During the war, I used to always hear that WB was "dumbing" down BD releases because of HDDVD. I never really thought that was the case. Now that the war is over, how can this be explained? BD-25?

"Warner Home Video has announced that they will bring the horror film 'One Missed Call' to Blu-ray on April 22nd, day-and-date with the DVD release. No video or audio specs have been announced at this time, but expect this BD-25 to have 1080p VC-1 video with a Dolby Digital surround sound track. No special features have been announced at this time."

Maybe there are still production issues with BD-50? No way to really know what WB's reasoning is.

Most likely has to do with the success of the movie. If it's a failure at the box office (including the critics), then the resources will be limited for the BD release.

Most likely has to do with the success of the movie. If it's a failure at the box office (including the critics), then the resources will be limited for the BD release.


Maybe, but if this happens more than once, even on some better titles, I'm going to call it how I see it.

Most likely has to do with the success of the movie. If it's a failure at the box office (including the critics), then the resources will be limited for the BD release.
I can't believe that's true as Run, Lola, Run; 30 Days of Night; and Becoming Jane show as BD50s with very low ticket revenues.

http://www.blu-raystats.com/stats.php?OrderBy=Date&Date=2008

Oh heaven forbid another BD25. C'mon people, BD25 in and of itself does not equal crap. :rolleyes:

Oh heaven forbid another BD25. C'mon people, BD25 in and of itself does not equal crap. :rolleyes:

Exactly - the movie may be short or the extras available aren't anything to write home about. 25GB is still a lot of space! If they just give 640kbps DD instead of any lossless track then that might be more about not putting much into a movie that didn't warrant it.

The movie is only 87 minutes long. Warner could encode it with 30Mbit/s video, 3Mbit/s TrueHD, 640kbit/s French and Spanish DD, and a 3Mbit/s IME track (beyond the maximum possible specifications of HD DVD, BTW) and still have room to spare.

(30 + 3 + 1.125 + 3) Mbit/s * 87 minutes * 60 secs / 8 (bits to bytes) = 24,224MB

Oh heaven forbid another BD25. C'mon people, BD25 in and of itself does not equal crap. :rolleyes:

True... But say you jam a 160 minute movie on a BD 25, a la Assassination of Jesse James, just because you wanted to minimize encodes, there is a decent argument about WB being lazy.

fitprod

I'd start worrying when they put Shoah with MPEG-2, PCM and tons of extras on a BD25! :D

Would anyone notice if they never released it at all?

It's VC1, not MPEG2. Look at what warners did in 30 MB on HD DVD with King Kong and other very long movies with extras. Now that BD has won, Sony can stop fudding about the necessities of BD50, and studios can begin to make decisions based on real world parameters such as availability, cost, yield, running time, and compression requirements.

Vern

It's VC1, not MPEG2. Look at what warners did in 30 MB on HD DVD with King Kong and other very long movies with extras. Now that BD has won, Sony can stop fudding about the necessities of BD50, and studios can begin to make decisions based on real world parameters such as availability, cost, yield, running time, and compression requirements.

Vern

King Kong was a Universal release. Not Warner. ;)

I'm more pissed off about the 640k audio they tend to STILL throw on Blu-ray discs like Jesse James, T3, etc...

The movie is only 87 minutes long. Warner could encode it with 30Mbit/s video, 3Mbit/s TrueHD, 640kbit/s French and Spanish DD, and a 3Mbit/s IME track (beyond the maximum possible specifications of HD DVD, BTW) and still have room to spare.

(30 + 3 + 1.125 + 3) Mbit/s * 87 minutes * 60 secs / 8 (bits to bytes) = 24,224MB

Thank you. People c'mon, BD50 is about allowing more and lifting constraints. When more is not needed... well no problem with the BD25. Just pretend it's on HD DVD.

I don't buy BD-25's.

Warner = $ - the cheaper the better

one format, one copy - what other format will you buy it on ?

Oh heaven forbid another BD25. C'mon people, BD25 in and of itself does not equal crap. :rolleyes:But I thought the entire reason for BD being the superior format was more space and higher bitrate. :confused:

And I was told repeatedly by BD supporters that BD50 yields and cycle times were close to BD25. :confused:

And I was told repeatedly there were no problems with BD50 production. :confused:

And I was told repeatedly that 30GB HD DVD wasn't enough. :confused:

And BD disc costs were close to HD DVD, so that a BD50 cost differential was supposed to be minimal. After all, DL HD DVD was used for almost all movies. Isn't BD25 only a couple of dimes more than HD DVD? So BD50 shouldn't be much more than that, should it? :confused:

And I was told that disc replication cost was such a small factor in overall disc price that any difference wouldn't matter. :confused:

So why not put every movie on a BD50 and crank up the bit rate to the max? Aren't we talking hi-def here?

Shouldn't there be a reason to buy HD over plain old DVD? If you have the space, and the cost is minimal, why not use it?

I'm getting mixed messages here...:p

Of the movies they've released on BD, Fox and MGM have released a higher percent on BD25's than has Warner (MGM 77%, Fox 56%, Warner 54%). Of all BD25 releases, Warner by far leads with the use of next-gen video codecs - only 13% use MPEG-2 and the rest use VC-1. The next closest studio is Buena Vista, who has 32% of their BD25s encoded using MPEG-2 - all other studios have a majority of BD25s encoded using MPEG2, with Sony leading the way at 82%.

However, it's obvious that a majority of all studios' BD25 releases were in 2006 and in the first half of 2007, with Warner being the slowest to move away from BD25s.

It would be interesting to see each studio's average size, max size, and min size video file as encoded on the BD and whether they're using the extra space to increase the quality of their movie encodes or whether they're just filling it with higher quality extras.

Thank you. People c'mon, BD50 is about allowing more and lifting constraints. When more is not needed... well no problem with the BD25. Just pretend it's on HD DVD.

You can also make the case that many of the superb HDDVD transfers were just fine on 30, and having them on a BD50 would not have improved them. The "it would have looked better on BD" crowd was hammering this point during the now ended war.

Funny thing is, HiDefdigest just gave Beowulf 5 star rating on PQ and AQ, and made comments like

"DD Plus track is reference quality"

They also called the PQ reference.

