Since Amir pointed out that "not all BD releases are DL while all HD DVD releases are", no matter how inaccurate that might be with respect to HD DVD, let's look at 2007's releases on Blu-ray disc and get some statistics. :)

The Covenant - BD25

Crank - BD50

Employee of the Month - BD25
GoodFellas - BD50
Gridiron Gang - BD50
Resident Evil: Apocalypse - BD25
Scooby-Doo - BD25

Alien vs. Predator - BD50
Black Rain - BD50
Casanova - BD50
Chicago - BD50
Courage Under Fire - BD25
The Guardian - BD50
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - BD50
The Manchurian Candidate - BD50
Men of Honor - BD25
Saw II - BD50
Saw III - BD25
We Were Soldiers - BD50

(Statistics courtesy of HighDefDigest (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/releasedates_historical.html))

So we have 19 releases in Jan 2007 so far.

Only 7 are BD25.

That makes over 60% of the Bluray releases DL.

It should also be noted that while the BD of Scooby Doo is a SL, the HD DVD needs to be a DL to contain the same content. All 9 HD DVDs released this month are indeed DL discs.

We are clearly (well, to me anyway) past the point where a disc is special if it is a DL Blu-ray disc.

[edit - corrected stats based on new information]

26 out of 155 title all together...

Indeed - there was a time when it was zero.

I don't think it will ever be 100%. Some titles don't need it.

After all, even SL BD is 25 GB, and we all know that you never need more than 30...

That said I would not be surprised if there are titles that get revisited with respect to encodes or extras to take advantage of BD50 or AVC since it was not available when the original release was made...

Yeah, 25 GB is more than sufficient for many titles, provided a more efficient codec is used.

[Sorry for repeating the obvious.]

All 9 HD DVDs released this month are indeed DL discs.Looks like it for mainstream studios. One porn title that I believe was released this month is SL.

--Darin

Heheh - I guess neither myself or the HDDigest are keeping up with the porn releases... :D

Why is Men of Honor at 128 minutes only 25gb? Is it Fox cheaping out? Limited capacity at the Sony factory? The much shorter Saw-Crank style stuff is 50.

26 out of 155 title all together...
That's about 17%, a far cry from 70%.
J

Descent is 50gb as well, but for some reason highdefdigest hasn't reveiwed it even though they've had it for weeks.

Descent is 50gb as well, but for some reason highdefdigest hasn't reveiwed it even though they've had it for weeks.
Maybe they couldn't get it to play.
J

That's about 17%, a far cry from 70%.
J

Wakey wakey Big J, Phloyd is refering to 2007 releases ;)

Wakey wakey Big J, Phloyd is refering to 2007 releases ;)

Yeah, we are talking about today.

Everybody knows that BD50 has only recently been turned on.

To be honest I am impressed with the ramp up - around August it was my expectation that there would only be a handful by the end of the year...

In any case, moving forward, it seems that 'they' are capable of making roughly 3/4 discs BD50...

Descent is 50gb as well, but for some reason highdefdigest hasn't reveiwed it even though they've had it for weeks.

There is no review for the Slevin HD DVD also which irks me....

Well Blu-ray sales still are at overall low levels and a limited production capacity could satisfy current demand. Its just curious that some titles that would benefit still are being released on BD25.

Its obvious that BD50 capacity is increasing, but there still may be an economic incentive to release on BD25.

I'm more curious to what allotments each of the studios have to these discs. How many BD50 titles are each of the studios allowed per year?

I believe Disney held out till they had some type of deal that would give them access to 50g discs for most of there releases. And while some stuidos are releasing a lot of 90 minute movies on bd50's others are putting 2-2.5hr length movies on bd25s.

If each of the studios has a limit per year are we just seeing a surge now for the beginning of the year?

I'm not sure what the ratio is currently but the last time I looked it up, 11 out of 14 bd50 titles for 2007 didnt even reach being 2 hours long meanwhile we have titles like Dances with Wolves which is 3 hours long going on bd25's.

It just doesnt seem to be as efficient as it could be...

I believe the intent is to move ALL future releases to BD50 as a deterrent against piracy. That would be my guess.

I believe the intent is to move ALL future releases to BD50 as a deterrent against piracy. That would be my guess.Because to burn them would cost 2x more than the movie was worth in the first place? Or because they would take up too much space on the HDD? Interesting...Might hold true for a couple of years...

^^^ Amir makes a big deal out of the storage cost differences when discussing MC.

One spin for that, and the opposite for piracy?

Gary

All deterrents only work for a fixed amount of time. But that adds a couple of years to the life of the movie format.

At least it discourages casual copying but that is only a matter of time.

