Highdefdigest (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Buena_Vista/BD-50/Disc_Announcements/Buena_Vista_Introduces_First_VC-1_Blu-ray_Title_with_Flightplan/398)

Due in stores today, Disney's latest wave of Blu-ray titles features the studio's first VC-1-encoded title, the Jodie Foster thriller 'Flightplan.'


Though Disney has not made any formal announcement of a codec switch for its upcoming Blu-ray titles, sources say the studio has already lined up its second VC-1 release, 'Casanova,' which is due for release in early 2007.

What exactly does this mean?

What exactly does this mean?

It means yet another studio is conceding Sony was wrong in pushing MPEG encoding down everyone's throat.

What exactly does this mean?
It means that Disney is shipping it's first VC-1 encoded title.

Very interesting indeed. I wouldn't be surprised to see them switch over completely by mid to late 2007. It's just more efficient than MPEG2. Would also allow more releases with VC-1 to have extras and fit on a BD-25 with no compromises. Just dont drop the PCM uncompressed soundtracks. I live for those on Blu-ray!!! :D

It means yet another studio is conceding Sony was wrong in pushing MPEG encoding down everyone's throat.

It's not so simple. It's not that Sony was pushing Mpeg2, it's because it was a far cheaper alternative to VC-1. Why do you think Paramount didn't use VC-1 for Blu-ray? MS's royalty fees to Blu-ray had to be a significant amount to the point where Paramount would have to charge more for the Blu-ray version.

It's not so simple. It's not that Sony was pushing Mpeg2, it's because it was a far cheaper alternative to VC-1. Why do you think Paramount didn't use VC-1 for Blu-ray? MS's royalty fees to Blu-ray had to be a significant amount to the point where Paramount would have to charge more for the Blu-ray version.

Cheaper, yes, but not better. If you're going to go "beyond high definition" you're gonna have to pay the big $$$.

It means yet another studio is conceding Sony was wrong in pushing MPEG encoding down everyone's throat.

And the P/Q rating is?.....yep... less than many MPEG-2 titles....according to this review score. ;)

And the P/Q rating is?.....yep... less than many MPEG-2 titles....according to this review score. ;)

That's an issue with Blu-ray technology, not the encoding itself.

Any studio is free to use any codec they choose with either format. All work and are supported.

Warners has been using VC-1 with Blu-ray since August. Disney has used both MPEG2 and AVC, and now they seem to be trying out VC-1 (perhaps even switching to it).

I am not sure that I see Sony in the role here of enforcing any particular codec on any of their supporting studios.

Personnally, I prefer VC-1 and would as soon that everyone used it right now, but I have seen good results with all 3, so it is not the most critical issue.

The biggest reason for using VC-1 is simply a marketing reason: VC-1 has acquired the "gold standard" status, so by using it, you eliminate a point of possible argument and contention.

It would improve the forum if every announcement by every vendor were not always interpreted as a negative about Sony.

That's an issue with Blu-ray technology, not the encoding itself.

Care to explain? Im looking forward to hearing this.

Flightplans limitations for image quality have more to do with the master than anything else.

Also, anyone here that thinks they know why Paramount is using MPEG2 for its BD releases and VC1 for its BD releases is reaching. Everyone has their GUESSES but they are mainly uninformed. Stick to ranting and raving at each other about how great your format is compared to the other guys and stop spreading misinformation on things you know nothing about.

Very glad to hear about this and I hope Fox and Sony follow suit. If everyone would use at least VC1 or AVC it would fix alot of bluray's image problems.

Anyone have a list of which currently available BD titles have been encoded using VC1?

If everyone would use at least VC1 or AVC it would fix alot of bluray's image problems.

Whats broken.

I have not been overwhelmed with the picture quality of my HD DVD titles Ive bought lately. Banding on all of the them and edge enhancement. Ive yet to come across a BD title with the EE Im seeing on HD DVD. I better knock on wood:)

That's an issue with Blu-ray technology, not the encoding itself.

Dumbest post of the year?

That's an issue with Blu-ray technology, not the encoding itself.

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement.

@WaldorfSalad: There is someone maintaining an *awesome* database of which BD titles use what, but I forget where exactly it is. It was linked to recently on this forum though.

Also this isn't Disney's first VC-1 title; I believe that some of their Japanese releases already use it, do they not? IMO VC-1, MPEG-2, AVC... as long as the end result is good, that's what matters.

