reader is unlikely to care about or even understand..." I'm glad that you have such unique insight into the "casual" reader.  This article is a technical article describing the Book B spec, including citing bitrate and framerate requirements.  One could very easily argue that this whole article is 'specialist information'.  Refusing to include two additional sentences that correct a mild innaccuracy and elucidate how non-NTSC material is encoded on an NTSC disc simply because you've decided it's 'technical' is arrogant and absurd.
 * "Understanding the method behind 3:2 pulldown is completely unecessary to "understanding how video assets are prepared and authored for DVD" for anybody but professionals. Exactly 0% of consumer DVD-oriented MPEG-2 encoders or DVD-Video authoring programs require an understanding of 3:2 pulldown in order to properly encode 23.976 fps video."  This amazingly broad statement is not only wrong, but it also represents something of a value judgment on your part: "Some cheap encoders don't require people to understand 3:2 pulldown, so therefore I refuse to include a sentence about that in the article."  In fact, some low-end "consumer DVD-oriented" software products don't even require you to specify a bitrate.  You simply select low, medium, or high quality, and they spit out a finished dvd image.  Using your flawed logic, I could argue that the talk of bitrates is overly technical and should be removed from the article.  The purpose of Wikipedia is to expand practical knowledge, not limit it.  Your attitude of "I'll decide what the reader wants to see and doesn't want to see" is inimical to Wikipedia's goals.
 * The MPEG-2 spec was developed and finalized before Book B was. Yes, the frame flags were designed in part to allow 3:2 pulldown, but they have other uses as well, including allowing framerates other than 23.976 to be pulled down to something close to 480i60 on a DVD.  This isn't just theory, it is actually done.  23.976 is NOT the only progressive framerate that can be used when preparing an NTSC dvd.
 * My comments were entirely justified in light of your initial uncivil behavior. Quoting Wiki policy and etiquette to me isn't really helpful, as you yourself are in direct violation of it and risk getting banned.   Azathoth68 05:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, this is largely correct. NTSC DVDs must play on standard NTSC TVs, which can only handle 29.97 fps. Therefore, 29.97 fps is the only allowed "display" frame rate. It's true that the spec explicitly refers to 23.976 framerate, but this is largely because it's the most common framerate from film. MPEG field flags can actually be used a handle a variety of source frame rates such as 24.0 fps, 25 fps, 15 fps, etc., each with its own pulldown cadence. JimTheFrog 09:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest that the obvious place for instruction-manual-level material is a wikibook. Specifically, the Inside DVD-Video wikibook. Ldo (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Region Codes
Concerning this sentence in the Region Codes section: Laws in the United States specifically prohibit the domestic sale of DVD players which are not set to Region 1 by default.

What laws, or is the effect accomplished by licensing agreements? It seems hard to believe congress has the authority to regulate something like this. AnotherBrian 13:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't know of any laws for region coding. I will revise the section to refer to the CSS license, which is what is used to enforce region coding. JimTheFrog 07:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Frame rate and other requirements
"'Professionally encoded videos average a bitrate of 3.5 Mbit/s with a maximum of 7-8 Mbit/s in high action scenes. Although this is typically done to enable greater compatibility amongst players, and to help prevent buffer underrun in the case of a dirty or scratched disc.'" Does that second sentence make sense? Number one: it's a fragment sentence, number two: what is it talking about? The previous sentence looks like it's just listing the usual bitrate for professional production just in case someone is wondering. Maybe this sentence is referring to the bit about the raw dvd bitrate. You guys think it should be moved or edited or something? I think this paragraph and the previous one might have been one run-on sentence that someone split up. Gamingexpert13 09:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-rip (Arccos)
Arccos is not part of the DVD-Video standard, and there are other anti-rip alternatives, so I have made changes accordingly. JimTheFrog 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement that RipLock 'inadvertently reduces ripping speeds' needs a source. The Wikipedia article on Riplock also has no sources for this statement. Given that this feature only activates on video DVDs and its name is 'RipLock', this needs clarified. I'll source my 'only activates on video DVDs' statement later: I'm at work so I don't really want to search the web for anti-piracy technologies. 195.194.196.54 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

multiple languages & NTSC-centric view?

