Warner Home Video has revealed that they will release blockbuster film 'Batman Begins' for Blu-ray on July 8th, day-and-date with the DVD re-release. No specs or extra features have been announced at this time, but we do know that the film will be offered either as a single disc release, or as part of a limited-edition gift set.

Both the single disc and gift set editions will include an exclusive comic book prologue to the upcoming sequel 'The Dark Knight', which is set to hit theaters July 18th. The box set will also include a Batman Begins motion art lenticular, script pages, exclusive photos, storyboards, five collectible Batman Begins postcards, and $7.50 in movie cash toward a Dark Knight ticket.

The HD DVD release of 'Batman Begins' was one of the formats top sellers, and has remained exclusive to that format until now. Along with 'The Matrix', this is one of the most highly anticipated Warner HD DVD titles to be brought to Blu-ray.

Source: Home Media Magazine



Sounds daaaaaaaaamn sweet.

Hope that Warner will be creating a new encode with the high frequency details for the Blu-ray release.

Great news, kick ass movie, deserves a release ASAP for BR - I recently sold my A2 to a buddy, his condition to buying the player was that I give him dibs on a few select titles I had (on the cheap), of course he demanded Batman Begins - hated selling that one, will be more than happy to dip again, especially if they up the ante on the encode.

Thanks for the update. :)

yes great news :):):)

And to think that we were complaining WB was delaying hd dvd releases 3 weeks. :D

Can't wait for this...I am triple dipping on this title :). I own the DVD, HD-DVD and soon the BR. I'd probably have skipped it if I owned any other HD-DVD player other than the 360 addon, but since I don't and REALLY want lossless audio I will have to pick this one up.

Finally, great news! This will compliment "The Dark Knight" perfectly!

Hope that Warner will be creating a new encode with the high frequency details for the Blu-ray release.

what the hell are you talking about? lets not get silly here...the hd dvd had spectacular reference quality pq and featured a reference quality true hd soundtrack. what exactly do you want them to recode?

from hd digest review:

Lastly, Warner has also done another fine job encoding 'Batman Begins.' Though the film is not as quick-cut as some recent blockbusters, it does have many scenes of fast action, which this transfer handles adroitly. No macroblocking or any type of posterization is present. And though there is some slight film grain present at times, there are no compression problems or resultant noise. Excellent, excellent job, folks. 'Batman Begins' looks fabulous.

Ensuring that 'Batman Begins' sounds as good as it looks, Warner has created a new Dolby TrueHD track for the film -- say hello to your new reference disc.

Any word on the box set with the Tim Burton and Schumacher (ugh) films?

Hope that Warner will be creating a new encode with the high frequency details for the Blu-ray release.

As I said elsewhere, this is a point on which we are definitely in agreement. :)

Thanks buddy. Warner should also re-encode V for Vendetta and Matrix Reloaded / Revolutions if possible to get rid off macroblocking. Warner went too conservative with these titles and we should not feel guilty to demand a re-encode.

Hope that Warner will be creating a new encode with the high frequency details for the Blu-ray release.

Can't wait for the comparison screens. The HD DVD version looks fantastic.

Thanks buddy. Warner should also re-encode V for Vendetta and Matrix Reloaded / Revolutions if possible to get rid off macroblocking. Warner went too conservative with these titles and we should not feel guilty to demand a re-encode.

I didn't much care for V or the Matrix sequels based on the movie content, but I certainly will not be buying BB or Matrix I if they are not new encodes.

I know the HD-DVD encode was VC-1, what was the audio? True HD? or just DD+?

Hope that Warner will be creating a new encode with the high frequency details for the Blu-ray release.

According to the lead encoder who worked on this disc, the softness was in the master.

what the hell are you talking about? lets not get silly here...the hd dvd had spectacular reference quality pq and featured a reference quality true hd soundtrack. what exactly do you want them to recode?

from hd digest review:

Lastly, Warner has also done another fine job encoding 'Batman Begins.' Though the film is not as quick-cut as some recent blockbusters, it does have many scenes of fast action, which this transfer handles adroitly. No macroblocking or any type of posterization is present. And though there is some slight film grain present at times, there are no compression problems or resultant noise. Excellent, excellent job, folks. 'Batman Begins' looks fabulous.

Ensuring that 'Batman Begins' sounds as good as it looks, Warner has created a new Dolby TrueHD track for the film -- say hello to your new reference disc.

I don't care what the review says. When I watched the HD DVD, I found the picture disappointing - very soft and lacking in fine detail.

Below is airect crop of a 1080p frame vs that same cropped image, downscaled to 720p and upscaled to 1080p.


http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/5131/batmanbeginshddvddu720gs0.png

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10992260&postcount=13

I know the HD-DVD encode was VC-1, what was the audio? True HD? or just DD+?
TrueHD

from the HDD review:
Ensuring that 'Batman Begins' sounds as good as it looks, Warner has created a new Dolby TrueHD track for the film -- say hello to your new reference disc. As impressed as I've been with the past TrueHD tracks on such HD DVD releases as 'Training Day' and 'The Perfect Storm,' this one is simply the best sound mix I've yet heard on any home video format, period. The sound design and overall aural presentation of this film simply never steps wrong, with the excitement level never waning from the first frame of the film to the last.

According to the lead encoder who worked on this disc, the softness was in the master.

I have serious doubts. Just compare it to the PQ on The Prestige (same director, same DP, same Panavision, lower budget).

According to the lead encoder who worked on this disc, the softness was in the master.

Perhaps. And perhaps he was ordered to say that by someone like, maybe, Steve Nickerson?

I have serious doubts. Just compare it to the PQ on The Prestige (same director, same DP, same Panavision, lower budget).

You know the party line response to that one, G. How dare you compare the PQ on totally different movies? ;)

I have serious doubts. Just compare it to the PQ on The Prestige (same director, same DP, same Panavision, lower budget).

I'm just relaying what he said. When I reviewed the movie, it was on a 720p projector and it didn't look too bad, when I popped it in when I bought my 1080p projector, the softness was very apparent.

I hope it gets a new transfer (or master) as well, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Is this the same date as Gotham Knight?

when is the box set with all of the films being released. I might skip this one and get the whole enchilada, with the Burtons and /sigh Shumachers.

Does BB come in a book?:rolleyes:

Hopefully Warner will add a bunch of EE so people won't complain about the softness. Fingers crossed. Pick your poison.

According to the lead encoder who worked on this disc, the softness was in the master.

Pure BS.

Christopher Nolan himself comments on the filming of Batman Begins in the Digital Content Producer,

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/dcc/revfeat/video_bat_au_natural/

In terms of photography, this is the third film I've worked on with [DP Wally Pfister, ASC], and he pretty much knew that I was looking for a stripped-down style, with little use for filters or other correctionals. For that reason, we shot anamorphic without any filters to soften things, and we worked to get simple, crisp, clear imagery. Therefore, I did not want any fancy CG and I definitely did not want to have anything to do with the DI process. I just wanted a sort of unadorned cinematography that has texture to it, so that when you watch it, you feel like you can understand what everything you are seeing is made of.”

If I recally correctly, the Warner encoder that posted here stated that Batman Begins was encoded at a 12 mbps bitrate, which is quite low, even by HD-DVD standards. I'd say that fact, combined with Nolan's comment above and the downrezzing pic that Grubert provided makes for a strong case when arguing that the HD-DVD version of Batman Begins is a far cry from the best possible presentation in an HDM presentation.

If the Softness is in the master then the master needs to be remastered. Even the old HD master of Matrix had similar softness. So when Warner can make a new master for Matrix why not for BB ? This is a highly anticipated release for the entire Blu-ray community. People out there are expecting the PQ to fall somewhere in Tier-0 or in top Tier-1. The HD DVD version itself is ranked quite low in the HD DVD PQ tier thread after numerous complaints about softness. The current PQ of Batman Begins on HD DVD doesn't truly represent what I have seen on IMAX and doesn't even come close to the 20 Mbps broadcast copy in terms of sharpness and high frequency detail though the colors and black levels standout. I beg Warner brothers to handle BB, V and Matrix with utmost care.

There is not softness in the master. If there was softness in the master, then the 20 Mbps broadcast copy that you say beats the HD-DVD in sharpness and high frequency details would be soft as well.

This entire "softness in the master" nonsense is just that - nonsense created by Warner encoders that did not want to admit that the bit budget for HD-DVD was not high enough. In supporting HD-DVD exclusively with Batman Begins, they would have killed sales of the title and potentially killed off HD-DVD much earlier had they just came out in the open and said,

"Look, we had to lower the bitrate of Batman Begins to 12 mbps in order to accomodate TrueHD and Picture-In-Picture with HD-DVD's limited bit budget, and thus adversely affecting picture quality." But, this is exactly what had to be done. It would have been bad business to admit it at the time, though. Given what we know now from encoders that have opened up and discussed encoding 1080p content using advanced codecs, we know 12 mbps is about HALF of the average bitrate required for great compression. It's been said time and time again that 25 mbps is the sweet spot for encoding 1080p video, regardless of codec (obviously not including MPEG2). 12 mbps obviously is not 25 mbps.

Christopher Nolan himself specifically stated he did not use any softening filters in the filming of this movie, simply because he wanted a sharp, crystal clear, high quality image. That directly contradicts the HD-DVD presentation, and thus, it is correct to assume that the HD-DVD presentation does not accurately reflect the director's intent - or the theatrical representation.

Finally, great news! This will compliment "The Dark Knight" perfectly!

Thanks. I was getting worried that it wouldn't.

There is not softness in the master. If there was softness in the master, then the 20 Mbps broadcast copy that you say beats the HD-DVD in sharpness and high frequency details would be soft as well.

This entire "softness in the master" nonsense is just that - nonsense created by Warner encoders that did not want to admit that the bit budget for HD-DVD was not high enough. In supporting HD-DVD exclusively with Batman Begins, they would have killed sales of the title and potentially killed off HD-DVD much earlier had they just came out in the open and said,

"Look, we had to lower the bitrate of Batman Begins to 12 mbps in order to accomodate TrueHD and Picture-In-Picture with HD-DVD's limited bit budget, and thus adversely affecting picture quality." But, this is exactly what had to be done. It would have been bad business to admit it at the time, though. Given what we know now from encoders that have opened up and discussed encoding 1080p content using advanced codecs, we know 12 mbps is about HALF of the average bitrate required for great compression. It's been said time and time again that 25 mbps is the sweet spot for encoding 1080p video, regardless of codec (obviously not including MPEG2). 12 mbps obviously is not 25 mbps.

Christopher Nolan himself specifically stated he did not use any softening filters in the filming of this movie, simply because he wanted a sharp, crystal clear, high quality image. That directly contradicts the HD-DVD presentation, and thus, it is correct to assume that the HD-DVD presentation does not accurately reflect the director's intent - or the theatrical representation.

So good to read something written by someone else that so completely corresponds to my own views, except the part about a bitrate of 25 being enough for outstanding PQ. ;) :)

Finally!!!

Hopefully V isn't far behind.

OK lets go again

Batman begins was shot Anamorfic 35mm wich is a bit softer and bit less grainy then Super35mm movies.

Also how you light the movie has very much impact on how sharp and detailed a movie looks.