Also to boot, it RETAINS all standard def extras, and they are in HD.

My point is, we shall keep an eye on Warner. If they crank out longer movies on BD25's, this is going to make your arguement look all the more silly.

I'm getting mixed messages here...:p

No... just messages you're having difficulty interpreting obviously. ;)

All the reasons you stated are indeed reasons why BD is superior. But if Warner is sticking to VC-1 for the foreseeable future - and if they are using identical encodes for both BD and HD DVD until June - then again as pointed out even with all bitrates and audio cranked up to 'max,' on this specific movie, a BD25 would suffice.

Saying that a BD25 is 'enough' in certain specific instances is not the same as invalidating the reasons why the format itself is superior, or allows for more.

Warner = $ - the cheaper the better

one format, one copy - what other format will you buy it on ?

+1

basically it keeps money in their pocket.

they get to sell the disc for the same price as other discs regardless of how much it costs them to make.

no sane person will look at the box to see if it is bd50 they will just pay for the content if they want it.

You can also make the case that many of the superb HDDVD transfers were just fine on 30, and having them on a BD50 would not have improved them. The "it would have looked better on BD" crowd was hammering this point during the now ended war.

Warner was slaved to VC-1 encodes coming in at 30Mbits and under for video. Yes, they looked fine. Could they have looked better? Also yes. Would the difference have been perceptible? Well, different results in different cases most likely. But *my* point is why would Warner use a BD50 just for the sake of doing so if the entire film is going to come in at under 25GB anyway? Remember that this means HD DVD is getting the same under 25GB movie...

Funny thing is, HiDefdigest just gave Beowulf 5 star rating on PQ and AQ, and made comments like

"DD Plus track is reference quality"

They also called the PQ reference.

What's Beowulf got to do with anything? Besides... what 'references' are they using? If they ever hear a lossless audio track for Beowulf and find it more appealing, well... I'll be interested to see the score they give it.

My point is, we shall keep an eye on Warner. If they crank out longer movies on BD25's, this is going to make your arguement look all the more silly.

For it to look more silly it would have to be silly in the first place. If you can't understand where in this case it's the movie encode determining the capacity usage, and not the other way around, then I can't make it any more clear than I already have.

I don't buy BD-25's.

Really? So you would want to miss out on all the BBC documentaries, most of the concerts, all the Terminator movies, most movies with less than 90 minutes running time, and anything released during the first 6 months of Blu-ray? Even Fox has a few soon to be released titles on BD-25 like Commando, Ice Age (the first one) and Alvin and the Chipmunks. Okay, maybe not the best examples, but Warner isn't the only studio still releasing on BD-25.

Warner was slaved to VC-1 encodes coming in at 30Mbits and under for video. Yes, they looked fine. Could they have looked better? Also yes. Would the difference have been perceptible? Well, different results in different cases most likely. But *my* point is why would Warner use a BD50 just for the sake of doing so if the entire film is going to come in at under 25GB anyway? Remember that this means HD DVD is getting the same under 25GB movie....

So your saying 5 star rated PQ discs like 2001,Blade Runner, etc. from Warner would have looked better? Come on dude.

Also, one only has to look up a few posts in this thread to see responses like "I dont buy BD-25's" I have seen this uttered more than enough times during the war days.



What's Beowulf got to do with anything? Besides... what 'references' are they using? If they ever hear a lossless audio track for Beowulf and find it more appealing, well... I'll be interested to see the score they give it

What score could they possibly give it? umm a 5 to. Meaning it could only TIE the lossy rating.

EDIT

Here, a DIFFERENT review of the same movie regarding audio.

"Early murmurs pointed to this disc including a TrueHD soundtrack, but even though Beowulf lacks any sort of lossless audio, this HD DVD certainly doesn't seem to be any worse for it. Beowulf's aggressive, enveloping Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 audio amps up the intensity of the movie's elaborate action sequences; as Grendel flings bloodied, lifeless bodies across the mead hall and as the castle crumbles under the weight of Beowulf's aerial assault against a flame-spewing dragon, sounds violently careen from one channel to the next. Bass response is pounding and punishing, from the thunder of clattering hooves to this Danish kingdom being ravaged by a slew of different monsters. Even with as tumultuous and chaotic as Beowulf's action sequences can be, dialogue unwaveringly remains clear and discernable throughout. The clarity and distinctness of the individual sound effects are equally impressive; this is a movie with a meticulously crafted sound design, and that careful attention to detail is flawlessly reproduced on HD DVD."

So your saying 5 star rated PQ discs like 2001,Blade Runner, etc. from Warner would have looked better? Come on dude.

More importantly, are you saying they wouldn't have? We will never know. How can you attach the weight of fact and science to something as arbitrary as a reviewers score?

Also, one only has to look up a few posts in this thread to see responses like "I dont buy BD-25's" I have seen this uttered more than enough times during the war days.

First of all, that post is from Kevivoe... someone who in the past has been [fairly] anti-BD. But you won't see him post to dispute the logic presented here, or at least I would be surprised. I think he's in a state of mind right now that if the movie was ten minutes long he'd still want it on a BD50 based on (warped) principal alone.

What score could they possibly give it? umm a 5 to. Meaning it could only TIE the lossy rating.

That's exactly my point Urza. They would give a better version an identical score... because the first one wouldn't have actually been truly reference to begin with. It's all contextual. And if they find themselves in the future having to give kudos to a lossless audio Beowulf over the present encode, I would imagine it slightly embarrassing for them.

On principal alone, any audio track non-lossless should receive at max a 4.5 IMO based on the merit of the unknown.

I don't have all the maths to hand, but IMHO there shouldn't be any BD25's.

All studios should looking to use the least compression possible (none would be best) for both the audio and video content and making sure that the BD offereing has at least what the SD DVD had on it.

In fact, being a little naive here, the studios should be putting more on a BD version than the SD version.

Skimping on the $$$$s now will only make the uptake slower.

Make HD the best and spend some effort doing it.

Seggers

More importantly, are you saying they wouldn't have? We will never know. How can you attach the weight of fact and science to something as arbitrary as a reviewers score?

I agree, we are in the same boat. But then your the one that seems convinced it would be different.

As far as reviewers score's being given weight. Ask DobyBlu, he posts those infamous charts everywhere.