Mpeg2 is broken because it's hindering BluRay. It is not "beyond high definition" in any way. Now a BD50 with avc or vc1 is what would deliver on BluRay's promises. If you're gonna tout it as "beyond high definition" then step up to the plate and prove it!

Dumbest post of the year?

Really, people need to stay in their respective forums.

Mpeg2 is broken because it's hindering BluRay. It is not "beyond high definition" in any way. Now a BD50 with avc or vc1 is what would deliver on BluRay's promises. If you're gonna tout it as "beyond high definition" then step up to the plate and prove it!

MPEG-2 isn't hindering Blu-ray, poor transfers have.

But there are *plenty* of BD titles out there using it that are "beyond high definition." I'm not saying that VC-1 or AVC on BD50 doesn't hold out greater promise - because it does - I just think a lot of the gains there will be in areas other than PQ using that extra space.

I agree on the transfer problem, Xbdestroya and releases are looking better and better. I just want consistency, sharp transfers and at a minimum the extras that were on the sd dvd. I believe these things are slowly but surely coming so things are moving in the right direction.

@WaldorfSalad: There is someone maintaining an *awesome* database of which BD titles use what, but I forget where exactly it is. It was linked to recently on this forum though.

Right under our noses...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=760714

This is supposed to be on a BD50. I hope someone will post the file size so that we can get an idea of the average bitrate. Maybe we can get a better idea on whether or not the VC1 PQ really is noticably better at higher bitrates than are being use on HD-DVD30. The PQ only got 4/5 at HighDefDigest on this one though.

Dumbest post of the year?

Yep it sure was, quite astounding.

Care to explain? Im looking forward to hearing this.There's a reason the ignore list was invented. :D

I hope someone will post the file size so that we can get an idea of the average bitrate. Maybe we can get a better idea on whether or not the VC1 PQ really is noticably better at higher bitrates than are being use on HD-DVD30. The PQ only got 4/5 at HighDefDigest on this one though.I don't know how much of an idea we will get without more information. Much like comparing "Full Metal Jacket" on HD DVD at something like 25Mbps average to one of their <13Mbps titles might make a person think that lower bitrates actually mean better quality.

--Darin

What exactly does this mean?
It means, if the rumors are correct, that Disney would soon release in both formats. :)

That's an issue with Blu-ray technology, not the encoding itself.

OK. You go right on believing that you know what you're talking about.

how is Sony 'Pushing' MPEG2 on other studios? Exactly how does Sony benefit/profit from what other studios do with their titles?

I'm pretty sure Sony doesn't get exclusive royalities from MPEG-2 usuage. From what I understand, MPEG2 is the cheapest codec (since its being used for DVD) whereas with VC-1 the studios will have ante up extra cash to MS for using their codec. Given the results of recent Mpeg2 releases and the capacity offered by BD50 I wouldn't want to give Gates any more of my money for a codec.

It means, if the rumors are correct, that Disney would soon release in both formats. :)I hope you meant that as a really big smile, since some of the propaganda around here tried to make people believe that using VC-1 meant going neutral (with their BS about encoding with VC-1 meaning that there would be an encode that would work on HD DVD). It might have worked on some people. When people look at the statistics for this VC-1 encode from Disney I bet they will find that there is no way in the world it would work on HD DVD. It was somewhat amazing how simple it was for some to mislead others just because of some little file format issue that is fixed up in no time.

--Darin

Stick to ranting and raving at each other about how great your format is compared to the other guys and stop spreading misinformation on things you know nothing about.

Sadly, this is the MO for the "new" AVS forum, ie members from the last few years. This crap rarely occurred on the forum 6 years ago. If only J6P had never discovered this forum.

Mpeg2 is broken because it's hindering BluRay. It is not "beyond high definition" in any way. Now a BD50 with avc or vc1 is what would deliver on BluRay's promises. If you're gonna tout it as "beyond high definition" then step up to the plate and prove it!

If AVC or VC1 has not fixed picture quality with HD DVD how could it fix any other format ?

I cannot say VC1 is better until I see superior transfers which sadly has not been the case. VC1 is more efficient but the end result so far as not shown that:(

If you are disappointed with BD then you shirley must be disappointed with the transfers on HD DVD. If you are telling me you cannot see the banding or EE that plague HD DVD transfers ( I own both formats ) then there is no sense continuing this conversation.

Funny that this is one of the few BD titles to port over all the extras (although there are few) from the SD DVD.