Also wants to add

1. The Prestige PQ is very similar to Batman begins. So no the Prestige doesnt prove that there is anything wrong with the encode of Batman. And yes The Prestige is hardly the sharpest and most detailed HDM out there.

2. 12mbit is hardly the peak bitrate of Batman begins (dont mix up Avarage bitrate with Peak bitrate).

3. If Nolan wanted the sharpest look out there he wouldnt have choosen Anamorfic 35mm. But if he wanted a clean image it would make perfect sense.

No matter how much you wish, an Anamorfic movie will not look like a Super35mm movie.

I have serious doubts. Just compare it to the PQ on The Prestige (same director, same DP, same Panavision, lower budget).

I read all the rave reviews from HD DVD fans, picked it up and wasn't really impressed. It's not bad looking by any means but certainly not on par with The Prestige which is excellent in PQ.

OK lets go again

Batman begins was shot Anamorfic 35mm wich is a bit softer and bit less grainy then Super35mm movies.

Also how you light the movie has very much impact on how sharp and detailed a movie looks.

Also wants to add

1. The Prestige PQ is very similar to Batman begins. So no the Prestige doesnt prove that there is anything wrong with the encode of Batman. And yes The Prestige is hardly the sharpest and most detailed HDM out there.

2. 12mbit is hardly the peak bitrate of Batman begins (dont mix up Avarage bitrate with Peak bitrate).

3. If Nolan wanted the sharpest look out there he wouldnt have choosen Anamorfic 35mm. But if he wanted a clean image it would make perfect sense.

No matter how much you wish, an Anamorfic movie will not look like a Super35mm movie.

The sharpest shots in The Prestige are far, far sharper than anything in the HD DVD of BB.

The sharpest shots in The Prestige are far, far sharper than anything in the HD DVD of BB.

Indeed. I'm not saying The Prestige is the sharpest movie but the PQ is far better than Batman Begins on HD DVD.

The sharpest shots in The Prestige are far, far sharper than anything in the HD DVD of BB.

I seriosly doubt that, but if you can give us what scene it is we can surely ask some forum member to take a screencap of it.

Also, why is 300 so sharp when it has the same limits as Batman?

PiP, TrueHD, Lots of extras.

Give me Batman Begins gift set NOW!

I have had the HD DVD version of BB since it came out and I never understood all the praise it got for its picture, it always looked soft to me. The audio and black levels might be reference, but on the whole, the PQ isn't reference at all to me. If they can make this look better, I'm all for it, cuz this is definitely the best Batman movie out there.

Thanks. I was getting worried that it wouldn't.

:D

I seriosly doubt that, but if you can give us what scene it is we can surely ask some forum member to take a screencap of it.

Also, why is 300 so sharp when it has the same limits as Batman?

PiP, TrueHD, Lots of extras.

The first example that comes to mind is the first scene with Christian Bale in jail which has some very sharp close-ups of him. This is just one example.

300 probably wasn't filtered before the encoding process; the bitrate was higher, and there simply wasn't as much data there because of the style of the movie.

So good to read something written by someone else that so completely corresponds to my own views, except the part about a bitrate of 25 being enough for outstanding PQ. ;) :)

Note, I did not mean a peak bitrate of 25 mbps... But an average bitrate. 25 to 27 mbps AVC is the average abr of Sony and Disney releases... I certainly don't believe that 25 mbps peak is good enough for outstanding PQ, hardly. But 25 mbps average will provide for those peaks of 40 mbps and those lows of 17 mbps.

OK lets go again

Batman begins was shot Anamorfic 35mm wich is a bit softer and bit less grainy then Super35mm movies.

Also how you light the movie has very much impact on how sharp and detailed a movie looks.

Also wants to add

1. The Prestige PQ is very similar to Batman begins. So no the Prestige doesnt prove that there is anything wrong with the encode of Batman. And yes The Prestige is hardly the sharpest and most detailed HDM out there.

2. 12mbit is hardly the peak bitrate of Batman begins (dont mix up Avarage bitrate with Peak bitrate).

3. If Nolan wanted the sharpest look out there he wouldnt have choosen Anamorfic 35mm. But if he wanted a clean image it would make perfect sense.

No matter how much you wish, an Anamorfic movie will not look like a Super35mm movie.

1. Prestige was filmed using SOME of the same methods, but used softening filters (SoftFX i believe)... These were NOT used in Batman Begins.

2. Where did I ever say 12 mbps was the peak bitrate? :confused: 12 mbps is the average bitrate of Batman Begins, as stated by a Warner encoder here on this very forum and then confirmed by analyzing the disc itself after release - and is definitely on the lower end of the bitrate spectrum, especially when one considers that the average bitrate all of the Blu studios BOTTOMS OUT at 25 mbps. We've seen FOX go ridiculously high with 30+ mbps average bitrate encodes. Even HD-DVD exclusive studios rarely dip THAT low, with an average average bitrate for HD-DVD exclusive discs falling somewhere between 15-17 mbps.

3. Regardless of whether Nolan wanted the sharpest look on the planet or not... In his own words he wanted "simple, crisp, clear imagery" in addition to "a realistic, naturalistic, rich, high-quality look.” I wouldn't say the HD-DVD version of Batman Begins fits that definition AT ALL!

I seriosly doubt that, but if you can give us what scene it is we can surely ask some forum member to take a screencap of it.

Also, why is 300 so sharp when it has the same limits as Batman?

PiP, TrueHD, Lots of extras.

Perhaps because 300 is only an hour and half long, compared to Batman Begins, which is 2 and a half hours long? Also, 300 is a digital composition, whereas Batman Begins is an analog composition? Digital compositions in general require less bitrate than analog (film) sources. However, in this case, 300 was given a larger bit budget than Batman Begins! It pays to do research on the movies you discuss. :)

I read all the rave reviews from HD DVD fans, picked it up and wasn't really impressed. It's not bad looking by any means but certainly not on par with The Prestige which is excellent in PQ.

I feel exactly the same way.

I already have the HDDVD version, but if they step up the BluRay transfer I'll definitely rebuy (really dug the movie).... otherwise, I'll pass.

Perhaps because 300 is only an hour and half long, compared to Batman Begins, which is 2 and a half hours long? Also, 300 is a digital composition, whereas Batman Begins is an analog composition? Digital compositions in general require less bitrate than analog (film) sources. However, in this case, 300 was given a larger bit budget than Batman Begins! It pays to do research on the movies you discuss. :)

It also has extras in HD. And is seriosly more grainy then Batman. So it should be much harder to do a proper encode of 300 then of Batman. A shorter movie does get some help on avarage bitrate, but the peak limit is the same.

Even the encoder says the softness are in the master. And thats hard to argue against.

That you lower the avarage bitrate will not make a 1080 line movie turn into a 720 line movie.

I have seen trailers of Batman begins, that looks sharper, but they have all been tweaked.

Same encode as before or not, I'll be picking this up for sure.

It also has extras in HD. And is seriosly more grainy then Batman. So it should be much harder to do a proper encode of 300 then of Batman. A shorter movie does get some help on avarage bitrate, but the peak limit is the same.

Even the encoder says the softness are in the master. And thats hard to argue against.

That you lower the avarage bitrate will not make a 1080 line movie turn into a 720 line movie.

I have seen trailers of Batman begins, that looks sharper, but they have all been tweaked.

Even the encoder says? Did you not read my post explaining why a paid employee by Warner Bros. would say that there is softness in the master? I'll repost it here for you to view, so ya don't have to go looking for it:

This entire "softness in the master" nonsense is just that - nonsense created by Warner encoders that did not want to admit that the bit budget for HD-DVD was not high enough. In supporting HD-DVD exclusively with Batman Begins, they would have killed sales of the title and potentially killed off HD-DVD much earlier had they just came out in the open and said,

"Look, we had to lower the bitrate of Batman Begins to 12 mbps in order to accomodate TrueHD and Picture-In-Picture with HD-DVD's limited bit budget, and thus adversely affecting picture quality." But, this is exactly what had to be done. It would have been bad business to admit it at the time, though. Given what we know now from encoders that have opened up and discussed encoding 1080p content using advanced codecs, we know 12 mbps is about HALF of the average bitrate required for great compression. It's been said time and time again that 25 mbps is the sweet spot for encoding 1080p video, regardless of codec (obviously not including MPEG2). 12 mbps obviously is not 25 mbps.

You are allowed to believe who you want, but I would rather believe the director of the film himself who states there were no softening filters used, than the encoder of a film who is highly invested in a format war and on the side of a format with less capable specs.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but you don't seem to be very well educated on the subject of compression, or even of this particular title, so I think it would be in your best interest to use the search function on this forum to find out more on how compression works, the politics behind compression and bitrates, etc. etc... Because while you are correct in saying that compression doesn't turn a 1080 line image into a 720 line image, compression can sure as hell make that 720 line image look better than the 1080 one. And as far as peak bitrates are concerned, a higher average bitrate allows that maximum peak bitrate to be used more often than an encode with a lower average bitrate.

Even the encoder says? Did you not read my post explaining why a paid employee by Warner Bros. would say that there is softness in the master?

You are allowed to believe who you want, but I would rather believe the director of the film himself who states there were no softening filters used, than the encoder of a film who is highly invested in a format war and on the side of a format with less capable specs.

Because softness in the master is nothing wrong if thats how the film should look. Anamorfic films are softer then Super35 if everything else is equal.

And it doesnt matter if Nolan says they didnt filter the movie (He should know), the Anamorfic Adapter is a filter on its own. It does impact the look and produce a very different look. And Im pretty sure Nolan knows exactly how it would impact the movies look.

Remember for Theaters, It is an advantage with Anamorfic shoot films as they are presented the same way, Super35 usually gets converted to Anamorfic prints and looses some of it advantage.

On HDM its another story. There you get the full benefits of shooting with sperical lenses.

So if they wanted Batman to have the best HDM experience, they should have shoot it on 35mm.

*Anamorphic.

And technically, no, Anamorphic films are not as soft, since there is more resolution in an anamorphic print.

Super35 that's not anamorphic is a cropped 2.40:1 image that is taken from a 4:3 Super35 frame. It uses roughly HALF of the available resolution from the entire Super35 frame. Anamorphic, on the other hand, uses the entire frame and uses all available resolution, and then stretches it out into a 2.40:1 image. If, for example, the maximum resolution Super35 could shoot was 640x480, a NON anamorphic super35 film would only use 640x240 resolution to produce the widescreen image, while an anamorphic one would use all 640x480 of it, and then stretch it out to be a widescreen image.

Super35 widescreen non-anamorphic images have more grain in them because they are blown up from a cropped 4:3 image to a "real" 16:9 image.

Of course, this isn't even factoring in that someone stated in this very thread that another version of Batman Begins in HD that's not the HD-DVD, contains details and resolution that is lost in the HD-DVD.

Because softness in the master is nothing wrong if thats how the film should look. Anamorfic films are softer then Super35 if everything else is equal.

And it doesnt matter if Nolan says they didnt filter the movie (He should know), the Anamorfic Adapter is a filter on its own. It does impact the look and produce a very different look. And Im pretty sure Nolan knows exactly how it would impact the movies look.

Remember for Theaters, It is an advantage with Anamorfic shoot films as they are presented the same way, Super35 usually gets converted to Anamorfic prints and looses some of it advantage.

On HDM its another story. There you get the full benefits of shooting with sperical lenses.