That's exactly my point Urza. They would give a better version an identical score... because the first one wouldn't have actually been truly reference to begin with. It's all contextual. And if they find themselves in the future having to give kudos to a lossless audio Beowulf over the present encode, I would imagine it slightly embarrassing for them.

On principal alone, any audio track non-lossless should receive at max a 4.5 IMO based on the merit of the unknown.

On principal? How about just listen to it. Why should lossy sound be an auto max of 4.5? I think for you lossless has a bigger placebo effect. For me, I trust my ears, and I have heard some damn find lossy tracks. This does not mean I dont want lossless, on the contrary.

If a double blind test was done on this title between a lossy version and a lossless, I have a feeling you would be stressing those ears to hear the difference. I know thats heresey here on an A/V forum, and people are going to come out of the woodwork with "I to can hear a big difference" I'm sorry, but I dont think most people can. Those that do have good ears and or "bland" type equipment in the HT. Only time I can tell the audio is crap, is when its lower than 1.5. Esp those 640K junkers.

I agree, we are in the same boat. But then your the one that seems convinced it would be different.

Ok first of all, where do I write I'm "convinced" it would be different. I don't. What I say is that it could be perceptibly better, and I further qualify that by mentioning that different scenarios would possibly benefit more than others. Now that you're living in a BD world (either by choice or not), are you going to be satisfied with HD DVD bitrate levels for something like Lord of the Rings? No, you won't, simply because whatever the reality you'll be unsettled by the fact that however minor ultimately, the bitrate allowance present might have resulted in a better image. And that's the main source of the Warner angst through the past two years.

Now, for this particular movie I'm just pointing out the fact that it's still a "pre-conclusion" title in the way it's being handled, and that it will be June 08 and beyond before we can get a handle of how lazy or not WB is going to be in terms of BD.

As far as reviewers score's being given weight. Ask DobyBlu, he posts those infamous charts everywhere.

That's a discussion for you and DobyBlue I guess, but meta-aggregates are of course a better judge (provided the pool isn't overly polluted) than single reviews alone.

On principal? How about just listen to it. Why should lossy sound be an auto max of 4.5? I think for you lossless has a bigger placebo effect. For me, I trust my ears, and I have heard some damn find lossy tracks. This does not mean I dont want lossless, on the contrary.

"Damn fine" lossy audio tracks is not what I'm disputing. Yes, I've heard them too. They are damn fine. But I do have a problem with a reviewer giving a movie a 5 in an age where we know lossless is available, and the lossless version has not been a part of the testing. If he had both, and the lossless sounded identical, then I would have no problem with a 5 for it. But so long as that chance for differentiation exists, I have a problem with a "best of the best" rating when indeed a better version may soon arrive. There has to be context for these ratings... one is the context of film to film, and in that context Beowulf probably deserves its 5. But there has to be intra-encode context as well, and that's room they didn't allow themselves.

Now all the 'BD is better because it is bigger crowd' faces reality when studios do what they want to do, in their own best interest.

All this useless debate will do is further confuse the public and kill adoption of HDM.

Now all the 'BD is better because it is bigger crowd' faces reality when studios do what they want to do, in their own best interest.

Another one out of the woodwork to try and paint legacy as future. Again, this encode operates under the same VC-1 encode sharing situation as all Warner titles have since the beginning. June of '08 and beyond is when you can show up to make these comments. ;)

Would anyone notice if they never released it at all?

Hey now your getting personal my cousins daughter was in the movie but would agree terrible movie was real surprised he allowed her to do it.She is also in the movie In The Electric Mist with Tommy Lee Jones she plays his daughter just hope he doesn't let it get out of control.:)

This whole thread is very confusing to me. I always thought that a studio having the option of using up to 50 GB was a better idea, because some movies no doubt require it in order to wring the maximum quality out of the release. Whether that's because they are extra long, or need extra bits thrown at the encode, or have a ton of extras really doesn't matter to me.

I mean, nobody's even seen this release yet, so how can naysayers be forming an opinion on whether it needs to use a BD-50 to ensure quality? Assuming this particular title can get it all done in 25 GB, what's the big whoop? :confused:

Back in 1997, were people arguing about whether a particular release needed to use a DVD-9 or not, sight unseen, months in advance of its release?

I mean, nobody's even seen this release yet, so how can naysayers be forming an opinion on whether it needs to use a BD-50 to ensure quality? Assuming this particular title can get it all done in 25 GB, what's the big whoop? :confused:

The quality of the encode here is peripheral to an underlying discussion bemoaning the use of a BD25 for the disc in a future that is abstractly hoped to be "all BD50, all the time." I say abstractly because that future is based on the premise that bigger is better... but in this case that rule does not apply, as the encode itself has been constrained by other factors elsewhere.

Certain people have forgotten that the BD50 reductionism in arguments is short-hand for a larger idea, and have taken to debating that abstraction itself rather than the premises it embodies.

Certain people have forgotten that the BD50 reductionism in arguments is short-hand for a larger idea, and have taken to debating that abstraction itself rather than the premises it embodies.Ahhh... 'nuff said. I certainly don't want to go back to the arguments of the past any more. Let the healing continue.

True... But say you jam a 160 minute movie on a BD 25, a la Assassination of Jesse James, just because you wanted to minimize encodes, there is a decent argument about WB being lazy.

Exactly. For a lot of movies a BD25 is sufficient, but clearly there are some that a BD25 won't cut it such as the one you mentioned. I was shocked myself that Warner squeezed that onto a single layer disc rather than doing the film justice on a BD50 and including lossless audio.

No... just messages you're having difficulty interpreting obviously. ;)

All the reasons you stated are indeed reasons why BD is superior. But if Warner is sticking to VC-1 for the foreseeable future - and if they are using identical encodes for both BD and HD DVD until June - then again as pointed out even with all bitrates and audio cranked up to 'max,' on this specific movie, a BD25 would suffice.

Saying that a BD25 is 'enough' in certain specific instances is not the same as invalidating the reasons why the format itself is superior, or allows for more.