They keep this up and I just might get a player.

They don't, I don't.

I hope you meant that as a really big smile, since some of the propaganda around here tried to make people believe that using VC-1 meant going neutral (with their BS about encoding with VC-1 meaning that there would be an encode that would work on HD DVD). It might have worked on some people. When people look at the statistics for this VC-1 encode from Disney I bet they will find that there is no way in the world it would work on HD DVD. It was somewhat amazing how simple it was for some to mislead others just because of some little file format issue that is fixed up in no time.

--Darin


Maybe you can post some sizes and bit rates for us so that we can under stand you! :confused:

some of the propaganda around here tried to make people believe that using VC-1 meant going neutral

They might have a point if HD-DVD was VC-1 only. There's nothing to stop them from transfering a 25gb MPEG2 title to HD DVD. Why don't they argue that any studio releasing 25gb titles must be thinking of releasing HD DVD's?

Maybe you can post some sizes and bit rates for us so that we can under stand you! :confused:I don't have the disc, but to explain a little further, if Disney wanted Flightplan to also work on HD DVD they would have to artificially limit it. Like, instead of allowing the encoder to user the buffer size that Blu-ray has by entering that into the parameters for the encode, they would have to enter the smaller buffer size that HD DVD has. And they would have to make sure that the total bitrate didn't go over what HD DVD supports (about 30Mbps for everything combined including video and audio, but with the buffer allowing very short transitions above that). If they are using the Group-of-Pictures size that Blu-ray allows (I believe it is about 1 second) then they would also need to set the encoder to limit the GOP to about .6 seconds. And of course, even if all those parameters were met, they would have to make sure that the overall size was small enough to fit on an HD30.

From what I understand, when going from HD DVD to Blu-ray there is a lower limit for the number of B-frames that are allowed on Blu-ray and so an HD DVD encode won't necessarily work on Blu-ray (in cases where they use more B-frames). There it is a matter of making sure that the B-frame limit is the Blu-ray one.
They might have a point if HD-DVD was VC-1 only. There's nothing to stop them from transfering a 25gb MPEG2 title to HD DVD. Why don't they argue that any studio releasing 25gb titles must be thinking of releasing HD DVD's?They might if they thought they could get away with it. :) Even most of the MPEG2 encodes for 25GB releases would probably have to be reencoded for HD DVD because of the other limitations (buffer size, bitrate ceiling, and Group-of-Pictures size).

--Darin

If AVC or VC1 has not fixed picture quality with HD DVD how could it fix any other format ?

I cannot say VC1 is better until I see superior transfers which sadly has not been the case. VC1 is more efficient but the end result so far as not shown that:(

If you are disappointed with BD then you shirley must be disappointed with the transfers on HD DVD. If you are telling me you cannot see the banding or EE that plague HD DVD transfers ( I own both formats ) then there is no sense continuing this conversation.

Sorry you are having bad results with your recent HD-DVD transfer, Alan. I for one have not had any issues with banding or EE that I have notice. The last HD-DVD I purchased was Hulk and it looks great.

Sadly, this is the MO for the "new" AVS forum, ie members from the last few years. This crap rarely occurred on the forum 6 years ago. If only J6P had never discovered this forum.
Ummm, didn't you join in May? :confused:

If you are telling me you cannot see the banding or EE that plague HD DVD transfers ( I own both formats ) then there is no sense continuing this conversation.

No reason either of those, particularly EE, have to be a codec problem. In fact, EE is simply not a codec problem - it's a master/encoding problem. If you get line noise from a DCT codec, it's in the form of ringing. Banding is much more likely a compression issue, but keep in mind the colorspace we're using in general, 4:2:0 YV12, is rather crappy for that to begin with.

That said, there are ways to lessen banding without noticibly blurring details at all if the masters have the problem. Of course, studios very rarely do more than very basic filtering so that's a moot point I suppose.

Anyway, my point is that the the masters or the encoders are more at fault than the codecs in most cases, particularly in the cases of H.264 and VC-1. Will we see better results in the future? I sure hope so. I don't plan to own either format until things mature. DVD was pretty crappy at first, too...

Sorry you are having bad results with your recent HD-DVD transfer, Alan. I for one have not had any issues with banding or EE that I have notice. The last HD-DVD I purchased was Hulk and it looks great.