So if they wanted Batman to have the best HDM experience, they should have shoot it on 35mm.

Anamorphic 35mm is more detailed because it has bigger effective negative surface.

Note, I did not mean a peak bitrate of 25 mbps... But an average bitrate. 25 to 27 mbps AVC is the average abr of Sony and Disney releases... I certainly don't believe that 25 mbps peak is good enough for outstanding PQ, hardly. But 25 mbps average will provide for those peaks of 40 mbps and those lows of 17 mbps.



1. Prestige was filmed using SOME of the same methods, but used softening filters (SoftFX i believe)... These were NOT used in Batman Begins.

2. Where did I ever say 12 mbps was the peak bitrate? :confused: 12 mbps is the average bitrate of Batman Begins, as stated by a Warner encoder here on this very forum and then confirmed by analyzing the disc itself after release - and is definitely on the lower end of the bitrate spectrum, especially when one considers that the average bitrate all of the Blu studios BOTTOMS OUT at 25 mbps. We've seen FOX go ridiculously high with 30+ mbps average bitrate encodes. Even HD-DVD exclusive studios rarely dip THAT low, with an average average bitrate for HD-DVD exclusive discs falling somewhere between 15-17 mbps.

3. Regardless of whether Nolan wanted the sharpest look on the planet or not... In his own words he wanted "simple, crisp, clear imagery" in addition to "a realistic, naturalistic, rich, high-quality look.” I wouldn't say the HD-DVD version of Batman Begins fits that definition AT ALL!

I understood that you were talking about 25 as ABR not PBR. I think with ABR of 25, you get very adequate PQ. But, as you note, Fox has given us ABR's in the 30's, and I think in most cases has gotten notably better PQ as a result. It is precisely Fox's encodes with these ridiculous bitrates in the 30's that have spoiled me and made me dissatisfied with 25. :)

I understood that you were talking about 25 as ABR not PBR. I think with ABR of 25, you get very adequate PQ. But, as you note, Fox has given us ABR's in the 30's, and I think in most cases has gotten notably better PQ as a result. It is precisely Fox's encodes with these ridiculous bitrates in the 30's that have spoiled me and made me dissatisfied with 25. :)

Well, it should be noted that in the tier thread, there are only TWO titles in Tier 0 that have 30 mbps or over as the average bitrate, and those two are I, Robot and Prison Break... Prison Break's box says 17 mbps ABR, but after watching an entire episode with the PS3 bitrate meter on and not seeing it drop below 30 mbps once, I think that's a misprint, and it is in fact above 30 mbps.

Now, the reasoning behind FOX giving us 30+ ABR encodes isn't because they believe it provides higher quality than a 25 mbps encode. It's because it requires much much less hands on activity by the compressionist.

In fact, I've heard from many sources, and it's possible that you've read such as well, that one of the reasons Warner Bros selected Blu Ray was because of FOX's example - It's just far cheaper to encode at a 30+ mbps bitrate than to tweak the hell out of an encode to get adequate results at a lower bitrate.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think that some films that are more complex (grainer films with fast cuts would probably fit the bill, I'd wager) would actually benefit from the 30+ mbps more than others. But, compressionists have come to the conclusion that 25 mbps abr avc/vc-1 is pretty much the "general rule" of what dictates a reasonable bitrate. I'll say it once again though, this doesn't mean that every film will be perfect at that bitrate, but that most will look their best at it.

The sharpest shots in The Prestige are far, far sharper than anything in the HD DVD of BB.

Apples? Oranges? Anyone?
If you want to make comparisons, why not simply compare the HD DVD to higher bitrate versions and a 35mm print?
A disc will never look as good as a 35mm print, as both HD DVD and BD are very limited technologies. But looking at the HD DVD and a 35mm print, it's as close as it gets. There's also no more detail in a over 45MBit/s and a over 75MBit/s version. So why would a new BD encode look any better than a 75MBit/s version? Sure you could apply a ton of filters, crank up sharpness, apply EE and so on, all of which some people would consider to be more detailed. Personally, I hate filters, artificial sharpness and EE. But that's just me.

Well, it should be noted that in the tier thread, there are only TWO titles in Tier 0 that have 30 mbps or over as the average bitrate, and those two are I, Robot and Prison Break... Prison Break's box says 17 mbps ABR, but after watching an entire episode with the PS3 bitrate meter on and not seeing it drop below 30 mbps once, I think that's a misprint, and it is in fact above 30 mbps.

Now, the reasoning behind FOX giving us 30+ ABR encodes isn't because they believe it provides higher quality than a 25 mbps encode. It's because it requires much much less hands on activity by the compressionist.

In fact, I've heard from many sources, and it's possible that you've read such as well, that one of the reasons Warner Bros selected Blu Ray was because of FOX's example - It's just far cheaper to encode at a 30+ mbps bitrate than to tweak the hell out of an encode to get adequate results at a lower bitrate.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think that some films that are more complex (grainer films with fast cuts would probably fit the bill, I'd wager) would actually benefit from the 30+ mbps more than others. But, compressionists have come to the conclusion that 25 mbps abr avc/vc-1 is pretty much the "general rule" of what dictates a reasonable bitrate. I'll say it once again though, this doesn't mean that every film will be perfect at that bitrate, but that most will look their best at it.

There's no doubt that the box bitrate number for Prison Break is wrong.

Man on Fire, Mr. Brooks, and Silver Surfer are other Fox titles in Tier 0 with average bitrates that I'm sure are higher than 25.

A non-Fox (Disney) title that also has very high bitrates and outstanding PQ is Becoming Jane.

I have heard that bitrate of 25 as the "sweet spot" more times than I would like, and it just does not correspond to my viewing experience.

I think the compressionists who feel that way are assuming that most viewers are watching from a distance of at least two screen widths, and for such viewers, an ABR of 25 is probably just fine. I watch from a viewing distance of one screen width, and at that distance, there is a very clear benefit from bitrates in the 30's compared to the 20's.

I hadn't heard what you are saying about Warner, but if it's correct I am delighted to hear it.

As I have said elsewhere the last couple of days, I think Fox's I, Robot suffers from not having the bitrate in the 30's.

Nope, Man on Fire, Mr. Brooks, and Silver Surfer are all under 30 mbps. I own all of them. :)

Disney doesn't do higher than 30 mbps ABR... They just don't do it. I think the highest they've done is maybe 27 mbps abr.

I Robot's ABR is 30 mbps...

I think you're placing way much into bitrate, patrick99.

You know the party line response to that one, G. How dare you compare the PQ on totally different movies? ;)


Apples? Oranges? Anyone?


;)

Nope, Man on Fire, Mr. Brooks, and Silver Surfer are all under 30 mbps. I own all of them. :)

Disney doesn't do higher than 30 mbps ABR... They just don't do it. I think the highest they've done is maybe 27 mbps abr.

I Robot's ABR is 30 mbps...

I think you're placing way much into bitrate, patrick99.

Do you have Becoming Jane?

Do you have the ABR's handy for those three Fox titles?

Have you watched I, Robot? There are a lot of scenes early in the movie at least with much, much lower bitrates than 30, and PQ that to my eyes suffers as a result.

Anamorphic 35mm is more detailed because it has bigger effective negative surface.

Yes but the S35mm has bigger surface then 35mm to begin with. But more importantly S35 uses less glass in front of the film.

The glass creates distortion that effects resolution and sharpness.

So the adapter lets you use more effective surface, but it at the same time gives us other drawbacks.

Do you have Becoming Jane?

Do you have the ABR's handy for those three Fox titles?

Have you watched I, Robot? There are a lot of scenes early in the movie at least with much, much lower bitrates than 30, and PQ that to my eyes suffers as a result.

So does the PQ drop because of Bitrate or did the Bitrate drop because of the PQ?

I think you're placing way much into bitrate, patrick99.

One of the compressionists who posts in the insiders section at blu-ray.com has agreed that there is a PQ benefit to be gained from using bitrates in the 30s rather than the 20s provided the source material is good.

One of the compressionists who posts in the insiders section at blu-ray.com has agreed that there is a PQ benefit to be gained from using bitrates in the 30s rather than the 20s provided the source material is good.

To bad they have problem proving it with real movies.

Every time we have the same movie with different encodings, the difference is so slight we need still frames with upzoomed regions to show it clearly.

One of the compressionists who posts in the insiders section at blu-ray.com has agreed that there is a PQ benefit to be gained from using bitrates in the 30s rather than the 20s provided the source material is good.

Didn't he also say that you need Cyborg eyes to notice the difference?

Do you have Becoming Jane?

Do you have the ABR's handy for those three Fox titles?

Have you watched I, Robot? There are a lot of scenes early in the movie at least with much, much lower bitrates than 30, and PQ that to my eyes suffers as a result.

Man on Fire - 29
Silver Surfer - 27
Mr Brooks - Don't have it handy, although, I've already stated numerous I think that it being selected as Tier 0 is a poor choice due to its WILDLY inconsistent black levels. (which, admittedly is probably irrelevant of bitrate levels)


One of the compressionists who posts in the insiders section at blu-ray.com has agreed that there is a PQ benefit to be gained from using bitrates in the 30s rather than the 20s provided the source material is good.

Well, I'm sure there can be much (or some anyways) to gain from going to 20 mbps to 30 mbps, but probably not so much when going from 27 to 30.

I seriosly doubt that, but if you can give us what scene it is we can surely ask some forum member to take a screencap of it.

Also, why is 300 so sharp when it has the same limits as Batman?

PiP, TrueHD, Lots of extras.

I believe you spoke earlier of lighting et al with respect to its impact on sharpness, detail and encoding.

Was 300 not primarily shot blue/green screen? This is usually done high key and thus can use slower stocks since it brings with it all the controls that studio shooting can bring. Its always puzzled me as to why people compare CG based films (which green screen techniques employ) to those of natural, live action shooting. (Not to mention that CG based work is simply to compress/pixel-map since much of it lives in the digital domain). I might add that green screen offers the ability to control and even eliminate depth of field/f-stop related issues that many do not understand. With green screen it is very easy to composite images that are ideally foreground/background focused hence the need for faster films or more lighting to achieve deep focus can be easily eliminated.

Other than that, I've not seen 300 and have absolutely no plans to.

ted

Also - As far as becoming Jane is concerned - I don't have the bitrate of that, either, due to Disney's nature of not printing on the back of the case - But given that they have YET to produce a single title with a bitrate of higher than the mid 20s abr, I seriously doubt it is in the 30s.

Yes but the S35mm has bigger surface then 35mm to begin with. But more importantly S35 uses less glass in front of the film.

The glass creates distortion that effects resolution and sharpness.

So the adapter lets you use more effective surface, but it at the same time gives us other drawbacks.

Dude, Super 35 is a 4:3 film process. Any widescreen image drawn from it is either cropped and blown up or anamorphic. Anamorphic will naturally have highly quality since it uses the entire negative, while non-anamorphic uses roughly half (for a 2.40:1)

One of the compressionists who posts in the insiders section at blu-ray.com has agreed that there is a PQ benefit to be gained from using bitrates in the 30s rather than the 20s provided the source material is good.
that last point is key. it all depends on the source master, which means what your eyes have told you about the specific average bitrate values for the compressed transfer and their correlation to quality is practically meaningless. a master with less detail doesn't require as high a bitrate when compressed for BD, so unless you've compared those BDs against the master they were created from, your previously-expressed conclusion about bitrate, based on your own experience, is fallacious.