Thanks for taking that one. :)

Again, this encode operates under the same VC-1 encode sharing situation as all Warner titles have since the beginning. June of '08 and beyond is when you can show up to make these comments. ;)Actually, I believe you here. :)

Warner would have been foolish NOT to demand free BD50s for ALL titles in their BD exclusivity contract.

It's gotta add up to $400 million somehow. ;)

In BD-25's defense, I have several movies that were recorded off HDTV in MPEG2 format that are simply outstanding, and they are all under 25gigs. They are only DD 5.1, but there is no macroblocking or visual defects.

When the new codecs like VC-1 and AVC come into play, there's a lot of quality that can be had with BD-25.

Against BD-25, the fact that the BDA had touted that capacity and bitrate were king during the entire format war, then by all means, BD-50 should be used to it's limits.

Another one out of the woodwork to try and paint legacy as future. Again, this encode operates under the same VC-1 encode sharing situation as all Warner titles have since the beginning. June of '08 and beyond is when you can show up to make these comments. ;)
What do you think will happen after June '08? The Great Revelation?

By all means, as some other posters have stated, a shorter movie on a BD25 with lossless is no big deal to me. I have all ways stated that the BD50 might not be needed all the time, but it would be nice to have if you do need it.

A shorter movie like this should have no problem looking incredible on a BD25.

A movie like "The assasination of Jesse James" was too long for a BD25 and should have been on a BD50 with lossless.

But I thought the entire reason for BD being the superior format was more space and higher bitrate. :confused:

And I was told repeatedly by BD supporters that BD50 yields and cycle times were close to BD25. :confused:

And I was told repeatedly there were no problems with BD50 production. :confused:

And I was told repeatedly that 30GB HD DVD wasn't enough. :confused:

And BD disc costs were close to HD DVD, so that a BD50 cost differential was supposed to be minimal. After all, DL HD DVD was used for almost all movies. Isn't BD25 only a couple of dimes more than HD DVD? So BD50 shouldn't be much more than that, should it? :confused:

And I was told that disc replication cost was such a small factor in overall disc price that any difference wouldn't matter. :confused:

So why not put every movie on a BD50 and crank up the bit rate to the max? Aren't we talking hi-def here?

Shouldn't there be a reason to buy HD over plain old DVD? If you have the space, and the cost is minimal, why not use it?

I'm getting mixed messages here...:p

Your not kidding!!!!

I don't think Warner has released a single disc on BD50 yet since the announcement, but I may have missed one. And Sony of course releases all kinds of crap on BD50's. Favoritism, maybe? And still we see all kinds of production delayed discs. BD was not ready, plain and simple. Now with Uni and Para coming aboard, expect it to get worse.

Great plan they had there.

I am eager to see the reaction from the bit rate fanatics and the BLU fanboys if Warner uses the same encode for Batman Begins, V and Matrix. I am sure people will keep the bit rate meter switched on and begin rolling out complaints when the bit rate drops below 10.
Personally I would like Warner to re-encode these excellent titles. Let's first see how they integrate interactive features.

But I thought the entire reason for BD being the superior format was more space and higher bitrate. :confused:

And I was told repeatedly by BD supporters that BD50 yields and cycle times were close to BD25. :confused:

And I was told repeatedly there were no problems with BD50 production. :confused:

And I was told repeatedly that 30GB HD DVD wasn't enough. :confused:

And BD disc costs were close to HD DVD, so that a BD50 cost differential was supposed to be minimal. After all, DL HD DVD was used for almost all movies. Isn't BD25 only a couple of dimes more than HD DVD? So BD50 shouldn't be much more than that, should it? :confused:

And I was told that disc replication cost was such a small factor in overall disc price that any difference wouldn't matter. :confused:

So why not put every movie on a BD50 and crank up the bit rate to the max? Aren't we talking hi-def here?

Shouldn't there be a reason to buy HD over plain old DVD? If you have the space, and the cost is minimal, why not use it?

I'm getting mixed messages here...:p
Oh, those things were only said while the format war was going on. Now that Blu-ray has won, we can go back to reality, which includes that many movies will fit fine on a 25GB disc. ;)

The part about "WB being lazy" may still be the same, though. This time, however, we may get an HD DVD version "dumbed down" to the 25GB Blu-ray limit. Watch the HD DVD forum to see if there are lots of complaints after May 13, assuming an HD DVD version is released then. :)

By all means, as some other posters have stated, a shorter movie on a BD25 with lossless is no big deal to me. I have all ways stated that the BD50 might not be needed all the time, but it would be nice to have if you do need it.

A shorter movie like this should have no problem looking incredible on a BD25.

A movie like "The assasination of Jesse James" was too long for a BD25 and should have been on a BD50 with lossless.

I don't see why we're having this discussion.

"Jesse James", by all accounts (the disc is in my possession, will watch tomorrow) looks good but not amazing.
It could have looked better on BD50
It isn't on BD50 as Warner wants to use one encode for both formats
This release was for both formats
Sadly, the above tells us we have some more potentially compromised releases ahead.


I rented "Jesse James" because I'm hoping for a double-dip. I doubt I'm the only one.

During the war, I used to always hear that WB was "dumbing" down BD releases because of HDDVD. I never really thought that was the case. Now that the war is over, how can this be explained? BD-25?

"Warner Home Video has announced that they will bring the horror film 'One Missed Call' to Blu-ray on April 22nd, day-and-date with the DVD release. No video or audio specs have been announced at this time, but expect this BD-25 to have 1080p VC-1 video with a Dolby Digital surround sound track. No special features have been announced at this time."

Add Jesse James and Michael Clayton to that list. Two movies that were nominated at the freakin' ACADEMY AWARDS.......hmmm.....so much for HD-30 limitations.....

It isn't on BD50 as Warner wants to use one encode for both formats
Not like it matters, but do note there are ~50 Warner titles that are on BD50 discs and they "use the same encode" for video, too. You can't assume BD50 wasn't used for this specific reason.

Not like it matters, but do note there are ~50 Warner titles that are on BD50 discs and they "use the same encode" for video, too. You can't assume BD50 wasn't used for this specific reason.