 * For this reason, many discs are made with at most two audio languages to allow single-layer discs to be used.

As I understand it, the (slight) majority of PAL discs are dual layer. It's usually mentioned on the back cover. Most of my experience comes from Nordic editions (2x original-language audio, 4x subtitles, menus unlocalised or frugal if localised). A reference I googled says dual-layer discs are prevalent in Australia, too (under "Compression ratio")

The text also seems to conveniently ignore the (bothersome) fact of region coding (no need to include languages that are not part of the target region), markets smaller than a region, and that multi-language releases are more expensive and slower to co-ordinate. --MinorContributor 21:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

DVD Languages
Whoever wrote that DVDs don't often have more than one or two languages has never bought an Asian DVD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Video#Frame_rate_and_other_requirements Most of the DVDs I buy have at least 3 languages and on average 4 (Cantonese, Mandarin, Thai, and Japanese, sometimes with Mongolian or Farsi as well) for audio alone; along with a half dozen subtitles. Lostinlodos 08:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not only true of Asian DVDs, it's also the case with European (or certainly British) ones which have on average 3 and sometimes many more language options for their soundtracks and many more for their subtitles. Andypreston (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bits per pixel?
How many bits are used to represent each pixel's RGB + luminance values on the screen? 32? 24?  -  Theaveng 17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In almost all cases, 12 bits, as the video is YV12 format, not RGB. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 23:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Average Bitrate
3.5 Mbit/sec? ==

"Professionally encoded videos average a bitrate of 3.5 Mbit/s...." Where did this come from? I don't see a citation or source. My own personal observations disagree with the statement, because my DVDs seem to hover around 5 Megabits/second, and that's why I'm wondering where this statistic came from. - Theaveng 17:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is inaccurate, more like 5 Mbit/s or so. --Ray andrew 13:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * High quality Video DVDs come with 8Mbps video rate and low ones with 3Mbps and the

rest is in between -- Michael Janich (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Pixel aspect ratios
Could someone please write about the pixel aspect ratio of 1.1:1 in PAL/4:3 and 1.xx:1 in PAL/16:9... It's an important aspect if you design an image for a DVD and you want all the circles to be round. THANKS -- Michael Janich (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No historical information
This article completely lacks any historical background on DVD video. I will try to research this and add it, but it really needs something besides a factoid of when it eclipsed VHS. -Rolypolyman (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no information about the development of the technology; there's a lot of this in the main DVD article, but it should be at least summarized here. In addition, info should be available about the manufacturers (who was first to market with a DVD player), titles (what was/were the first DVD title(s)?), etc. There should also be some discussion of the development of successful categories of DVD video software that didn't exist (or were rare) on tape, like box sets and TV series anthologies. I've heard that The X-Files was the first TV series released as a DVD set, but don't have any corroborating references for this (even the X-Files article doesn't mention it). EJSawyer (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Copied from Talk:DVD !
 * I also find it strange that this is not in the article. According to http://standartdvd.com/, limited USA launch was August 1997, with the full launch in 1998, month not specified. The mention of launch date should include the five test market cities: Dallas, Philadelphia, Portland, Richmond, San Francisco -- 67.64.66.99 15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The only mention I have been able to find is a post in the film-talk.com's forums which suggests that "Tropical Rainforest", "Africa: The Serengeti", "Antartica", and "Animation Greats" were the first titles to be released by distributor Lumivision.--68.162.73.44 12:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The first DVD release was Twister. Source: --81.158.130.85 (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I heard that the first release was Evita. Could they have been released the same day? Or did different regions get different first releases?