I did not watch the entire movie but I think you are correct that it does not have banding. Its nice to have one slide through once in a while. Tonight I watched Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire UK. No EE :) but banding :(

Heres a thread full of HD DVD owners complaining. Plenty of other threads people complaining about the transfers. You are probably better off not reading up on this stuff. If you are not aware of it you are better off:)
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=763286

You see thats my problem here. Whenever someone finds a fault in a H264 or VC1 encode everyone is quick to blame the source. Whenever someone finds a fault in a MPEG2 encode everyone blames the codec. Sorry but I don't buy it.

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

I'm tired of hearing how VC-1 is a cureall for all my video woes when it's not. It's a more space efficient codec (at the cost of processor power necessary), but that only matters if you're limited for space. I'm seeing non-MPEG2 encodes that aren't making me feel all that impressed on both formats.

We SERIOUSLY need to root out the amir/microsoft propaganda on this site and get back to some real discussions here.

Well said.

Well said.

Though a year too late, I'm afraid.

It means, if the rumors are correct, that Disney would soon release in both formats. :)

Nope, besides the points made by others here, HD-DVD would also need to get a 50GB disc like Flightplan is then.

You see thats my problem here. Whenever someone finds a fault in a H264 or VC1 encode everyone is quick to blame the source. Whenever someone finds a fault in a MPEG2 encode everyone blames the codec. Sorry but I don't buy it.

Best post of the year!

Funny that this is one of the few BD titles to port over all the extras (although there are few) from the SD DVD.

They keep this up and I just might get a player.

They don't, I don't.

I agree 100% with this. No matter which format prevails, I hope we don't have to go through several releases of a given title just to get the extras that were on its previous SD-DVD release. We went through that crap before when DVDs left off extras from the LD versions.

Total Recall is a BD title I want really bad, but knowing that a better transfer exists in Europe and that the Arnold commentary is missing has kept me from purchasing it. Lions Gate is the king studio of reissues. I'm sure they'll do Total Recall again eventually, as they have already done it 3 or 4 times on DVD as they did with titles like Basic Instinct, T2, the Rambo films, etc.
But until they do, I'll spend my money on other releases.

Care to explain? Im looking forward to hearing this.


Current players on the market (with the exception of the soon to be released Pioneer) are less sharp and reproduce less 3D than HD DVD players do. Therefore even VC-1 encoded releases will look SLIGHTLY worse on Blu-Ray.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying MPEG2 is better than the others. I'm just saying H264 and VC1 are not perfect either. Although if you went by what people post on this forum you would never think that. Especially in the case of VC1. We SERIOUSLY need to root out the amir/microsoft propaganda on this site and get back to some real discussions here.

...and you think that TalkSt8t (Bill) doesn't have the exact same agenda? What about all of his agenda/propaganda that he posts?

If you're going to complain, at least be impartial otherwise you just look silly.

So AVC > VC-1 > MPEG2? Also where's h264 fit in?

Sorry if it's a noob question but i'm just now getting the audio codecs sorted out heh.

So AVC > VC-1 > MPEG2? Also where's h264 fit in?

Sorry if it's a noob question but i'm just now getting the audio codecs sorted out heh.

AVC is h264 or MPEG-4 Layer 10. same thing.

Current players on the market (with the exception of the soon to be released Pioneer) are less sharp and reproduce less 3D than HD DVD players do. Therefore even VC-1 encoded releases will look SLIGHTLY worse on Blu-Ray.Last time I asked you if you were using RGB or YCbCr output from the PS3 and whether you were running it with 1080p output I don't recall you ever responding. If your credentials are what you have claimed then you should understand how different signal types can have different effects with different displays.

So, how was the PS3 being run when you tested it? And what was the display?

--Darin

Current players on the market (with the exception of the soon to be released Pioneer) are less sharp and reproduce less 3D than HD DVD players do. Therefore even VC-1 encoded releases will look SLIGHTLY worse on Blu-Ray.
That's not entirely true. After tediously comparing The Corpse Bride on the HD-A1 and Panasonic BD-10 (which should look identical), I found the film to look slightly sharper and more detailed on BD, but that also accentuated some of the noise in the image. Ultimately, I kept the Blu-ray version of the film (but either version was fine). When comparing Training Day (which as you know is VC-1 on HD and MPEG2 on BD) I found them to look indistinguishable from each other. HD's saving grace on that title is the TrueHD track not found on the Blu-ray, which is so much better and more dynamic than either the legacy DD on the BD or the DD+ of the HD that it made the choice to keep the HD very easy.