Sorry grommet. Based on the benes stats thread it's pretty much evident that Warner has used the same video encode on both formats but varied the audio encodes probably by introducing additional spoken language track, LPCM etc. Video encode has always been the same though someone in the insider thread mentioned that Warner is trying to offer better encodes on Blu-ray which is BS. This doesn't mean that they are doing this because of HD DVD but when their encoding and authoring process has been so streamlined for HD DVD they are finding it cumbersome to do a separate encode for BD. I hope that they change this trend post May'2008 and satisfy movie fans as well as the bit rate fans. I am sure Warner will double dip on most of the titles they have released on Blu-ray with more advanced features making them the largest double dipper next to greedy FOX.

Until they are done with HD-DVD they will have one lowest common denominator encode for both formats.You have to realize that anything released in the next few months has been in the pipeline for at least six months. They will eventually release higher quality encodes as they transition into BD only.

What's with the influx of HD-DUD sympathizers in this thread?

Mr Ding, its obvious you hail from bluray.com.

Whats the dead giveaway?

1. Using the words HD-DUD

2. Calling people with opposite opinions sympathizers.

This is not a web site of one side opinion. We are allowed to speak our minds, as long as it does not get nasty. You seem to be mistaking this for your favorite site, where the mere mention of an "opinion" contrary to towing the line gets smashed, and obtains the label of troll.

Get used to other opinions without name calling.

Sorry grommet. Based on the benes stats thread it's pretty much evident that Warner has used the same video encode on both formats but varied the audio encodes probably by introducing additional spoken language track, LPCM etc. Video encode has always been the same though someone in the insider thread mentioned that Warner is trying to offer better encodes on Blu-ray which is BS. This doesn't mean that they are doing this because of HD DVD but when their encoding and authoring process has been so streamlined for HD DVD they are finding it cumbersome to do a separate encode for BD. I hope that they change this trend post May'2008 and satisfy movie fans as well as the bit rate fans. I am sure Warner will double dip on most of the titles they have released on Blu-ray with more advanced features making them the largest double dipper next to greedy FOX.


I doubt they will re encode, makes no sense, and would not justufy the cost IMHO.

I sure as heck am not going to double dip on a re encode, not a value proposition for me.

Let's not forget that Warner has already announced Batman Begins Collectors Edition, Departed and Goodfellas (SE) which means that they are already into the double dip game. In-case they do a re-encode of these titles it would be pretty much evident that the original release was not up to the mark. To me Double dipping on HDM titles is a SIN.

Let's not forget that Warner has already announced Batman Begins Collectors Edition, Depated and Goodfellas (SE) which means that they are already into the double dip game. To me Double dipping on HDM titles is a SIN.

+1

Missed the Departed and Goodfellas part.

Good lord!!:mad: no buy for me.

Let's not forget that Warner has already announced Batman Begins Collectors Edition, Departed and Goodfellas (SE) which means that they are already into the double dip game. In-case they do a re-encode of these titles it would be pretty much evident that the original release was not up to the mark.Batman Begins was never released on Blu-ray, so you can't call it a double-dip no matter if they package into a "gift set" or not.

I haven't seen any official announcement on BD re-releases of Goodfellas and The Departed. I know the Goodfellas BD already has all the "Special Edition" DVD content, so what's left to add? The BD of The Departed has all the "Special Edition" DVD content minus a dated 2004 Scorsese documentary that has little to do with The Departed. Link on new versions? I sure can't see why they'd bother. The Departed is an excellent release, too.

During the war, I used to always hear that WB was "dumbing" down BD releases because of HDDVD. I never really thought that was the case. Now that the war is over, how can this be explained? BD-25?The use of BD-25 on an 87 minute long movie that only made $25 at the box office doesn't mean much. How about we actually wait until the end of the year so we can compare the first half and second half of this year in terms of what Warner releases?


Maybe, but if this happens more than once, even on some better titles, I'm going to call it how I see it.I could understand this thread if we were comparing a good length of time but last I checked we are still months away before we even start seeing Blu-ray exclusive titles.


Saying that a BD25 is 'enough' in certain specific instances is not the same as invalidating the reasons why the format itself is superior, or allows for more.Which mikemorel understands and has been told numerous times in the past but from the looks of it he will continue to post against Blu-ray even now that the format war is over.

The use of BD-25 on an 87 minute long movie that only made $25 at the box office doesn't mean much. How about we actually wait until the end of the year so we can compare the first half and second half of this year in terms of what Warner releases?


I could understand this thread if we were comparing a good length of time but last I checked we are still months away before we even start seeing Blu-ray exclusive titles.


Which mikemorel understands and has been told numerous times in the past but from the looks of it he will continue to post against Blu-ray even now that the format war is over.

So format war being over means no one has a right to express his/her opinion or criticize Blu-ray? Do we all have to shower Blu-ray with praise 24/7?

Batman Begins was never released on Blu-ray, so you can't call it a double-dip no matter if they package into a "gift set" or not.

I haven't seen any official announcement on BD re-releases of Goodfellas and The Departed. I know the Goodfellas BD already has all the "Special Edition" DVD content, so what's left to add? The BD of The Departed has all the "Special Edition" DVD content minus a dated 2004 Scorsese documentary that has little to do with The Departed. Link on new versions? I sure can't see why they'd bother. The Departed is an excellent release, too.

I don't have the links at present. However it was posted in digital bits few weeks ago.

Starting in the 1st Quarter you'll see the Oscar and Gangster promotions, which will include the Bonnie and Clyde: Ultimate Collector's Edition (available on DVD, Blu-ray and HD-DVD) and the Bonnie and Clyde: Special Edition, along with such titles as the Goodfellas: Special Edition, the Heat: Special Edition, the Once Upon a Time in America: Special Edition, the Departed, the True Romance: Special Edition, the Film Noir Classics Collection: Volumes 1-4, the Warner Bros. Tough Guys Collection and the Warner Gangsters Collection (featuring titles like Public Enemy, Little Caesar, etc).

I am all for BD50 when it it is needed. The point of storage space between the two formats is that the maximum BD disc is still 66% larger than the largest HD DVD disc.

As for the title in question, not interested so I don't really care. Now if this was Batman Begins or the Dark Knight then I would be PO'd. I am more concerned with Warner not making lossless audio the norm yet on their releases.

I don't have the links at present. However it was posted in digital bits few weeks ago.
Ah, the The Digital Bits. Where does it specifically say those are all high-def releases (and not DVD)? Some of those look like marketing re-packages, too.