Even though the DVD/R price makes even home based piracy businesses viable in some metropolitan centers, the real problem with DVD is the legitimate DVD pressing houses that have employees knowingly or otherwise clandestinely producing million unit runs of DVD9 disks and the whole very effective retail channel for these disks.

Warner doesn't seem to have any problems getting as many BD50s as they want. And its all just for an extra 5GB to port their HDDVDs. Extremely wasteful. That actually tells me that there is no shortage of BD50s at all.

Tells me they want to keep Warner happy.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse is actually a BD25 and HighDefDigest now lists Saw III as a BD25.

Tells me they want to keep Warner happy.


Yep. It seems Warner is actually bending Sony over on that deal. Sucking up lots of BD 50 media and cycle time (maybe for free?) because they aren't willing to rip a separate encode... and Sony has no choice but to take it.

It's kind of funny :)

Resident Evil: Apocalypse is actually a BD25 and HighDefDigest now lists Saw III as a BD25.

Timely post. I was just thinking how we all might want to wait until the movies from Sony's "Big List" actually hit the market before we bank on them all being BD 50.

Timely post. I was just thinking how we all might want to wait until the movies from Sony's "Big List" actually hit the market before we bank on them all being BD 50.

With Sony beginning to use AVC I would expect to see the percentage of BD50 decrease as this catches on - much as Scooby Doo is BD25 with the same encode as the HD30 HD DVD....

Are Sony still the only ones actually producing the 50GB media? I know that the initial batch of titles all had to be stamped/produced by Sony themselves which fueled some speculation that they were still taking a hit on those production costs with BD50.

There seem to be two replicators of BD50 now. Aparently Cinram, who manufacture Warners discs, also have a BD50 line. Not that this information will please some of the posters to this thread...

Here at High Def Digest:
Sony Commits to BD-50; Says No 'Da Vinci' Blu-ray 'Til 2008 (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Sony/BD-50/Sony_Commits_to_BD-50_Says_No_Da_Vinci_Blu-ray_Til_2008/547)


In remarks made to the trade newspaper Video Business, Sony worldwide president David Bishop promised that 80% of the studio's upcoming Blu-ray titles would be released on BD-50 discs.

Just another data point in the ongoing saga... :)

Here at High Def Digest:
Sony Commits to BD-50; Says No 'Da Vinci' Blu-ray 'Til 2008 (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Sony/BD-50/Sony_Commits_to_BD-50_Says_No_Da_Vinci_Blu-ray_Til_2008/547)

Just another data point in the ongoing saga... :)

I was wondering why "Catch & Release" was getting a BD-50, guess now I know...

~Alan

ATM I see 50 titles released and announced for release on BD50 discs out of 260 titles, there are many announced that havent stated what they are yet though.

50 out of 260 gives us about 19.23% of the titles are on BD 50's overall.

ATM I see 50 titles released and announced for release on BD50 discs out of 260 titles, there are many announced that havent stated what they are yet though.

50 out of 260 gives us about 19.23% of the titles are on BD 50's overall.

So that would but the average size of a blu-ray disk at slightly less then 30 GB :D

ATM I see 50 titles released and announced for release on BD50 discs out of 260 titles, there are many announced that havent stated what they are yet though.


Perhaps then ignore the ones that are not announced either way - counting then as not BD50s is meaningless since some of them will be.

Happy Feet (Warner)
Incubus: Alive at Red Rocks (Sony Music)
March of the Penguins (Warner)
National Geographic: Relentless Enemies (Warner)
The Pursuit of Happyness (Sony)
Warriors of Heaven and Earth (Sony)

Big Fish (Sony)
Chicken Little (Buena Vista)
Eragon (Fox)
Finding Neverland (Buena Vista)
Rocky Balboa (Sony)

Casino Royale (Sony)
The Holiday (2006) (Sony)
Hoosiers (MGM)
Layer Cake (Sony)

15 titles.

1 unknown.

3 BD25s
11 BD50s

78.5% BD50. Unknown will make it 73% or 80% depending on which way it goes.

Fox/MGM has 0% BD50.

Sony and BVHE have 100% BD50 (pending unknown title).

The only Warner BD25 is Happy Feet, which is well under 20GB on the HD DVD so there is no reason to go to BD50 for that title.

Warriors of Heaven and Earth (Sony) I looked at it yesterday and it is a BD50. Just for some info, it has 2 PCM tracks. One Chinese and one English. Both 16/48. And it is MPEG-2.

--Darin

The only Warner BD25 is Happy Feet, which is well under 20GB on the HD DVD so there is no reason to go to BD50 for that title.