But I agree with others who say that MPEG2 is not the problem. But it's also not the solution. As I've said before, when you go to paint a room, you don't buy 2 gallons of paint if one will do the job. And if you DO buy both gallons, you'd be an idiot to keep painting the walls just to use up the paint. That's not very efficient and these new formats are all about efficiency.

But I agree with others who say that MPEG2 is not the problem. But it's also not the solution. As I've said before, when you go to paint a room, you don't buy 2 gallons of paint if one will do the job. And if you DO buy both gallons, you'd be an idiot to keep painting the walls just to use up the paint. That's not very efficient and these new formats are all about efficiency.

Ah yes, analogies. Problem is that one implies inconvenience on the part of the CONSUMER, where none actually exists.

Let's assume you can get a room painted for a certain nearly identical price. Painter A uses two cans while Painter B has paint that takes only one can.

Seems obvious which is better. But, what happens if many people agree the results are identical, that Painter A can paint 3x the number of rooms in the same time as Painter B, and that EVERYONE agrees the most important goal is to get as many rooms nicely painted in the shortest time as possible?

I know, you don't like the colours offered by Painter A. And everyone knows it costs much more to make the cans for the paint used by Painter A. And the paint company is subsidizing the house prices of a massively popular model being purchased by people that prefer wallpaper.

:D

Gary

And the P/Q rating is?.....yep... less than many MPEG-2 titles....according to this review score. ;)

In fact, the reviewer notes it's one of Disney's strongest releases this year video wise. I think the lack of a half Like Enemy of The State is owed to the drab colors used in the filming itself. No compression artifacts, etc. Please keep VC-1 Disney. Overall it appears to give the best and most consistent compression results.

That's not entirely true. After tediously comparing The Corpse Bride on the HD-A1 and Panasonic BD-10 (which should look identical), I found the film to look slightly sharper and more detailed on BD, but that also accentuated some of the noise in the image. Ultimately, I kept the Blu-ray version of the film (but either version was fine). When comparing Training Day (which as you know is VC-1 on HD and MPEG2 on BD) I found them to look indistinguishable from each other. HD's saving grace on that title is the TrueHD track not found on the Blu-ray, which is so much better and more dynamic than either the legacy DD on the BD or the DD+ of the HD that it made the choice to keep the HD very easy.

But I agree with others who say that MPEG2 is not the problem. But it's also not the solution. As I've said before, when you go to paint a room, you don't buy 2 gallons of paint if one will do the job. And if you DO buy both gallons, you'd be an idiot to keep painting the walls just to use up the paint. That's not very efficient and these new formats are all about efficiency.


I tested the Toshiba HD DVD and Panny players using VC-1 encodes using like calibrated 50 inch Pioneer 1080P panels(HDMI) and with the Pannys sharpness setting at default zero position the HD DVD images were very slightly sharper and had a hint of more depth. If I increased the Pannys Sharpness setting to 1 they were equal sharpness but the Panny then had an ever so slightly higher noise level. To rule out any differences with the panels I then switched players on the displays.

off-topic and inflammatory posts removed

Ah yes, analogies. Problem is that one implies inconvenience on the part of the CONSUMER, where none actually exists.

Let's assume you can get a room painted for a certain nearly identical price. Painter A uses two cans while Painter B has paint that takes only one can.

Seems obvious which is better. But, what happens if many people agree the results are identical, that Painter A can paint 3x the number of rooms in the same time as Painter B, and that EVERYONE agrees the most important goal is to get as many rooms nicely painted in the shortest time as possible?

I know, you don't like the colours offered by Painter A. And everyone knows it costs much more to make the cans for the paint used by Painter A. And the paint company is subsidizing the house prices of a massively popular model being purchased by people that prefer wallpaper.

:D

Gary
Yeah, except painter A has been generally pretty lazy about his paint job, splashing paint and all kinds of other sh!t all over the walls and floors. Occasionally he's done a nice room, and he's getting better, but most of his work seems haphazard and he's missed a lot of spots on the wall, despite having more paint. Painter B, to date, has been much more professional and that's why word of mouth for his business has been outstanding (despite the fact that some people don't care for his parent company).