Actually it was even posted in HDD and blu-ray.com.Where? I found this, which also uses The Digital Bits as a source for additional info to augment the Warner press info:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Disc_Announcements/More_Warner_2008/2009_Blu-ray_Release_Plans/1443

I see no reference to new releases of Goodfellas or The Departed on Warner's preliminary schedule.

Where? I found this, which also uses The Digital Bits as a source for additional info to augment the Warner press info:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Disc_Announcements/More_Warner_2008/2009_Blu-ray_Release_Plans/1443

I see no reference to new releases of Goodfellas or The Departed on Warner's preliminary schedule.

There you go.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa150.html#whvpart2 :D

HDDVD supporters AKA the "good enough" crowd should love BD25 releases since in their world lesser is better. ;)

These are the same people who say gimmicks such as PiP and web content are more important than picture and sound. Damn, I'm so glad HDDVD went down the toilet! I love it!! :)

WTF does this have to do with anything??? except fan the fires. Seriously man. Have some class.

But I thought the entire reason for BD being the superior format was more space and higher bitrate. :confused:

And I was told repeatedly by BD supporters that BD50 yields and cycle times were close to BD25. :confused:

And I was told repeatedly there were no problems with BD50 production. :confused:

And I was told repeatedly that 30GB HD DVD wasn't enough. :confused:

And BD disc costs were close to HD DVD, so that a BD50 cost differential was supposed to be minimal. After all, DL HD DVD was used for almost all movies. Isn't BD25 only a couple of dimes more than HD DVD? So BD50 shouldn't be much more than that, should it? :confused:

And I was told that disc replication cost was such a small factor in overall disc price that any difference wouldn't matter. :confused:

So why not put every movie on a BD50 and crank up the bit rate to the max? Aren't we talking hi-def here?

Shouldn't there be a reason to buy HD over plain old DVD? If you have the space, and the cost is minimal, why not use it?

I'm getting mixed messages here...:p Not worth saying, we told you so anymore. Format war is over, and we have to live with the results.

As long as their are replication capacity issues and there is a cost delta between a BD25 an BD50 there is an economic and time to market incentive to use the cheaper alternative, especially if it gets the job done.

Personally, I have no problems with a release on BD 25 and VC-1, if it fits with good quality PQ and AQ.

When more BD50 production capacity comes on line, and there is less of a cost difference between a single and double layer disc, more releases will default to DL as it becomes te de facto standard.

Thats what happened to DVD and HD DVD. It cost so little more to create a DL over a SL disc and replication capacity was more than adequate that double layer discs were the default standard. Blu-ray isn't at that stage yet, but will be soon.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13208886#post13208886

Both Cinram and Sony are expanding capacity, so this issue may be resolved by the fall.

TwinTurboZX -> What happened to you man ? Do you have an HD DVD player ? Have you sat down and made logical comparisons ?

There you go.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa150.html#whvpart2 :DOk, I must be blind. Where is The Departed and Goodfellas Blu-ray re-release mentioned on the page? What day?

{CONTROL}+F and find for Good, Departed.That's just the "promotion" quote you posted earlier, which doesn't seem to be Blu-ray specific at all... I guess I'll wait for a real press release. :)

I agree with you Kosty but only a handful of HD DVD titles were pressed on HD-15. 90-95% of the HD DVD titles were pressed on HD-30. Many Blu-ray and purple fans including myself seem to have been spoiled by BVHE and Sony thus making us expect the same from other supporting Studios.
Thats the point.

For DVD and HD DVD , a single layer disc and a double layer disc cost about the same to produce and replication capacity was not an issue so everyone just standardized on using double layer discs. There was no incentive or need to use a single layer disc and that became te default standard.

Those conditions are currently different for a single and double layer Blu-ray disc production. Double layer ones cost more to produce and replication capacity is still limited for BD50. You can produce a BD25 release noticeably cheaper and faster.

When Blu-ray production becomes more mature, BD50s may become the default standard as well. Or maybe studios will find that BD25s are more than enough capacity for routine releases.

Time will tell, but as long as those conditions exist , studios will continue to make those decisions.

So format war being over means no one has a right to express his/her opinion or criticize Blu-ray?That is a nice strawman argument and are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to criticize flawed arguments that are posted against Blu-ray? Because in my opinion that is exactly what mikemorel posted and as he has said many times before he has no interest in buying into Blu-ray (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12764484&postcount=493).


Do we all have to shower Blu-ray with praise 24/7?No, but do you really think that the HD DVD supporters who attack Blu-ray with the same flawed arguments over and over are posting that criticism because they want Blu-ray to improve? I don't, and many of them seem to have an outright hatred of Blu-ray and a not so hidden desire to see it fail.

TwinTurboZX -> What happened to you man ? Do you have an HD DVD player ? Have you sat down and made logical comparisons ?

Dont mind him, he has used the same tired tactic of snide one liners since the war. Scary thing is, he acts like there is still a war, and must fight anything he deams anti BD.

That is a nice strawman argument and are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to criticize flawed arguments that are posted against Blu-ray? Because in my opinion that is exactly what mikemorel posted and as he has said many times before he has no interest in buying into Blu-ray (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12764484&postcount=493).


No, but do you really think that the HD DVD supporters who attack Blu-ray with the same flawed arguments over and over are posting that criticism because they want Blu-ray to improve? I don't, and many of them seem to have an outright hatred of Blu-ray and a not so hidden desire to see it fail.

I certainly want BD to improve, esp WB. I want to keep the light on WB, because I am not convinced HDDVD being dead will make them improve. Everyone is assuming re encodes of BD discs, use of lossless on all titles, etc. etc.

If they go the cheapo route on BD exclusives, damn straight I will call them on it, esp since I was told(as a former HDDVD fanboy) that BD discs were being dumbed down,because of the format with the least amount of space. In other words, I better see some damn steller stuff from WB in the future.

That is a nice strawman argument and are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to criticize flawed arguments that are posted against Blu-ray? Because in my opinion that is exactly what mikemorel posted and as he has said many times before he has no interest in buying into Blu-ray (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12764484&postcount=493).