 * What was the first major movie or video to forgo a VHS release and only be availible on DVD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.58.66 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * --195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First DVD release was Cutthroat Island in Korea. I worked for WB's disc authoring team in 1999 and they told me flat out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4A80:960:2905:DA9F:A766:ECE7 (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

File system?
Which file system does DVD-Video use? Maikel (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Universal Disk Format --MinorContributor (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No! From that article:
 * "for computer data storage"
 * UDF is for drag-and-drop writing files to DVD-RW or DVD+RW !
 * --195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A misleading response. There are various 'flavours' of Universal Disc Format, some of which are designed to support drag-and-drop writing on computer systems and some of which are not.  The version used for authoring DVDs is not capable of drag-and-drop use in its native form, but there is a variation to it which does allow this function.  Thus both authored (and closed) DVDs and drag-and-drop DVDs nominally seem to use the same format (usually UDF 2.0), but it isn't quite the same. 86.174.41.137 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Packaging
There's no information about the various types of DVD packaging (Keep Cases, Snapper Cases, Steelbooks etc.) in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.64.115 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Confused consumers?
Due to multiple audio (and video) output sources, a consumer has many outputs on a DVD player, and may become confused with connecting their player to their TV and/or amplifier.

You should NOT write opinions to dictionary, because not all DVD users are americans and being confused with anything requiring common sense!

Someone, rephrase please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.149.241 (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:DVD-Regions_with_key.png
Hello!

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:DVD-Regions_with_key.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:DVD-Regions with key-2.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree: I generally agree that the use of an SVG file is preferable over a raster format. However, a major reason for the preference is that vector graphics commonly are much smaller than raster formats.  However, that is not always the case.  In this instance the SVG file is 1.68MB whereas the PNG file is a mere 16KB (about 1%).  At some threshold the other factors which make vector graphics preferable to a raster format would make it reasonable to recommend using a larger SVG file.  But this is certainly not an instance where that is the case.  In other words: keep the use of the PNG file.Makyen (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Makyen, I certainly do not agree that size of a file is the main reason for using SVG; especially nowadays when storage of such capacity is not a problem. If you think that the problem is a transfer bandwidth for web browsing of Wikipedia you probably missed that Wikipedia converts SVG images to PNGs transparently. I am going to replace the images. pabouk (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for comparison of the sizes of the images in the web page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Video:
 * The original image (resized PNG) had 27,97 KB
 * The current image (rasterised SVG) has 27,52 KB
 * I just must say that the colours in the original PNG were a little bit better harmonised. pabouk (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The overriding consideration is choosing a graphic that looks good on the page which is compatible with all browsers (or at least the vast majority). Of secondary consideration is that the image should not require paying an exorbitant penalty (usually bandwidth, but can be other things, e.g. CPU cycles, etc.) for its use over a different, or no, image.  Thus, I agree that file size is not the primary consideration.  Quite frankly, I should not have focused on it in my comment, particularly given that a rasterized PNG is served for the SVG file.  File size is just an indicator that a more detailed look should be taken at the issue of which picture should be used and a discussion held as to which is preferable.  The huge disparity in file sizes for images that have similar native resolutions may tend to indicate that the larger one may not be the best.  On the other hand, the larger file might be better due to having much more information.  The particularly small size of the PNG image at a high resolution is indicative that PNG might be a good format for the image.  Put together, a closer look should be taken at the images.
 * Mostly I object to an automatic assumption that a Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) image is better, just because it is SVG. While a vector graphic based format is often preferred for graphics (i.e. not photo pictures) which will be seen at multiple resolutions, it is not always the best choice.
 * The primary argument for using a SVG image is that vector graphics often look better when scaled to different resolutions than raster based graphics also scaled. It is almost always true that a equivalent vector graphic will look better when scaled up dramatically than a raster based graphic.  This is particularly true when a raster graphic is (up)scaled using faster, less visually visually pleasing, algorithms.  When scaling down, a SVG image will often look better than a resized raster based image, but not all the time.  This is somewhat countered by the fact that the RSVG engine that Wikipedia uses to rasterize SVG images often introduces errors.
 * The secondary considerations can outweigh the primary consideration of which looks better if the additional cost for the "better" looking picture is high enough. These secondary considerations include the resources that are used by serving the image.  The SVG image has to be rendered to PNG at the target resolution and the native PNG image has to be scaled to the target resolution.  Each resulting PNG image is placed in an image cache until dumped from the cache.  We do not know the relative amount of resources which each operation (rasterizing, scaling) takes, nor do we know how often each must occur.  To know how often we would need to know how often each page is served and the persistence time of an image in the image cache.  We could experiment to determine this information, but it is probably not worth it.  Thus, it is unlikely that we will choose to find out enough information to consider this portion of the resources consumed.
 * Another resource is the bandwidth used to get the resulting images to the destination display. With these images the relative bandwidth consumed varies based on the resolution that is desired. 300 pixel resolution is currently used on this page.
 * At 300 pixel resolution the rasterized SVG is smaller by 461 bytes
 * At 450 pixel resolution the rasterized SVG is larger by 3,330 bytes
 * At 500 pixel resolution the rasterized SVG is larger by 17,369 bytes
 * Given that the "better" (smaller) format depends on the resolution on the page, choosing one or the other based on this criteria would require us to "lock" the size at which the graphic is displayed in the future. Obviously we don't want to, and can not reasonably, do that.
 * The secondary considerations are just that: secondary. We should be discussing which picture we want on the page based on what looks better irregardless of the format.  [Which is where I should have started with my first comment instead of going off on a tangent at 3AM.]  Makyen (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Vote for which picture
Here are the two pictures both at the current 300 pixel resolution:

PNG

 * 1) Prefer PNG: The actual information displayed in the SVG is smaller (too much white space). I don't like the colors used for region 1 and 6 in the SVG (although I don't really like the color for region 6 in the PNG either and region 3 is hard to see... hmmm.). There is a rendering error (caused by the RSVG engine used by Wikipedia, not in the original file) which almost connects South America to Cuba and significantly distorts that island chain.  The SVG render greatly exaggerates the relative size of  some islands and island groups. Makyen (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I edited the SVG file to remove most of my objections.Makyen (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)



MP2 Audio Max Bitrate
Are you sure of the quoted bitrate for MP2 Audio: MP2: 48 kHz sampling rate, 1 to 7.1 channels, up to 912 kbit/s?

Shouldn't this be 192 Kbit/s?

Andypreston (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The original poster has left out that this is Variable Bit Rate. The variable bit rate is 32 kbps to 912 kbps, with 384 kbps being the normal average rate. The 912 kbps are probably transient peaks that you would not hear. MPEG-1 is limited to 384 kbps. Channel combinations are (front/surround): 1/0, 2/0, 2/1, 2/2, 3/0, 3/1, 3/2, and 5/2. The LFE channel is optional with all combinations. The 7.1 channel format adds left-center and right-center channels, but is rare for home use.

I will probably edit this in the Article.Sylvester8294 (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Colour Format
Nowhere in the article doea it tell us what the colour format is. Is it 4:2:2, 4:2:0, 4:1:1 or what? 86.182.66.217 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

PAL is said to be 4:1:1 while NTSC 4:2:0 -- good point though -- we need sources a link to MPEG to explain the pros and cons of it. Dcsutherland (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

PAL is certainly 4:2:0 --Regression Tester (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

DVD is digital, hence it is neither PAL nor NTSC. It is 4:2:0 both for 50Hz and for 60Hz flavor. It is DV which is 4:1:1 (50Hz DV is 4:2:0) Mikus (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't disagree, Dcsutherland claimed a PAL - NTSC difference. It is, however, completely wrong that DVD's are always encoded interlaced. MPEG-2 video can either be encoded in fields (interlaced) or in frames (which can be interlaced or progressive). Fields encoding is so unusual (There used to be one sample from a DVD in the FFmpeg samples collection, there are others now, but they come from surveillance HW or similar) that NVidia's original VDPAU drivers did not support it, so the article should not claim that this is the normal use case, it should explain that DVD's are usually progressive, but may also be encoded interlaced.--Regression Tester (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, how does it make sense to say that the typical 24 fps recorded material that is played with 25 fps on a PAL DVD is interlaced? 25 progressive frames are shown per second if the original material was film or (modern) television series. Only live-recorded concerts or similar that make in to DVD can be interlaced.--Regression Tester (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