The point I was making, (and it still stands) is that If you can make something look equally good at 20Mbps on VC-1 and 25Mbps using MPEG2, than at least with VC-1 (and MPEG4) you still have some room for improvement if you need it. I'm not an MPEG2 hater, I just see it for what it is... a less efficient way to get the job done. It's encoding for dummies. Get something enough bitrate and it'll look great without a whole lot of time or effort. But maybe if these guys were forced to take a little more time and effort with what they are working on, we wouldn't have a stack of poorly received discs to live with. It's the same reason I think Fox is the only ones doing the best job with their audio. Using DTS-HD MA is the best, most efficient way to release these discs. As much as I love the TrueHD tracks on HD-DVD, I am NOT a proponent of having multiple audio tracks of the same language on the same disc. Having English Dolby Digital Plus and a Dolby TrueHD tracks on the same disc is just a waste of space and bandwidth. With Fox's DTS titles and by having the core extracted from the master track, it's the best way to serve both legacy and next-gen. If these guys would have thought a bit harder, they could have mandated encoder support in player (similar to how plus and THD tracks are encoded to DTS on HD-DVD or how the 360 drive re-encodes to legacy DD). Then you could take a 48K 24bit PCM track and have the player do a high bitrate encode to Dolby or DTS before leaving the player's digital out. That would have ensured next gen audio for every title without the need for multiple, space hogging audio tracks.

But this is getting farther from the real issue, which I also agree isn't really the codec, but the ****** masters and sloppy attention to detail that some studios (which I won't name) seem to lavish on their releases. Although why, other than the use of MPEG2 or just plain evil, didn't Sony include any of the supplements on yesterday's release of All the King's Men? No featurettes, no deleted scenes, not even trailers promoting OTHER Sony releases. It's just not in Sony's nature to miss an opportunity to self promote. That tells me that they just didn't have the space. Does anyone feel that 25GB is necessary for a 128 minute film? But, at least the master on this one was good, so they got it right where it counts.

I never said there weren't other people with agendas here. But none are more visible than the Microsoft and hddvd folks. As evidenced by the fact that I can't even recall who TalkSt8t is or what company he works for off the top of my head. But the name sounds familiar. But I definitely know who amir is and who he works for because I see his posts everywhere or I see other people quoting him all the time and taking his words as gospel.
And I actually think it's dangerous that you can't remember (or never knew) someone's affiliation. I give Amir, Kevin, and a few other guys a lot of credit for being upfront about who they are. While you might not like, agree, or even believe what they have to say, at least they say it knowing that they are held personally and professionally responsible for what they have said in a PUBLIC forum. I suspect (and actually I don't suspect at all because I know for a fact) that there are Sony/Blu-ray operatives that post on these boards under non-specific, indistinct screen names with no disclosure about their ties or motives and no accountability for the things that they are posting. They rally around Blu-ray and are doing their best to convince everyone that they are just "regular Joes." Alliwantforxmasisapsp (http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/blog/index.php/2006/12/11/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-a-psp/) doesn't start and end with the PSP. I give credit to the MS guys and guys like Keith Jack for being upfront about who they are. Even someone like CJPlay, which I imagine isn't his real name, is very honest about what he does and who he does it for. Beware the guy who won't reveal his intentions, as his are usually the worst.

Funny that this is one of the few BD titles to port over all the extras (although there are few) from the SD DVD.

They keep this up and I just might get a player.

They don't, I don't.

Looks like I was wrong.

They left off over a gigs worth of extras.

Too bad. I guess even with VC-1, BD can't fit it. Or is it "won't?"

There is more than 20GB of empty space on the disc. The lack of extras had nothing to do with space.

20??? This was a dual-layer release?

And that's with a blu-ray exclusive HD short film on there as well, so space is definitely not an issue

Four out of Disney's last 5 titles, including The Prestige, were done in AVC MPEG-4. All of them turned out great, especially The Presitge ...receiving a PQ of 5 on HDD. I wonder why Disney decided to go with AVC instead of VC-1? I think you are seeing a trend here. If a studio wants a title to look as best as possible on Blu-ray, AVC is the answer.

Disney AVC titles:
Ladder 49
Reign of Fire
The Prestige
Chicago

Hmmm... they don't want to support Microsoft? Panasonic is doing the AVC encodes and they supposedly have the best encoder out there?

Dan

Yes, Panasonic indeed is doing Disney encodes. They have a custom built hardware accelerated AVC encoder built just for blu-ray authoring. Image quality is top rate. Sony also has access to an AVC encoder which encoded another great looking title Open Season. In the future their will be many more AVC encodes so the best is yet to come.

Chicago looks amazing.