Seriously? That really pisses me off. So they could've added a True HD track to it.

The only Warner BD25 is Happy Feet, which is well under 20GB on the HD DVD so there is no reason to go to BD50 for that title.

Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way but 30 out of like 41 releases for Warner are on BD25's

Perhaps then ignore the ones that are not announced either way - counting then as not BD50s is meaningless since some of them will be.

I agree. Right now I have a formula in excel giving me that percentage I have to change it around a bit to not count titles that I havent added the disc size specs to yet. So I do think the percentages will be raised a bit once corrected but I also dont think it will be any real large change, its not to many that are missing the specs. I'll let ya know when I update it if your interested

Seriously? That really pisses me off. So they could've added a True HD track to it.

I think its pretty clear by Warners other releases that its not a space issue to use DD instead of TrueHD but rather just a decision not to use it. Same as Universal chooses to not use TrueHD on most releases even though it would probably fit. Not saying we wouldnt prefer it the other way just that I dont think its really a space issue in most cases

April Numbers (according to HDD, HTF)

April 24, 2007

* Deja Vu (Buena Vista) BD50
* Failure to Launch (Paramount) BD25
* Night at the Museum (Fox) BD25
* Planet Earth: The Complete Series (BBC) BD25
* The Queen (Buena Vista) BD25
* Secret Window (Sony) BD25
* Ultimate Avengers Collection (Lionsgate) BD50

April 17, 2007

* The Dirty Dozen (Warner) BD50
* Enter the Dragon (Warner) BD50

April 10, 2007

* Dog Day Afternoon (Warner) BD25
* Payback: Straight Up - The Director's Cut (Paramount)
* A Scanner Darkly (Warner) BD50

April 09, 2007

* Dragon's Lair (Digital Leisure) BD25

April 03, 2007

* G.I. Jane (Buena Vista) BD25
* Identity (Sony) BD50
* King Arthur Director's Cut (Buena Vista) BD50
* Volver (Sony) BD50

BD25 8
BD50 8
???? 1
Total 17

So roughly 50/50 ratio this month...

Sony released 2:1 so 66.66% BD50 this month.

Disney released 2:1 also...

Fox was 100% BD25 again. I kinda wonder if some of the delayed Fox titles are due to them wanting to release some higher bitrate BD50 titles since Sony and Disney have been fairly strong on this approach where Fox has had mostly BD25s.

I guess only time will tell what Fox is up to...

BD25 8
BD50 8
???? 1
Total 17

So roughly 50/50 ratio this month...

Sony released 2:1 so 66.66% BD50 this month.

Disney released 2:1 also...

Fox was 100% BD25 again. I kinda wonder if some of the delayed Fox titles are due to them wanting to release some higher bitrate BD50 titles since Sony and Disney have been fairly strong on this approach where Fox has had mostly BD25s.

I guess only time will tell what Fox is up to...

Interesting stats Phloyd thanks. I agree I think some studios have higher priority to BD50s then others but I dont think this the case with FOX.

Looking at Fox releases to date I see 30 movies released in total only 2 of which are on BD50 (KOH & FlyBoys) Out of the remaining 28 releases only 5 reach being 2 hours in length and none go past being 128 minutes long. The average length of 28 movies on bd25 comes out to 108 minutes long.

Surely if they were holding out for this Sony would have given them what they wanted by now, 11 months into the launch and then have been pretty much a no-show for 7 of the 11 months.

Considering the higher MSRP that Fox charges per title you would think that they wouldnt be so stingy about BD50s and needing most of there movies to be under 2 hours in length

To be quite honest, I believe any discussion about the need and actual usage for the BD DL50 disc is irrelevant if we do not look at the amount of content that was actually recorded inside those discs.

In the context of this format war, it seems obvious to me that these discussions have always a subtext of "are they necessary?" as many of you have manifested some strangeness before titles who should need it but do not have a 50Gb disc and titles who shouldn't need a 50Gb disc and end up getting one anyway.

So, if there seem to be so many releases in DL50 (which make many BD supporters happy), I would love to know some things:
1) Do these titles get a DL50 disc JUST because they cannot fit in a SL25?
2) Could these titles fit on a HD DVD DL30 given the usual advanced codec treatment found in that format?
3) If these titles do go beyond HD DVD DL30, what content is film and what is extra? And plus: are these extras the usual kind of extra that goes to a second disc? (on the DVD version).

Personally, I feel this debate is never quite complete because we never know the above. And that information may be important to see any arbitrarinesses on the disc type choice.

Personally (again) I doubt the DL50 is really needed. And I think that because the amount of extras needed to fill a DL50 disc is not and will not be there in 99% of the titles to be released in the future.