Dude, Super 35 is a 4:3 film process. Any widescreen image drawn from it is either cropped and blown up or anamorphic. Anamorphic will naturally have highly quality since it uses the entire negative, while non-anamorphic uses roughly half (for a 2.40:1)

Yes and No

S35 has a wider recording area then A35.

24,89mm vs 21,95mm

But you cant discount the drawback of putting more glass in front of the lens.

There is a reason why the S35 looks extra good on HDM.

Are you reading what I'm saying? I'm not talking about Super 35 vs Academy 35mm...

I'm talking about Super 35 Anamorphic vs Super 35 non anamorphic widescreen.

For the last time, Super 35 is 4:3. Any time you see a widescreen film that was filmed in Super35, it's either Anamorphic, or cropped 4:3. Some, if not all directors that don't use Anamorphic Super 35 actually place black bars in front of the lense when they film so that see what they are shooting in the correct aspect ratio.

Shooting non-anamorphic Super 35 2.40:1 only uses roughly 50% of the negative, whereas anamorphic Super 35 uses 100% of the negative. That is why Anamorphic looks better. It's really a simple concept, and I don't understand why the discussion is being drawn out.

Problem by using Super35 with anamorphic is that you need to convert it to academy 35 for the theatrical copy. Its easier to just shoot academy from the beginning. Or If you do shoot S35, there is no need to use anamorphic, since the S35 solution is good enough.

Can you list any movie that is shoot Super35 with anamorphic adapter ?

Plus was Batman shoot S35 with anamorphic adapter?

You don't need to convert to Academy 35 for a digital master that you're going to use for HDM... Which is the point of this thread, so a conversion necessary for a theatrical presentation is irrelevant.

You don't need to convert to Academy 35 for a digital master that you're going to use for HDM... Which is the point of this thread, so a conversion necessary for a theatrical presentation is irrelevant.

Yes, but since almost every movie that goes to HDM, has been made to go to theatrical print first, the filmmakers must take that into consideration.

And for a movie like Batman that didnt get a DI, The process of deliviering into the theaters is effecting the shooting process. It wasnt HDM the filmmakers had in mind when they shoot the movie.


So in basic we have either S35mm vs 35mm with anamorphic adapter as the 2 main options. S35mm with anamorphic adapter isnt used to my knowledge even if it technically could be used with good result.

Does anyone else want the anthology instead?

I mean the special edition BD sounds cool and I really want it. But the anthology has the Burtons. I wonder if they will give you a discount for buying the Shumacher with them. They should be required to pay people for those.

I think I need to see what kind of special case the anthology comes in. Damn it Warner. Even when they do something cool, it still gets on my nerves.

Aw man, this movie is so worth buying for a third time. This and V for Vendetta are probably the only movies I will be keeping all 3 versions to, as I love them that much. The deluxe set edition will be the one I will be buying.

As for the Burton/Schumacher movies, I've yet to decide if I will buy them. Batman was good, Returns was mediocre, Forever was excellent, and uh... I won't even talk about that other one. On the other hand, it's Burton and Danny Elfman for two of them, and Elfman's score for Returns is what makes the movie watchable, so I probably will get it. Plus hey, I'm a huge Batman fan, and have come to except that each TV series and movie takes place on a different Earth. Begins is Earth 1, BTAS is Earth 33, Burton/Schumacher movies are Earth 18, The Batman is Earth 48, etc. Oh wait... there is THAT one with that Adam guy...

One reason Batman Begins was considered a hot title on HD DVD was because, when it came out, it was one of the best. Many other titles have come out since and have overshadowed it.

Now, when it does come out on blu-ray, if it looks better, we must first find out:
a) if they used a new master
b) if they used AVC instead of VC-1

If the answer is A or B, then there's no way to fairly say the extra bit rate helps... especially if it's both A&B. This is assuming they dont just throw the HD DVD encode on there.

I am torn with the whole bit-rate mumbo jumbo. Nature's Journey showed us that, at least with VC-1, there was no real difference in quality between the HD DVD and blu-ray when they were both maxed out (there is a thread on the HDTV software media discussion forum somewhere that has pics and a whole discussion about it)

The trend, in general is that Warner, has some of the weakest titles... I'm not convinced it's due to bit-rate limitations.

Take a look at Harry Potter 5 and compare it with Harry Potter 1 or 2. The bit-rates are probably very similar, but there is no contest that 5 is a better looking movie. I know that it too has some problems, but even so... if bit-rate was everything, how can 5 movies with similar average bit-rates look so different?

One reason Batman Begins was considered a hot title on HD DVD was because, when it came out, it was one of the best. Many other titles have come out since and have overshadowed it.

Now, when it does come out on blu-ray, if it looks better, we must first find out:
a) if they used a new master
b) if they used AVC instead of VC-1


Over on the IGN Boards we have a guy that works on Warner Bros Blu-ray releases and has already said it will be the same transfer that the HD-DVD got. Which is great i think frommy own personal viewing of my HD-DVD copy

Same transfer and same encode? Slackers. Give us high bitrate AVC at least so we can have a gnarly Xylon comparison.

Hang on. DigitalBits are reporting the limited collectors set is 2 disc, and HighDef Digest is saying its a 1 disc? Who's right?

Why would you want AVC when VC-1 is superior?

Does anyone else want the anthology instead?

I mean the special edition BD sounds cool and I really want it. But the anthology has the Burtons. I wonder if they will give you a discount for buying the Shumacher with them. They should be required to pay people for those.

I think I need to see what kind of special case the anthology comes in. Damn it Warner. Even when they do something cool, it still gets on my nerves.

yep. I would like it. Or just individuals so I could grab the 2 Burton's...
I have the DVD anthology set and while a great set with very cool docs. I really don't watch the Schumacher ones.

Why would you want AVC when VC-1 is superior?

exactly, u took the words right out of my mouth

One reason Batman Begins was considered a hot title on HD DVD was because, when it came out, it was one of the best. Many other titles have come out since and have overshadowed it.

Now, when it does come out on blu-ray, if it looks better, we must first find out:
a) if they used a new master
b) if they used AVC instead of VC-1

If the answer is A or B, then there's no way to fairly say the extra bit rate helps... especially if it's both A&B. This is assuming they dont just throw the HD DVD encode on there.

I am torn with the whole bit-rate mumbo jumbo. Nature's Journey showed us that, at least with VC-1, there was no real difference in quality between the HD DVD and blu-ray when they were both maxed out (there is a thread on the HDTV software media discussion forum somewhere that has pics and a whole discussion about it)

The trend, in general is that Warner, has some of the weakest titles... I'm not convinced it's due to bit-rate limitations.

Take a look at Harry Potter 5 and compare it with Harry Potter 1 or 2. The bit-rates are probably very similar, but there is no contest that 5 is a better looking movie. I know that it too has some problems, but even so... if bit-rate was everything, how can 5 movies with similar average bit-rates look so different?

Surely it is not surprising that a brand new movie will look better than one from even just a few years ago?

That sort of disparity is something we have observed repeatedly.

Didn't he also say that you need Cyborg eyes to notice the difference?

I don't recall that qualification.

Also - As far as becoming Jane is concerned - I don't have the bitrate of that, either, due to Disney's nature of not printing on the back of the case - But given that they have YET to produce a single title with a bitrate of higher than the mid 20s abr, I seriously doubt it is in the 30s.

Becoming Jane has far and away the best PQ I have seen on any Disney release so far. . .

On I, Robot, you seem to have the capability of observing file sizes, which I don't. Do you know how much of the disc is filled? The bitrate is fairly high in the high action scenes, but in the quieter scenes is where I particularly see the PQ inadequacies and the much lower bitrates.

On I, Robot, you seem to have the capability of observing file sizes, which I don't. Do you know how much of the disc is filled? The bitrate is fairly high in the high action scenes, but in the quieter scenes is where I particularly see the PQ inadequacies and the much lower bitrates.

Thats very logical since the action scenes do need more bits then the quiet scenes.

And I dont see any reason why they would release I Robot with badly compressed scenes?

Also for anyone interested in how bitrate effects quality look at the threads with screenshots that is taken from the BD/HD to HD9 reencoding.

While the BD/HD is better, its not anywere close to look bad.

Thats very logical since the action scenes do need more bits then the quiet scenes.

And I dont see any reason why they would release I Robot with badly compressed scenes?

Also for anyone interested in how bitrate effects quality look at the threads with screenshots that is taken from the BD/HD to HD9 reencoding.

While the BD/HD is better, its not anywere close to look bad.

That was the reason for my question concerning how much of the disc space was used. The reason for releasing any movie with badly compressed scenes is that there was not enough space on the disc to do it properly, taking into account the amount of space required for extras. I don't know that that was the case here, but it could be.

That was the reason for my question concerning how much of the disc space was used. The reason for releasing any movie with badly compressed scenes is that there was not enough space on the disc to do it properly, taking into account the amount of space required for extras. I don't know that that was the case here, but it could be.

Then move the extras to a 2nd disc OR compress them using AVC or VC-1.

Everyone here enjoys blaming extras when they should blame the company for stupid decisions. There are ways to have great quality AND all the extras.

Becoming Jane has far and away the best PQ I have seen on any Disney release so far. . .

On I, Robot, you seem to have the capability of observing file sizes, which I don't. Do you know how much of the disc is filled? The bitrate is fairly high in the high action scenes, but in the quieter scenes is where I particularly see the PQ inadequacies and the much lower bitrates.

I don't have the capability of observing file sizes myself, although I have friends that are capable of doing so. I'll have to get back to you on how large I, Robot is... But given that the video ABR is 30 mbps, I'd be willing to guess it's somewhere around 35 GB, perhaps higher.

Then move the extras to a 2nd disc OR compress them using AVC or VC-1.

Everyone here enjoys blaming extras when they should blame the company for stupid decisions. There are ways to have great quality AND all the extras.

If you think I am not blaming the company then I have not made myself clear. Of course I think it is stupid and wrong to do this. But first there needs to be agreement that there is a problem with the PQ, which I am sure the studio would deny, just as I'm sure Warner would deny that there was any PQ problem on their dual format encodes.

If WB is going to use the same encode, that rules out me repurchasing the movie for BD!

I don't have the capability of observing file sizes myself, although I have friends that are capable of doing so. I'll have to get back to you on how large I, Robot is... But given that the video ABR is 30 mbps, I'd be willing to guess it's somewhere around 35 GB, perhaps higher.

The obvious characteristic of I, Robot that make it different from other recent Fox releases is that it does have extras, which do take up some amount of space on the disc.

If WB is going to use the same encode, that rules out me repurchasing the movie for BD!

Same here.

The obvious characteristic of I, Robot that make it different from other recent Fox releases is that it does have extras, which do take up some amount of space on the disc.

Yeah, but there's only 150 minutes worth of bonus material - ALL in SD, which depending on the codec, wouldn't take more than 5 GB tops.

Well a BD50 compressed with AVC should have any problem fitting the disc.

And reference titles on HD DVD have peak limits in 20mbs so any AVC with ABR in the 20 would be sufficient.

Some scenes will look weaker then other, thats the nature of filmmaking. Its rarely resolution or details that makes the image look weak, but that of flat lite scenes. You need shadows and higlights in the skin to make it stand out. The higher the contrast the better it will look.