POV about Blu-ray
The successors section reads like it was written by someone who doesn't like Blu-ray and wants it to fail somehow. Like it or not, Blu-ray won the format war by a significant margin. And despite the people who try to marginalize it, Blu-ray has actually been beating various of DVD's records for rate of adoption by the public. Whereas this section reads like Blu-ray is an anemic and failed attempt to replace DVD. That's rather misleading and does not represent what's happening out in the real world. 98.248.74.209 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Jacket Picture
There is a dearth of information on the subject of Jacket Picture. While basic information about file names can be found (e.g. on the German Wikipedia page for DVD-Video) there is little information telling users who is using the Jacket Picture and how. If someone can find a web site showing that information it would be wonderful to add it. Dcsutherland (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

DVDs: 24fps or not?
This page only mentions 25 and 29.97 frames per second as valid encodings. The 24p page claims that Hollywood authors movies on DVD at 24 frames per second. This seems like a direct factual conflict. Neither article has much in the way of references (but I haven’t tagged them as such quite yet). If anybody knows the answer and can cite sources, please fix the article(s) and/or add citations. MacMog (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The DVD-Video chapter says: "MPEG-2 formats support both interlaced and progressive-scan content, with the latter being encoded within interlaced stream using pulldown." And: "A DVD player uses flags to convert progressive content into interlaced video suitable for interlaced TV sets. These flags also help reproducing progressive content on progressive-scan television sets." It also has a reference. DVD-Video spec is not very obvious to understand. Video can be encoded either as frames or fields, but it is still field-based. Only the compression can be frame-based for efficiency, logically video still consists of fields and is supposed to be output by DVD player in interlaced form. Hence, 24p video can be encoded as 24fps frames, but pulldown flags are set to "hint" the decoder how to convert it into 60i (or 30i in frame-based notation). The DVD-Video spec appeared when people were still using interlaced CRT-based TVs. For current generation of progressive-scan TVs there is no need to output interlaced video. Thus, DVD players are using these flags to figure out if the content is progressive, and if yes, they output it as progressive. This is sort of against the original DVD-Video spec, but it works better for modern TVs. Read this too: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/the-dvd-benchmark/177-dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-scan-dvd.html I will add this link as a reference. Mikus (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Max runtime DVD9? (AKA min bitrate)?
Currently it says: 4 hours. This is actually longer than I thought, I always figured above 180 minutes it's pushing it. Is there any official (yet public) information or guideline on max runtime / min bitrate? Spiny Norman (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DVD-Video. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226130428/http://www.sonic.com/products/Consumer/CinePlayer/Technology/variability.aspx to http://www.sonic.com/products/Consumer/CinePlayer/Technology/variability.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Introduction
The first sentence says 'DVD-Video is a consumer video format used to store digital video on DVD discs, and as of 2003 is the dominant consumer video format in Asia, North America,[4] Europe, and Australia.' My question is, is the fact that it was the most dominant format in 2003 relevant today? I guess this line should just be taken away. NeuronalBurst (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Computer cards?
I remember reading that, in the early years of DVD drives, computers were not fast enough to handle the decoding of the MPEG-2 on DVD discs, and so pass-through video cards were developed to help take some of the work of decoding MPEG-2 off of the CPU and video card. Though as video card and CPU technology evolved tremendously during that time period (we went from 200Mhz processors to 1Ghz in a three-year time span, and from 16MB to 128MB video cards in the same span), these cards quickly became obsolete. I think this warrants a mention in the article. MightyArms (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)