No, but do you really think that the HD DVD supporters who attack Blu-ray with the same flawed arguments over and over are posting that criticism because they want Blu-ray to improve? I don't, and many of them seem to have an outright hatred of Blu-ray and a not so hidden desire to see it fail. Supporting Blu-ray now does not mean that you have to ignore the issues that existed before and still do with replication cost or capacity.

The situation was a concern he and others had (including me) with Blu-ray replication and was a significant HD DVD advantage that lead many people and companies, including Paramount to support HD DVD.

Blu-ray replication of BD50s is still an issue, but with the end of the format war i will get resolved quicker (as with Cinram buying more lines) but it still exists.

Yes his post was a bit of ,I'd told you so Schedenfreude but you seem a bit defensive about it as well.

If its seen as an explanation of why a studio would release a single layer BD25 disc , instead of a BD50, or why studios might do so in the future, its a legitimate concern.

He along with other HD DVD supporters (like me) did warn that replication issues and cost might create a situation where BD25 releases might become a standard, or at least be used as as a stopgap measure until more BD replication come online.

Its in the context of the OP here.

I certainly want BD to improve, esp WB.I want it improve as well and if Warner does poorly on their titles in the second half of the year they should be criticized for that.


I want to keep the light on WB, because I am not convinced HDDVD being dead will make them improve.Note that the death of HD DVD will not change their encodings soon since it will be months before we start seeing Blu-ray specific encodings from Warner.


Everyone is assuming re encodes of BD discs, use of lossless on all titles, etc. etc.Personally I doubt that Warner will do re-encodes for the dual format titles that they have already encoded but I am hopeful that lossless audio will become more common on Warner titles released in the second half of the year.


The situation was a concern he and others had (including me) with Blu-ray replication and was a significant HD DVD advantage that lead many people and companies, including Paramount to support HD DVD.Paramount was fine with releasing titles on Blu-ray for over a year until they made that business deal with Toshiba so I don't think it was that much of an issue for them.


If its seen as an explanation of why a studio would release a single layer BD25 disc , instead of a BD50, or why studios might do so in the future, its a legitimate concern.The post mikemorel made (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13230731#post13230731) is filled with opinions, exaggerations, and speculation and I simply disagree with it.

There will be a transition period for Warner paramount, Dreamworks and Universal as they transition to full Blu-ray support and as a Blu-ray replication capacity matures.

It looks like the end to the format war is allowing companies like Cinram and Sony DADC to pull the trigger and order an invest in more BD capacity. Cinram is probably spending $50-$75 million on its new lines and Sony DADC probably more.

Singulus is probably the biggest bottleneck and their capacity to produce BD machines will be drag on any increases in BD50 capacity for a year or so.

But with Blu-ray's win, and the monies available, things will get better, and if replication capacity for Blu-ray remains an issue, thats a symptom of a good thing happening, increased consumer demand for Blu-ray.

But, at the core, if a BD25 can do the job, thats not a priori a bad thing. Its not like anyone is going to use MPEG-2 and LPCM now on a BD25 and have a bad video anymore like in the first T5E release.

Personally I doubt that Warner will do re-encodes for the dual format titles that they have already encoded but I am hopeful that lossless audio will become more common on Warner titles released in the second half of the year. That makes sense.

There is no excuse for 640kbps DD in HDM, something that Warner seems to specialize in for BR.

There is an excuse for 640Kbps DD tracks on HDM provided it comes along with lossless audio track. :D

There is an excuse for 640Kbps DD tracks on HDM provided it comes along with lossless audio track. :D

Agree. The problem is the large number of Warner titles that do not have lossless and only a 640kbps DD. Just recently, Michael Clayton, No Reservation, & Assassination of Jesse James. I don't bother with these BRs, though I may rent them on HD-VOD instead.

Titles that could have been given a lossless treatment

1) The Island (Though the DD track sounds pretty darn good this Bay's flick craves for Lossless audio)
2) Swordfish
3) Aviator (I think this won Oscar for Sound Mixing)
4) Last Samurai (Hans Zimmer's score)
5) Oceans Trilogy
6) Happy Feet (U.S version)
7) Superman Returns (Consumer version - NOT the one packaged with Pioneer Blu-ray player)

Titles that could have been given a lossless treatment

1) The Island (Though the DD track sounds pretty darn good this Bay's flick craves for Lossless audio)
2) Swordfish
3) Aviator (I think this won Oscar for Sound Mixing)
4) Last Samurai (Hans Zimmer's score)
5) Oceans Trilogy
6) Happy Feet (U.S version)
7) Superman Returns

Huh, Superman Returns DID get the lossless treatment:

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/146/supermanreturns.html

Igans

If you want Last samurai with TrueHD just import the EU HD DVD.

Also Happy feet BD has PCM over here.

Thanks MovieSwede but I am well aware that the E.U versions have True HD but I am concerned by the lack of English SDH.

Why do you want english SDH?

Its has ordinary English Subs.

Most of the E.U / Japan release don't feature English SDH and only have plain English subtitles.

But why do you want SDH?


SDH and lossless is an interesting combo.

Frankly, i'm surprized the movie warranted a BR release at all.There are alot of far more deserving movies currently shipping on only DVD that deserve a BR release(case in point, "The Dar Jeeling Limited") but didn't get one.

Correct me if I'm wrong but WB is still releasing HD-DVD through May? Perhaps they are being lazy until then ;p

Titles that could have been given a lossless treatment

5) Oceans TrilogyWell, any movie "could be given" one and likely should space permitting... but Ocean's Trilogy has a basic, almost retro, soundtrack mix that would really not benefit from Lossless beyond marketing or placebo. Dolby Digital is not poor performing @ 640kbps (a non-digital movie theater with Dolby is 384Kbps!), no matter what Lossless addicts claim. This is one series I could honestly say "doesn't need Lossless.'"

Thanks MovieSwede but I am well aware that the E.U versions have True HD but I am concerned by the lack of English SDH.

What's SDH?

What's SDH?
"SDH" is an American term the DVD industry introduced. It is an acronym for "Subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing", and refers to regular subtitles in the original language where important non-dialog audio has been added, as well as speaker identification, useful when the viewer cannot otherwise visually tell who is saying what.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtitle_%28captioning%29#SDH

I can't believe this thread has exploded to over 90 replies.