When I started shooting progressive video, I wondered why the image didnt stand out. It just looked like Video. I had had more res then any interlace camcorder in the same class. But unless you uses alot of light from different angles etc, the image just get flat, and thats not something you can correct in post.

So if anyone is interested in this area, I recommend the book.

"Lighting for Digital Video and Television" - John Jackman

There you really get to know how much lighting effects the PQ.

Also look at different titles in SD, and you will se that the same thing applies to them.

The titles that shines in HD also shines in SD. And its not the codec or bitrate really, its very much how you light.

Yeah, but there's only 150 minutes worth of bonus material - ALL in SD, which depending on the codec, wouldn't take more than 5 GB tops.

What is the meaning of "SD" here? Are you going by the information in the review at HDD? I confess I have not spent a lot of time with the extras on this disc, but the recent tendency seems to have been to have the extras at kind of an HD super-lite with AVC bitrates at about 10 to 12.

Day Out of Days: Production Diaries (SD, 76 minutes)
CGI and Design (SD, 22 minutes)
Sentient Machines: Robotic Behavior (SD, 36 minutes)
The Filmmakers' Toolbox (SD, 9 minutes)
Enhanced and Deleted Scenes (SD, 7 minutes)

Day Out of Days: Production Diaries (SD, 76 minutes)
CGI and Design (SD, 22 minutes)
Sentient Machines: Robotic Behavior (SD, 36 minutes)
The Filmmakers' Toolbox (SD, 9 minutes)
Enhanced and Deleted Scenes (SD, 7 minutes)

It would be more useful if you provided a source for this information. . .

It would be more useful if you provided a source for this information. . .

Well its HDD.

But even if the extras were in HD with 10mbs as an ABR

they still would only take about 12GB.

But even if the extras were in HD with 10mbs as an ABR

they still would only take about 12GB.

"Only"? 12GB is not a trivial amount of space out of 50.

Surely it is not surprising that a brand new movie will look better than one from even just a few years ago?

That sort of disparity is something we have observed repeatedly.

I don't buy the whole "older movies" dont look as good argument. 2001 looks better than the first Die Hard. Blade Runner looks better than the first Potter. Fifth Element looks better than all 5 Potters.


If 5 movies, all having the same bit-rate vary from very good to average, it means there's a lot more involved than than just bit-rate. If the first Potter movie at 12mbps doesn't look as good as the 5th at the same rate, does it mean the 1st will look better than the 5th at 40mbps? Let's extend it... Why does Potter 5 look better than a lot of Sony titles at 25mbps...

Here's a great example. You claim that Resident Evil Extinction looks soft, and this is at approx 25 mbps. Even at this rate, it does not look as good as Potter 5 at 12 mbps. Does this mean VC-1 is superior.. or 12mbps is better?

Is this because of bit-rate? Is it because the ways the movies were shot? Was it the a bad Master? There's just so much more to this stuff than bumping bit-rates... that's the only point I'm trying to make.

Well, if it's any help, the Simpsons movie has a video ABR of 35 mbps, is 1 hour and 26 minutes long, and weighs in at about 28 GB, including audio... Considering I Robot is about 1 hour and 54 minutes long with an abr of 30 mbps, it's safe to say that it more than likely falls under 40 GB, leaving over 10 GB for extras, and I SERIOUSLY doubt that SD the extras were encoded in 10 mbps abr AVC.

I don't buy the whole "older movies" dont look as good argument. 2001 looks better than the first Die Hard. Blade Runner looks better than the first Potter. Fifth Element looks better than all 5 Potters.


If 5 movies, all having the same bit-rate vary from very good to average, it means there's a lot more involved than than just bit-rate. If the first Potter movie at 12mbps doesn't look as good as the 5th at the same rate, does it mean the 1st will look better than the 5th at 40mbps? Let's extend it... Why does Potter 5 look better than a lot of Sony titles at 25mbps...

Here's a great example. You claim that Resident Evil Extinction looks soft, and this is at approx 25 mbps. Even at this rate, it does not look as good as Potter 5 at 12 mbps. Does this mean VC-1 is superior.. or 12mbps is better?

Is this because of bit-rate? Is it because the ways the movies were shot? Was it the a bad Master? There's just so much more to this stuff than bumping bit-rates... that's the only point I'm trying to make.

Fifth Element and Blade Runner are both cases where the studio took extraordinary care to get good results.

I agree that HP 5 looks better than HP 1, but I don't agree that HP 5 looks better than REE. I think HP 5 looks good for being a dual format low bitrate Warner encode, but that is not a very high standard.

"Only"? 12GB is not a trivial amount of space out of 50.

Well 50-12 is alot more then 25. ;)

And also a 114 minutes long movie running full mux would take 34,2 GB for video.

And thats running full mux.

Well, if it's any help, the Simpsons movie has a video ABR of 35 mbps, is 1 hour and 26 minutes long, and weighs in at about 28 GB, including audio... Considering I Robot is about 1 hour and 54 minutes long with an abr of 30 mbps, it's safe to say that it more than likely falls under 40 GB, leaving over 10 GB for extras, and I SERIOUSLY doubt that SD the extras were encoded in 10 mbps abr AVC.

Is it possible for you to find out from your friends who can provide this information how much space is used on the I, Robot BD?

Fifth Element and Blade Runner are both cases where the studio took extraordinary care to get good results.

I agree that HP 5 looks better than HP 1, but I don't agree that HP 5 looks better than REE. I think HP 5 looks good for being a dual format low bitrate Warner encode, but that is not a very high standard.


Well -- truthfully, I think REE looks better than HP5 too, but according to the tier thread, REE is (relatively) pretty low on the totem pole which I and others disagree with.

I think HP 1-3 can look better, but I dont think Warner went through the trouble of remastering. I'm pretty sure we'll see new masters when they release the box set when the series ends.

I think some are equating bitrate/codec with sharpness. Not all masters are created the same. Not all movies are ultra sharp from begining to end.

I think some are equating bitrate/codec with sharpness. Not all masters are created the same. Not all movies are ultra sharp from begining to end.

Quoted for truth. There are way too many on here that equate the 2 as synonymous...when they are not.

The master is obviously more important than bitrate and codec used when determining the look of the movie in High Definition, but both bitrate and codec clearly do have a sizeable effect on the final product. Even infinite bitrates are not going to make a bad master look better than it is, but it can mean less problems over a minimized encode. I sure hope Warner decided to re-encode this title for Blu-ray.

Wow, this topic has gotten very confusing. Who the hell cares about mbps as long as the picture looks amazing!!!!!

Anyway, what extras do you think they will include? Hopefully a commentary track.

Wow, this topic has gotten very confusing. Who the hell cares about mbps as long as the picture looks amazing!!!!!

Anyway, what extras do you think they will include? Hopefully a commentary track.

The bigger question is whether they'll include the IME track.

I think some are equating bitrate/codec with sharpness. Not all masters are created the same. Not all movies are ultra sharp from begining to end.

To experiment how lighting affects the video I took my friends Panasonic HD cam and began shooting under various conditions including rapid movement of the camera. Watching the recorded content on the TV revealed that the static shots under bright lights were captured wonderfully. The night shots as usual were slightly grainy and the fast camera pans resulted in slight motion blur and overall image softness. Long distance shots captured during the morning, afternoon and evening revealed varying depth in picture quality with the afternoon shot looking the best.

It's insane to demand razor sharp imagery throughout the running time. We have to accept the occasional soft focus shots and move on.

IMHO the picture on Ocean's Trilogy truly reflects the intentions of Soderbergh and having watched the movies many times I can say that the PQ on these discs were top notch. O13 was ripped apart by many but I was extremely satisfied with the overall PQ besides the intentional application of Orange color filter. The Picture had lots of eye candy shots and the bit rates used were adequate enough to truly represent the intentions of the director.

Igans what cam did you use?

Well -- truthfully, I think REE looks better than HP5 too, but according to the tier thread, REE is (relatively) pretty low on the totem pole which I and others disagree with.

I think HP 1-3 can look better, but I dont think Warner went through the trouble of remastering. I'm pretty sure we'll see new masters when they release the box set when the series ends.

I think the reason for REE's low placement is the airbrushed close-ups.

Just some funny facts according to ABR.

The Prestige BD 21,5mbs
The Prestige HD 16,75mbs
Batman Begins HD 17,5mbs

So I guess that any visual difference between The Prestige BD and HD is what you would get between different encodes of Batman Begins.

like i said in one of the polls, the only way i'll wind up replacing my hd dvds with blu ray is if there's some way the blu far surpasses the red in audio and visual quality (not talkin bout bitrate or anything, but physically looks and sounds better)

but at the same time, i like stuff...so i might buy it

like i said in one of the polls, the only way i'll wind up replacing my hd dvds with blu ray is if there's some way the blu far surpasses the red in audio and visual quality (not talkin bout bitrate or anything, but physically looks and sounds better)

but at the same time, i like stuff...so i might buy it

yeah i hear you, but i have to have the Burton movies so that means i'm buying batman begins again even at the cost of the Schumacher movies

Igans what cam did you use?

http://panasonic.jp/dvc/hs9/index.html

Just some funny facts according to ABR.

The Prestige BD 21,5mbs
The Prestige HD 16,75mbs
Batman Begins HD 17,5mbs

So I guess that any visual difference between The Prestige BD and HD is what you would get between different encodes of Batman Begins.

Hi there. Could you please give the source of these numbers? Also the BD Prestige does have a 20% bitrate advantage over the HD DVD Batman, which can give a bigger leap in PQ than you might think.

IMHO both Prestige and BB were on the same league as far PQ is concerned. May be due to intentional soft focussed filming by Nolan.

Just some funny facts according to ABR.

The Prestige BD 21,5mbs
The Prestige HD 16,75mbs
Batman Begins HD 17,5mbs

So I guess that any visual difference between The Prestige BD and HD is what you would get between different encodes of Batman Begins.

That means there will be virtually no difference.

All Warner HDDs and BDs look alike. I'll admit BB doesnt look as sharp as most of the cream of the crop BDs but it's soft to the point where it is distracting.

But with the W's recent VC-1 catalogue BDs (B&C, Blade Runner) the new stuff(Potter, IAL). I think there might be some slight improvement.

VC-1 usually makes things look a little more smooth than they should be. Maybe the early version did this a bit too much. Then again all the Disney VC-1s are razor sharp. Fingers crossed, that Warner is getting it together. Looks like I might end up buying 5 versions of BB.

What audio codex are they using for the BD edition? I hope it is stronger than my HD DVD version, because I have to qualms about double dipping on this title.

No idea but Warner should be featuring the same True HD track they used on the HD DVD release (which is fine BTW).

Hi there. Could you please give the source of these numbers? Also the BD Prestige does have a 20% bitrate advantage over the HD DVD Batman, which can give a bigger leap in PQ than you might think.

Well it have even more bitrate then the HD Prestige, and the difference there is very minor. (almost identical)

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/theprestige_bd-vs-hd/01.html

As for the source I have taken the filesize numbers for the videofile (presented here on AVS) and calculated out the bitrate with help of the length of the movie. BB = 140 min P = 130min

Since the ABR automaticly is an effect of filesize and filelength.

IMHO both Prestige and BB were on the same league as far PQ is concerned. May be due to intentional soft focussed filming by Nolan.

That is highly unlikely, because Christopher Nolan said he wanted "simple, crisp, clear imagery" in addition to "a realistic, naturalistic, rich, high-quality look.” See AlexanderG's posts a couple pages back.

Anyway, I already saw BB on HD DVD and I resold it. If the BD comes out and it looks better than the HD DVD, I might double-dip. If not, well, I'll just wait for The Dark Knight.

I think some are equating bitrate/codec with sharpness. Not all masters are created the same. Not all movies are ultra sharp from begining to end.

They need to be reminded from time to time :)

That is highly unlikely, because Christopher Nolan said he wanted "simple, crisp, clear imagery" in addition to "a realistic, naturalistic, rich, high-quality look.” See AlexanderG's posts a couple pages back.

Anyway, I already saw BB on HD DVD and I resold it. If the BD comes out and it looks better than the HD DVD, I might double-dip. If not, well, I'll just wait for The Dark Knight.

If I remember correctly the comment about crisp clear etc was when they choose filmstock.

As I written earlier, if they wanted ultrasharp they wouldnt have picked an anamorphic adapter as shooting style.

As I written earlier, if they wanted ultrasharp they wouldnt have picked an anamorphic adapter as shooting style.

You are describing as if anamorphic lenses didn't offer any better than 720p. That is preposterous.

Not to mention that, if that was the case, all movies shot anamorphic would look softer than all movies shot Super35. And that is not the case. Case in point, Blade Runner, which BTW was shot with a visual style much more prone to loss of detail (lots of optical effects, smoke, rain, darkness).

Or just check Unforgiven. Or The Phantom of the Opera. Or even Blazing Saddles.

Anamorphic 35mm is perfectly capable of reproducing 1080p resolution (and more). Are we even discussing this?

Well actually those movies look very close to Batman in terms of sharpness etc.

Also Blade runner shoot its special effects with 65mm, and thats not using an adapter.

The problem isnt that the lense itself or the film but the mix of everything together.

Lights-Lenses-Filmstock-Processing-Scanning-Encoding

The problem with the lense is that it distorts the lights passing through the lense. That effects sharpness. There is a reason why S35 gets more and more popular.

A Theatrical presentation doesnt have more then 450-750 lines on its film so its not Not even the that film captures 2K worth of resolution as an fact.

Not even the Super35mm movies is that near 1000 lines of res.

Animated movies should be closer.

So how many lines of res does Blade runner have in its non special effects shoot?

Well actually those movies look very close to Batman in terms of sharpness etc.

Very close my foot. Batman Begins is one of a select group of movies that, when watched on HDM, made me exclaim, "This is it?" (others were Spartacus, Full Metal Jacket 1st ed, Being John Malkovich and Troy).

On the other hand, watching Blade Runner was a revelation. And I have seen that movie at least a dozen times at the theater.


The problem with the lense is that it distorts the lights passing through the lense. That effects sharpness. There is a reason why S35 gets more and more popular.


Yeah but it has nothing to do with sharpness and everything with the economy of the shoot.

An anamorphic 35mm and a Super35 frame (I'm not talking of the projection) are capable of 1080p resolution or more. Hence, if a movie has 720p effective resolution,

It has been revealed that the Blu-ray of Batman Begins will include as a bonus the first six minutes of The Dark Knight. :)

Interesting but not great. Any updates on whether they will create a fresh encode ?

Interesting but not great. Any updates on whether they will create a fresh encode ?

I doubt we'll know that for either a few weeks, until Warner announces full specs, or a few months, until the title is in the hands of reviewers.

Very close my foot. Batman Begins is one of a select group of movies that, when watched on HDM, made me exclaim, "This is it?" (others were Spartacus, Full Metal Jacket 1st ed, Being John Malkovich and Troy).

On the other hand, watching Blade Runner was a revelation. And I have seen that movie at least a dozen times at the theater.




Yeah but it has nothing to do with sharpness and everything with the economy of the shoot.

An anamorphic 35mm and a Super35 frame (I'm not talking of the projection) are capable of 1080p resolution or more. Hence, if a movie has 720p effective resolution,

Well even if watching Blade runner was a revelation for you, can you show me a clip that doesnt come from the 65mm special effects shot that has more sharpness then Batman begins?

The live action shots looks like the have the same softness that all other anamorphic movies show us.

Also what do you base on that anamorphic movies has more then 1080P of real resolution? I agree that a camera negative has more then 1080P worth of information, but not that every movie shot on anamorphic has 1000 lines of real resolution/detail.

So what is it you think make Blade runner stand out?

I think? Come on, everybody says it.

The visual design and art direction in Blade Runner are a masterpiece. As I already said, I've seen it multiple times theatrically, and countless times on home video (including 2 VHS tapes and the original DVD, and a bootleg International Cut taken from the Criterion laserdisc). And when I watched the DVD, I saw things I couldn't believe. The parking meters, the neons, the noodle bar, everything had more detail, more life.

I agree that Blade runner is a wonderfull restoration, but the shot with most resolution is the special effects shot.

So apperently the anamorphic footage isnt as detailed as the 65mm footage when you watch it in a 1080P source.

But thats not something it think is a bad thing. HD should be able to show the different qualities of different shooting styles.

Some movies look softer then other, just as they do in theater (even if theaters level it some since everything is converted to anamorphic 35mm)

I agree that Blade runner is a wonderfull restoration, but the shot with most resolution is the special effects shot.

So apperently the anamorphic footage isnt as detailed as the 65mm footage when you watch it in a 1080P source.

Not necessarily. The special effect shots were shot in 65mm precisely to compensate for the loss of resolution caused by the optical processes required. Same thing as in The Matrix, for example.

But thats not something it think is a bad thing. HD should be able to show the different qualities of different shooting styles.

My point exactly. The Batman Begins HD DVD didn't fully show the visual qualities of the movie. IMO.

Some movies look softer then other, just as they do in theater (even if theaters level it some since everything is converted to anamorphic 35mm)

But... Batman Begins wasn't shot to be soft. And it looks soft.

We can go on and on for ages. You think you can be more stubborn than me? You think again.

Otherwise, we can agree to disagree and stop this debate here and now, and wait for the actual release. If they do a re-encode and it looks better - I was right. If they do a re-encode and it doesn't look better - you were right. If they don't do a re-encode, well we'll never know who was right.

Well I like discussing technical stuff. So as long as we do that no one gets hurt. :)

But what do you base your assumption that the movie wasnt ment to be soft? (Also what does soft mean, there are different kind of softness)

Here is the article about how they shoot and were some quotes seems to have commed from.

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/june05/batman/page2.html

*hehe*

I can't wait for the new re-encode utilizing BD size. Sharper Batman ;)

Well I like discussing technical stuff. So as long as we do that no one gets hurt. :)

But what do you base your assumption that the movie wasnt ment to be soft? (Also what does soft mean, there are different kind of softness)

Here is the article about how they shoot and were some quotes seems to have commed from.

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/june05/batman/page2.html

Okay, you asked for it. When you say...

And it doesnt matter if Nolan says they didnt filter the movie (He should know), the Anamorfic Adapter is a filter on its own.

That is incorrect. Anamorphic 35mm does not use 'anamorphic adapters'. It uses 'anamorphic lenses' (in this case, Panavision E- and C-series) that squeeze the 2.39:1 image onto the frame.

http://www.cameraguild.com/interviews/chat_pfister/pfister_batman.htm

Pfister selected a modest film palette consisting of Kodak Vision2 500T 5218 negative for night, interior and other darker scenes, and Kodak Vision 250D 5246 negative for daylight exteriors. Basically, he wanted to record grainless images with bright highlights, true black tones and a wide range of nuanced contrast between.

[...]

Pfister filmed most of Batman Begins with a single Panaflex Platinum camera and a mix of Primo E-series and C-series prime lenses. The E- and C-series lenses were used for handheld and Steadicam shots, usually made with one or two Panaflex Millennium XLs.



You want to see a film shot intentionally to be soft? Play the HD DVD of 12 Monkeys. That was used with soft-focus techniques to make the practical effects and SF sets more believable. Go to the scene where Christopher Plummer is offering a reception and see the halos around lights. That is a dead giveaway.

Yes I know that they use anamorphic lenses instead of adapters, even if you still have the same shortcommings (I write adapters since thats what I use) sorry.

But you agree that they went with a grainfree look and that Batman hasnt been DNRed? Because some members claim it have and I have problem detecting it.


Pfister:
I primarily used E-Series lenses, but I used some C-Series lenses for handheld work.

So primary they went with E series lenses.

from wikipedia
Panavision: The most commonly used source of anamorphic lenses, Panavision has several series of lenses which range from 20 mm to a 2,000 mm anamorphic telescope. The C-Series, which are the oldest lens series, are small and lightweight, which makes them very popular for steadicams. Some cinematographers prefer these to newer lenses because they are lower in contrast. The E-Series, which are Nikon glass, are sharper than the C-Series and are better color- matched. They are also faster, but the minimum focus distance on the shorter focal lengths is not as good. The E135mm and especially the E180mm are great close-up lenses with the best minimum focus of any long Panavision anamorphic lenses. The Super (High) Speed Lenses, also with glass by Nikon, are the fastest anamorphic lenses available with T-stops between 1.4 and 1.8; there is even one T1.1 50mm. But like all anamorphic lenses they need to be stopped down to get a good performance, as they are quite soft when they are wide open. The Primo and Close-Focus Primo Series, which are Panavision's latest anamorphic lens series, are based on the spherical Primos and are the sharpest Panavision anamorphics available, as well as completely color-matched. But they are also very heavy (between 5 and 7 kilograms).

The problem with both anamorphic lenses and adapters is that they are very sensitive when they are opened up to much (the iris not the lense).

Pfister:
And now we go back to what I tried to maintain a stop of T2.8.5 inside Cardington, though I opened up more at times,” he continues. “In Chicago I was probably closer to T2.8, and I also had to push the film. We used a lot of ambient city light in Chicago, so I needed a bit more stop. The other sets were between a T2.8 and a T4; I was generally at T4 for day-interior work. When you open up to T2.8, there’s a huge difference in the sharpness

Gotta go now, but please continue to write and Ill be back tomorrow. :)

"The current PQ of Batman Begins on HD DVD doesn't truly represent what I have seen on IMAX and doesn't even come close to the 20 Mbps broadcast copy in terms of sharpness and high frequency detail though the colors and black levels standout."

Does anybody have any proof that this is innaccurate? If not, then the softness debate is done.

Where is this "20 Mbps broadcast copy"?

So no comments on the broadcast version of BB that was absolutely sharper than the HD-DVD? Or was that a separate master?

edit:

2 posts on this between when I started and finished.

Found it!

1920x1080i h264 EU broadcast. I will have to check my hard drives (not accessible at the moment) if I still have the file.

Is that the one?

Unless we see screenshot we have no idea if the Broadcast copy is sharper, or has better resolution, or just has edge enhancment etc.

But I know that a 35mm movie that gets upconverted to Imax gets postprocessed with a little help of computers.

But the HDM presentation of Batman is very close to the theatrical presentation that I saw.

I had the broadcast copy of BB in my old DVR which I sold a month ago. The PQ was clearly superior to the HD DVD version. I also had MI-3 and the PQ was inferior to the HD DVD in many aspects.