One Missed Call just about the worst possible example for the point the OP is trying to make.

1) This title is still slated for release on HD DVD 3 weeks after the Blu-ray on 5/13 so it will be another shared encode.

2) It's already been demonstrated that due to the short length of the movie it can easily fit on an BD25 even when encoding parameters are set beyond the maximum transfer rate supported by HD DVD.
see http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13229640&postcount=8

I can't believe this thread has exploded to over 90 replies.

One Missed Call just about the worst possible example for the point the OP is trying to make.

1) This title is still slated for release on HD DVD 3 weeks after the Blu-ray on 5/13 so it will be another shared encode.

2) It's already been demonstrated that due to the short length of the movie it can easily fit on an BD25 even when encoding parameters are set beyond the maximum transfer rate supported by HD DVD.
see http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13229640&postcount=8

The bigger point was to keep a light on WB. It has done that. I have a feeling WB will go the cheap route on more than one ocassion. I dont know for sure, but its my gut feeling.

The assumption is once the titles go BD exclusive, WB will pull out all the stops since they have been able to ditch HDDVD, and not encode for the weaker format. I was skeptical of this during the war,and after it, hence this thread. My bet is that I will have a much better example of a movie later on knowing WB.

As far as making the encode easier goes...using a higher bit-rate would make the encoding process easier, not harder. To make a movie look good with a low bitrate requires a lot more work. Production code could possibly be an issue -- no reason to spend extra on production when the content is short enough that it looks great and still takes less than 25mb. As others noted, might just be the required HD DVD support keeping this movie down too.

The bigger point was to keep a light on WB. It has done that. I have a feeling WB will go the cheap route on more than one ocassion. I dont know for sure, but its my gut feeling.

The assumption is once the titles go BD exclusive, WB will pull out all the stops since they have been able to ditch HDDVD, and not encode for the weaker format. I was skeptical of this during the war,and after it, hence this thread. My bet is that I will have a much better example of a movie later on knowing WB.

Now that the competition is gone the Studio's don't have to push out titles max'd to the limit anymore for pr reasons.
It's now back to business as usual and cost cutting is part of that.

Going single layer means cheaper replication and far cheaper disc authoring and proofing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtitle_%28captioning%29#SDH

Ahhh! So like, "Music Playing in Background" or "Uptempo Rendition Begins", etc? That makes sense! Thanks! ;)

Sorry that I'm not going to read the whole thread, but just wanted to add that I hope people don't think that bitrates for formats should be designed based on what computer animated material (like Beowulf is, even though it used actors) require, especially not 2.35:1 computer animated material. Higher bitrates basically aren't designed in for the easiest material, but for harder material. Beowulf looks to be about as noise free as things get, which tends to help make compression easier.

--Darin

Mr Ding, its obvious you hail from bluray.com.

Whats the dead giveaway?

1. Using the words HD-DUD

2. Calling people with opposite opinions sympathizers.

This is not a web site of one side opinion. We are allowed to speak our minds, as long as it does not get nasty. You seem to be mistaking this for your favorite site, where the mere mention of an "opinion" contrary to towing the line gets smashed, and obtains the label of troll.

Get used to other opinions without name calling.

I apologize and you are correct. I thought I was posting at Bluray.com. I wouldn't have had added the HD-DUD sympathizers here in the AVSfourms HDM forum. The rest of my post stands though.


P.S. It is actually much easier to do a higher quality encode. So there is no reason to suspect that WHV won't do so once the dual format titles are completed.

Maybe not lazy, maybe just "rethinking" right now...

"The priorities that we see as a studio revolve around rethinking how we handle distribution and how we can facilitate faster time to market and take advantage of the conversion to digital"

Darcy Antonellis
new WB President Tech Operations

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/business/news/e3ie7d46e37694ce941c87d361ca137111f

Faster time to market, takes advantage of digital conversion, is she talking about bluray?

I don't undertand ... why wait until June? Is the assumption that they're only going to do one encode now because it's cheaper and they can use it across both formats?

And once they don't need to release on HD DVD, they'll go for a single higher bitrate encode?

I'm confused, didn't Toshiba pull the plug on HD DVD? Doesn't that release Warner and Paramount and Universal from their agreements? If so, then it would seem Warner is supporting HD DVD by choice at this point ... why?

SDH = Subtitles for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired.
Called HoH in the U.K and AUS.

I don't undertand ... why wait until June? Is the assumption that they're only going to do one encode now because it's cheaper and they can use it across both formats?

And once they don't need to release on HD DVD, they'll go for a single higher bitrate encode?

I'm confused, didn't Toshiba pull the plug on HD DVD? Doesn't that release Warner and Paramount and Universal from their agreements? If so, then it would seem Warner is supporting HD DVD by choice at this point ... why?

All existing encodes will be carried over to Blu-Ray. Encodes are expensive so they can't just make new ones because Blu-Ray allows higher bitrates. Hopefully, newly made encodes will be more along the lines of what would be good for BD-50 but they may choose to stick with BD-25 levels. It really boils down to cost of replication and how committed they are to quality. Many studios only care about quality when it's in their financial interest to do so.

At least one Warner encoding group has already stated they'll use higher bitrate targets when they are Blu-ray only and that it will make the encoding process somewhat easier, which supposedly will decrease overall costs. But they don't expect obvious visible quality improvements, at least related to bandwidth. (From the dead Insider's thread, R.I.P.) This, of course, is for new work and not existing titles. Let's hope their compressionists use the latest tools and let less mistakes slip through the cracks...

Well, if HD DVD has shown anyone anything it's that you can fit most any movie in a ~25GIG footprint including lossless audio (in the form of Dolby TrueHD) and do so with very high quality.

Don't be surprised if we see a major majority of BD25 discs being used, and then don't be surprised when no one notices or cares.

Well, if HD DVD has shown anyone anything it's that you can fit most any movie in a ~25GIG footprint including lossless audio (in the form of Dolby TrueHD) and do so with very high quality.

Don't be surprised if we see a major majority of BD25 discs being used, and then don't be surprised when no one notices or cares.

According to Toshiba, 700,000+ HD-DVD players were sold in this country alone...don't be surprised when no one notices or cares.