But... Batman Begins wasn't shot to be soft. And it looks soft.[/QUOTE]


I figure you are referring to the HD-DVD release... Yes, I too agree the picture looked soft, and was hoping another re-encode would take place because BB didn't look that soft in the theater, and shouldn't have looked that soft on an HD release.

Even the Broadcast version looks better. Although I own Blu, I am not a huge fan, however, I would double dip for this flick just to see a proper HD transfer.

Yes and No

S35 has a wider recording area then A35.

24,89mm vs 21,95mm

But you cant discount the drawback of putting more glass in front of the lens.

There is a reason why the S35 looks extra good on HDM.
I really enjoyed the discussion in this thread of Batman begins, as an example of A35 (Anamorhpic 35mm), with less sharpness than S35 (Super-35). Also, the part about anamorhpic lenses having to be stopped down to F/4 to get adequate sharpness, whereas some spherical prime lenses can still be sharp at F/2 (4x more light than F/4).

So .... I'm going through the list of Tier0 and Tier1 blu-rays, and there's a ton of 2.35:1 movies. To my surprise, I see that every single Tier0 2.35:1 movie was filmed in Super-35! The top ranked anamorphic title is "I am Legend", which is the top ranked Tier1 title; and I enjoyed it very much. I think it looks very good, but not quite as sharp as Tier0 Super-35 blu-rays that I've purchased.

Some other recent anamorphically filmed blu-rays, (that I haven't seen), are "Sunshine", "Brave One", "Michael Clayton", and of course "Blade Runner". Three of those are Tier-1, and Michael Clayton is Tier-2. Based on the HD-DVD, Batman begins will probably be Tier-2.

This is far to large a sample size to be accidental! Anamorhpic 35mm apparently does not lead to quite the same image quality as S35, despite the 55% larger negative.

Why????? Softer anamorphic lenses (especially wide open)? Slower, finer grained S35 film used to overcome the grain advantage of A35, by utilizing the 2x-4x speed advantage of S35? Better scanning for S35 than A35? Perhaps there is no benefit from the stretched vertical portion of the negative, versus the loss of the horizontal width?

Conventional wisdom, is still that the theatrical presentation of A35 is superior to S35, even though S35 is done via DI and is presented in the same anamorphic format in the theater. The anamorphic theatrical print really helps a lot since three generations of copies on the way to the theatrical print, lose much much more vertical resolution than horizontal resolution.

One last comment. I used to think that an anamorphic stored blu-ray (1080x1920, stretched 4:3 to 1080x2560 on display) would make sense for anamorhpically filmed movies, with more vertical resolution, and displayed on a constant height projector. Such a format does not make sense for Super-35 which is pretty much a perfect match in resolution to blu-ray 1080x1920. But, given the lack of Tier0 A35 titles, such a format would not make sense for A35 either. So, neither A35 nor S35 needs more resolution than blu-ray.

I was going to wait for the blu-ray release but with the HD DVD on sale locally for $12.99 it is mighty tempting.:confused:

I was going to wait for the blu-ray release but with the HD DVD on sale locally for $12.99 it is mighty tempting.:confused:

Fry's has this HD DVD title for $13.99 :)

WB, due to the Dark Knight coming out, should do a brand new transfer from the digital IP master, and high bitrate encode with 24 bit lossless audio this time around for Blu-ray.

WB, due to the Dark Knight coming out, should do a brand new transfer from the digital IP master, and high bitrate encode with 24 bit lossless audio this time around for Blu-ray.

I wish I new at this time if it was should or will.:)

Tom

According to Bill Hunt/Digital Bits, it looks like we'll be getting the HD DVD encode:Also, a number of you have asked about the BD transfers/encodes for V for Vendetta (5/20), Batman Begins (7/8) and The Matrix Trilogy (TBA 4th Qtr), so here's the reply from the studio:

"Each of these releases will repurpose the encode used on the HD release. They looked beautiful on HD and will look beautiful on BD. Each of these titles will be released on BD50s. We are very excited that the Matrix titles will be coming out on BD... they are going to look awesome. And with Animatrix added (not part of the HD release) it should be terrific."

On the positive side, I won't have to replace these HD DVD's now and will pick up Batman Begins for $12.99.:D

Tom

Bummer. I'd still like it on my blu-ray player for 24p since my HD DVD player isn't capable and I doubt a firmware update for it is coming but not sure if I'll double dip unless I find it for $10 or so.

Warner is going the cheap corporate route and not re-doing the transfers for apparently any HD DVD titles that have yet to see the light of day on Blu-ray. The Batman Begins transfer and HD DVD limited encoding is now almost two years old and simply doesn't hold up to recent Blu-ray transfers. This is sheer corporate arrogance for a title that would easily pay for itself with the sales a premium title like this will generate. This means we probably won't see a top notch Batman Begins on Blu-ray for 4 to 5 years. Even after it's dead HD DVD is still crippling Warner Blu-ray titles.

^^
So wait 4-5 years GOSH!! You show them who's boss.

According to Bill Hunt/Digital Bits, it looks like we'll be getting the HD DVD encode:
That's... disappointing. :mad:

It should be noted that Warner is doing re-encodes of the mastered-as-1080i titles like "The Perfect Storm".

Warner is going the cheap corporate route and not re-doing the transfers for apparently any HD DVD titles that have yet to see the light of day on Blu-ray. The Batman Begins transfer and HD DVD limited encoding is now almost two years old and simply doesn't hold up to recent Blu-ray transfers. This is sheer corporate arrogance for a title that would easily pay for itself with the sales a premium title like this will generate. This means we probably won't see a top notch Batman Begins on Blu-ray for 4 to 5 years. Even after it's dead HD DVD is still crippling Warner Blu-ray titles.


Oh, it's suuuuch a burden. :rolleyes:

What exactly IS wrong with these 'crippled' HD DVD encodes? Does this have to do with bitrate, or how the things actually look? I don't see any noticeable patterns as far as difference between HD DVD and BD encodes and PQ, regardless of BD's advantages. If anything, some of the worst titles I've seen were on BD exclusive studios..like Lionsgate.

Warner is going the cheap corporate route and not re-doing the transfers for apparently any HD DVD titles that have yet to see the light of day on Blu-ray. The Batman Begins transfer and HD DVD limited encoding is now almost two years old and simply doesn't hold up to recent Blu-ray transfers. This is sheer corporate arrogance for a title that would easily pay for itself with the sales a premium title like this will generate. This means we probably won't see a top notch Batman Begins on Blu-ray for 4 to 5 years. Even after it's dead HD DVD is still crippling Warner Blu-ray titles.

Matrix, Batman Begins and Grand Prix look fantastic on HD DVD. I'm actually happy Warner is keeping the HD DVD encodes because now I can safely re-buy Batman Begins (I want the Limited edition stuff) knowing it will look amazing in VC1/Dolby TrueHD glory.

Matrix, Batman Begins and Grand Prix look fantastic on HD DVD. I'm actually happy Warner is keeping the HD DVD encodes because now I can safely re-buy Batman Begins (I want the Limited edition stuff) knowing it will look amazing in VC1/Dolby TrueHD glory.

wakashizuma sama.

Matrix looked great but the third part was severely bit starved causing macroblocking on couple of important scenes.

BB looked soft and irritating.

V looked OK but fell short of a trend setting PQ.

wakashizuma sama.

Matrix looked great but the third part was severely bit starved causing macroblocking on couple of important scenes.

BB looked soft and irritating.

V looked OK but fell short of a trend setting PQ.

BB looked great and the Audio is excellent; reviews show that.

Sorry boss. I don't trust the reviews for BB. I am more concerned about the PQ than the SQ which was amazing on these titles.

BB looked great and the Audio is excellent; reviews show that.

Monster Cables make video look better and audio sound better; reviews show that.

wakashizuma sama.

Matrix looked great but the third part was severely bit starved causing macroblocking on couple of important scenes.

BB looked soft and irritating.

V looked OK but fell short of a trend setting PQ.

Indeed, PQ is soft on Batman Begins. Perhaps when it came out the standards were lower, I know mine were when the formats launched than they are today. It is not deserving of the high marks it received in reviews.

Well actually those movies look very close to Batman in terms of sharpness etc.

Also Blade runner shoot its special effects with 65mm, and thats not using an adapter.

The problem isnt that the lense itself or the film but the mix of everything together.

Lights-Lenses-Filmstock-Processing-Scanning-Encoding

The problem with the lense is that it distorts the lights passing through the lense. That effects sharpness. There is a reason why S35 gets more and more popular.

A Theatrical presentation doesnt have more then 450-750 lines on its film so its not Not even the that film captures 2K worth of resolution as an fact.

Not even the Super35mm movies is that near 1000 lines of res.

Animated movies should be closer.

So how many lines of res does Blade runner have in its non special effects shoot?DUDE, you have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about.

Please stop.

DUDE, you have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about.

Please stop.

Please come out with technical data to prove otherwise.

And please explain why Anamorphic films looks different then Super35 on HDM.

LBFilmGuy -> Challenge the post not the poster.:D

No offense.

Indeed, PQ is soft on Batman Begins. Perhaps when it came out the standards were lower, I know mine were when the formats launched than they are today. It is not deserving of the high marks it received in reviews.

I've been complaining that BB looks soft from the time it was released on HD DVD. It always looked soft to me.

I've been complaining that BB looks soft from the time it was released on HD DVD. It always looked soft to me.

I felt the same but just guessing others had lower standards. Heck Traffic got 3 stars:eek:

I felt the same but just guessing others had lower standards. Heck Traffic got 3 stars:eek:

Hairspray is also quite soft, much more recent, and got good PQ reviews.

Please come out with technical data to prove otherwise.

And please explain why Anamorphic films looks different then Super35 on HDM.First of all, you are saying that you doubt that film has even 2K lines of data...do you realize some films doing DI's do 4K scans? And that they are even talking about 8K scans in the future just from a 35mm negative?

The only thing different about anamorphic films is the lenses used. They squeeze the image so it fills the entire 35mm frame. Then, when it is projected, an anamorphic lens is used on the projector to "unsqueeze" it.

Click this link:

http://imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PCS:Panavision%09(anamorphic)

The first page is just TWO hundred films that have been shot using this process, and it only reaches the middle of the B's alphabetically.

I am sure you will find many notable films in there shot using this process.

First of all, you are saying that you doubt that film has even 2K lines of data...do you realize some films doing DI's do 4K scans? And that they are even talking about 8K scans in the future just from a 35mm negative?

The only thing different about anamorphic films is the lenses used. They squeeze the image so it fills the entire 35mm frame. Then, when it is projected, an anamorphic lens is used on the projector to "unsqueeze" it.
Anamorphic films, when converted to blu-ray, as a whole come out slightly softer than Super-35 2.35:1 releases. There are ~60 Tier0/Tier1 2.35:1 releases, of those, only 13 are anamorphic, and none of those are Tier0. The explanation is apparently that A35 lenses are a little softer, especially wide open, and that anamorphic 35 doesn't have as much horizontal detail, even if scanned at 4k ("Flags of our Fathers", 4k DI).

A35 has plently of detail. It's just that the depth of field is low compared to Super-35 and flat. We also haven't seen a lot of the great scope film releases(Jaws, Indys, Star Wars Trilogy, Alien, etc).

First of all, you are saying that you doubt that film has even 2K lines of data...do you realize some films doing DI's do 4K scans? And that they are even talking about 8K scans in the future just from a 35mm negative?

I doubt that film has that much of real resolution, when its has gonne trough the entire process.

Labs has shown us that some filmstocks has 4K worth of resolution, but they havent used filmcameras to expose that frame.

So even if film in theory has 4K worth of resolution, for a normal movie, i doubt they come anywere near that.

But to properly handle a 35mm frame they need to scan in 4K because film isnt build up by pixels. But once you have the 4K scan you can downres the movie to 2K without really loosing resolution from the orginal negative (doing it correctly)

Imagine you have a checkboardpattern that is black and white 1920*1080 and imagine you have a camera that can capture 1920*1080. So you set up the camera and it caputeres a perfect checkboard patter 1920*1080.

But what if you move your camera ½pixel down and ½pixel too the left. What would the camera sensor get for type of data. Well 50% white and 50% black. How would it handle it since one pixel can only show one color value. It blends the two colors and give us gray. And this is repeted for the entire frame. So now our picture has gone from a perfect 1920*1080 frame to a 1*1 frame. So how is that possible a 2K frame (more or less) with a 2K camera and it gave us only 1*1 pixels?

So lets scan the same process in 4K. Now it didnt matter that we moved the same frame ½ since every sensor in the 4K scanning device still get either 100% white or 100% black. But the real resolution of the frame is still just 1920*1080.

Of course 2K scanning devices has more tech to avoid the 1*1 pixel scenario. But the 2K data was better captured with a 4K device. (extreme example)

So a 4K scan isnt so much for resolution, but to get a perfect digital copy of the orginal filmnegative. Thats why they use 8K scan for 65mm film etc.

Also I would like to add, that they maybe can squeese some extra reslution from a negative, but that we will get Aliasing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing) as a bonus.



The only thing different about anamorphic films is the lenses used. They squeeze the image so it fills the entire 35mm frame. Then, when it is projected, an anamorphic lens is used on the projector to "unsqueeze" it.

And thats a very big difference. The Anamorphic lense gives alot more problems compared to sperical lenses. Because its not that its distorts the lights, reduces depth of field, it also effects the sharpness.

Just look how different iris settings effects the sharpness when using anamorphic lenses.

Best Buy had a demo of BB running on a Blu-Ray player in store yesterday, and when I asked the guy to pull the disc out it was a promo copy sent to the store. Assuming it's a clip from the movie encode (why wouldn't it be?) it looked really good.

I guess I'll have to agree with the way BB looks. To me, it holds its place with my reference BD titles. I agree that the matrix series has some minor issues, but I've seen these issues and worse on some of my BD50 releases as well.

I wouldn't be against them re-encoding for BD, if they indeed could look even better (of course then I would be compelled to sell my HD DVD versions and buy the bD version which is a pain). But I just don't see the issue here.

That's... disappointing. :mad:

What are you talking about? BB, V for Vendetta, and THe Matrix had video quality superior to 80% of BR movies on the market. I'm sorry, but other than Casino Royale, 300, PotC Trilogy, and a select others, WB and Universal were doing video right to begin with.

Universal has put out a bunch of crapy looking titles with big time edge enhancement however.

Tom

have they said what was going to be included in the Batman Begins (Limited Edition Gift Set) yet?

i asked this in another thread but no one anwsered my question

"Liar Liar" has the worst edge enhancement of the titles I've seen. However, some Univeral titles like "Casino" are as good as any BD I've seen!

40 YO Virgin was the worst I have seen for Edge Enhancement. It was the first of a string of poor looking titles that came from Universal last year, but they did eventually improve their catalog offering.

40 YO Virgin was the worst I have seen for Edge Enhancement. It was the first of a string of poor looking titles that came from Universal last year, but they did eventually improve their catalog offering.


The worst I have seen also and I have seen them all.

edit: nevermind someone from another forum was more willing to help me out than people here.......................

thanks anyway

I thought i heard that the whole Batman series ( Burton films) was going to released in HD. Is this still happening?

I thought i heard that the whole Batman series ( Burton films) was going to released in HD. Is this still happening?Warner has them planned for this year, IIRC. I'd look for them when TDK hits video, which is rumored to be December 9.

"Liar Liar" has the worst edge enhancement of the titles I've seen. However, some Univeral titles like "Casino" are as good as any BD I've seen!

Casino did look quite good - not reference quality like some BD titles I've seen - but still quite nice. I will pick that up immediately when it becomes available.

Here's a post I made about 4 months ago on this forum, and apparently people paid very little attention to it since there is still a huge debate going on concerning the quality of Batman Begins on Blu Ray. I'll repost it here, and it absolutely positively clarifies what Christopher Nolan INTENDED for Batman Begins.

Christopher Nolan himself comments on the filming of Batman Begins in the Digital Content Producer,

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/dcc/revfeat/video_bat_au_natural/

In terms of photography, this is the third film I've worked on with [DP Wally Pfister, ASC], and he pretty much knew that I was looking for a stripped-down style, with little use for filters or other correctionals. For that reason, we shot anamorphic without any filters to soften things, and we worked to get simple, crisp, clear imagery. Therefore, I did not want any fancy CG and I definitely did not want to have anything to do with the DI process. I just wanted a sort of unadorned cinematography that has texture to it, so that when you watch it, you feel like you can understand what everything you are seeing is made of.”

If I recally correctly, the Warner encoder that posted here stated that Batman Begins was encoded at a 12 mbps bitrate, which is quite low, even by HD-DVD standards. [EDIT: 7/8/08: Now we've confirmed it's like 13.4 mbps, I believe] I'd say that fact, combined with Nolan's comment above and the downrezzing pic that Grubert provided makes for a strong case when arguing that the HD-DVD version of Batman Begins is a far cry from the best possible presentation in an HDM presentation.

So let's see this one more time, straight from CHRISTOPHER NOLAN'S MOUTH:

For that reason, we shot anamorphic without any filters to soften things, and we worked to get simple, crisp, clear imagery...I just wanted a sort of unadorned cinematography that has texture to it, so that when you watch it, you feel like you can understand what everything you are seeing is made of.

So there you have it - BATMAN BEGINS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SOFT!

WB is lazy and stupid.

I wish some of these directors were HD fanatics, so they'd kick the studios in the balls. You'd imagine that Nolan would say something; the man has shot in IMAX.

Here's a post I made about 4 months ago on this forum, and apparently people paid very little attention to it since there is still a huge debate going on concerning the quality of Batman Begins on Blu Ray. I'll repost it here, and it absolutely positively clarifies what Christopher Nolan INTENDED for Batman Begins.

Christopher Nolan himself comments on the filming of Batman Begins in the Digital Content Producer,

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/dcc/revfeat/video_bat_au_natural/



If I recally correctly, the Warner encoder that posted here stated that Batman Begins was encoded at a 12 mbps bitrate, which is quite low, even by HD-DVD standards. [EDIT: 7/8/08: Now we've confirmed it's like 13.4 mbps, I believe] I'd say that fact, combined with Nolan's comment above and the downrezzing pic that Grubert provided makes for a strong case when arguing that the HD-DVD version of Batman Begins is a far cry from the best possible presentation in an HDM presentation.

So let's see this one more time, straight from CHRISTOPHER NOLAN'S MOUTH:



So there you have it - BATMAN BEGINS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SOFT!


The encoder said the encode matched the master...so if it is soft, it is the fault of the master, not the bitrate. I watched the BD and feel that it is a very good looking transfer although not as sharp as others. Comparing it to the DVD looks downright RAZOR SHARP. The DVD is a muddy mess, which leads me to believe CJPlay and blame the master.

Thanks for widely opening the can of whoop azz. Guillermo del Toro commented that the U.S version of Pan's Labyrinth on HDM was the best way to experience his movie. Perhaps the term experience doesn't include VIDEO.
Me Guillermo are on the same wavelength. Audio over Pic with this movie, even though the art direction and and photography are beautiful.

The encoder said the encode matched the master...so if it is soft, it is the fault of the master, not the bitrate.
It's the way Warner uses VC-1(moderate bitrates don't work well with it).
Look at the Rambo screen shots the difference in Clarity and Sharpness is pretty big between the AVC and VC-1.
Beowulf is the same way, the Warner BD looks smoothed(not DNRd).
And here's Brown's review of Eternal sunshine comparing the VC-1 to the AVC(I know it's Uni not Warner)
When I reviewed Universal's domestic HD DVD more than a year ago, I was thoroughly impressed with its gorgeous transfer and lush visuals. This Japanese 1080p/AVC-encoded import grabbed hold of me as well, but pleased me even more. While the two transfers are nearly identical in motion, still shots made it clear that the HD[DVD] presentation is slightly softer. Its grain is more subdued, fine details aren't as crisp, and the director's original intent is a bit muffled. It's unclear whether the HD version is marred by an application of DNR or the BD version simply had the benefit of an extra year in the format's production cycle. Either way, it's clear that this BD import ever-so-slightly trumps the domestic edition HD DVD with a more faithful transfer.
All of the Warner titles have the same characteristics. They look slightly filtered but no DNR is applied. Watch when the domestic Sweeney gets released there will be another layer of detail revealed that was missing.

You are filling in blanks without having all of the information. Were the same masters used for the above film? We don't know if they were or not. Which one looks more like the master? Unless we have that to compare, comparing AVC to VC-1 is pointless IMO because they may very well look different, but which one looks more like the master?

You are filling in blanks without having all of the information. Were the same masters used for the above film? We don't know if they were or not. Which one looks more like the master? Unless we have that to compare, comparing AVC to VC-1 is pointless IMO because they may very well look different, but which one looks more like the master?
You wouldn't think that different masters would result more noticeable differences? Instead of the same pattern of a loss of detail and sharpness that's common with all of these titles?

I doubt Lionsgate, Paramount, and Dreamworks would all supply Warner masters for international release that just happen to have the same defects(well limitations).

Is anyone else doing BB for international release?

You wouldn't think that different masters would result more noticeable differences? Instead of the same pattern of a loss of detail and sharpness that's common with all of these titles?

I doubt Lionsgate, Paramount, and Dreamworks would all supply Warner masters for international release that just happen to have the same defects(well limitations).

Is anyone else doing BB for international release?

One thing about VC-1 is that the blocks are much smaller which can result in a smoother picture. I watched Batman Begins this past weekend and I still think the picture is very good most of the time, but there are a few rough patches. CJ agreed it was soft in places as well but he swears it is in the master.

Is anyone else doing BB for international release?

Nope. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/companycredits :(

One thing about VC-1 is that the blocks are much smaller which can result in a smoother picture. I watched Batman Begins this past weekend and I still think the picture is very good most of the time, but there are a few rough patches. CJ agreed it was soft in places as well but he swears it is in the master.

I think we are persistently forcing ourselves into satisfaction.:( If the master was soft then Warner should have re-mastered it 'coz they had 18+ months to offer BB and V on Blu-ray.

I thought it was common knowledge by now that the soft, filtered look of so many Warner titles is caused by their "smoothied" masters, no?

I thought it was common knowledge by now that the soft, filtered look of so many Warner titles is caused by their "smoothied" masters, no?

I thought so too, but it seems that some like to blame VC-1 and low-bitrates.

Thread rolled back to remove bickering. Topic closed for now.