But that's me.

So, if there seem to be so many releases in DL50 (which make many BD supporters happy), I would love to know some things:
1) Do these titles get a DL50 disc JUST because they cannot fit in a SL25?
2) Could these titles fit on a HD DVD DL30 given the usual advanced codec treatment found in that format?
3) If these titles do go beyond HD DVD DL30, what content is film and what is extra? And plus: are these extras the usual kind of extra that goes to a second disc? (on the DVD version).

Personally, I feel this debate is never quite complete because we never know the above. And that information may be important to see any arbitrarinesses on the disc type choice.

Personally (again) I doubt the DL50 is really needed. And I think that because the amount of extras needed to fill a DL50 disc is not and will not be there in 99% of the titles to be released in the future.


It would also be nice to know if the bitrate on both types of Blu-Ray discs exceeds HD-DVDs maximum. We know this is the case for a few titles.

"Good enough" is never a good argument in my opinion.

It would also be nice to know if the bitrate on both types of Blu-Ray discs exceeds HD-DVDs maximum. We know this is the case for a few titles.

"Good enough" is never a good argument in my opinion.

I agree. But while "good enough" may not be good argumentation, "do you notice any difference?" or "can you tell what bitrate is higher on these two versions?" can be.

Therefore, I'd love to see all that information.

Since Amir pointed out that "not all BD releases are DL while all HD DVD releases are", no matter how inaccurate that might be with respect to HD DVD, let's look at 2007's releases on Blu-ray disc and get some statistics. :)


I was going to say, if all HD-DVDs are dual layer...not all HD-DVDs have dual layers of HD. I believe most of the early combo titles has only one layer for HD-DVD.

I know that my initial disappointment in BD has been replaced as PQ has at least gained parity.

It would also be nice to know if the bitrate on both types of Blu-Ray discs exceeds HD-DVDs maximum. We know this is the case for a few titles.

"Good enough" is never a good argument in my opinion.

with lossy compression "good enough" is all there is.

IMO since TFE is one of the top sellers, consuemrs are saying it is good enough. IMO it is not good enough and i won't buy it.

if the only thing good enough for somebody is high bitrate bd50 then they are not going to have much to watch. there must be a "good enough" someplace in the middle that satisfies most people.

IMO vc1/DD+ is good enough for almost everything and would have been just fine on bd25.

i would rather see bd50 used for something else instead of theoretical pq/aq that almost nobody can actually see in practice. i see high bitrate mpeg2/lpcm encodes as just a waste of bits. actually IMO a really bad thing since the bits don't do anything useful and just make the files a lot bigger so that copying to an hd will not be very practical. to me not supporting mmc is NOT good enough.

where are alll the bd50 with seamless branching and tons of other extra features? IMO that would be useful. that is, something i could buy into.

IMO splitting hairs over teeny weeny differences in pq/aq that nobody can even prove the cause can be entertaining but is pretty meaningless if most people buy the lower bitrate disks anyway.

the world is going to move toward downloads.

the next best thing to download is mmc and that would allow hi. def. to integrate with other stuff that is downloaded.

IMO the MP3 generation isn't going to buy shiny disks that don't work with the internet. hi. def. as a feature will be beaten by download as a feature.

i love hi. def. but frankly even with my setup (120" projection) only a few people are interested in the pq/aq. most think dvd looks good enough in comparison.

if we want hi. def. to be more widespread, IMO we need to have other features that people want becasue pq/aq isn''t the only thing that sells disks.

Does it actually matter? As long as VC1 is used does it matter if a movie comes on a BD50 or a BD25?

Does it actually matter? As long as VC1 is used does it matter if a movie comes on a BD50 or a BD25?

Is VC-1 lossless at HD-DVD bitrates? If the answer is no then it does matter.

This VC-1 nonsense reminds me of Microsoft's ridiculous claim that 64kbps WMA is CD quality.

james bond out released yet? i thought they sold like hot cakes :p anyhow how many SL25 were replicated as compared to DL50? u can have Only 7 out of 19 are BD25 but its a pointless argument if of the 7 titles, 250 disks were replicated and out of the 12 DL50, only 100 disks were replicated ;)

Is VC-1 lossless at HD-DVD bitrates? If the answer is no then it does matter.

This VC-1 nonsense reminds me of Microsoft's ridiculous claim that 64kbps WMA is CD quality.

No, but luckily VC-1 is lossless at BD bit rates.

I think larger space is always welcome but if the extra space is not equating to be used to improve quality and/or add aditional content then its just being used to say it could be done.

At this point I think there are entirely to many BR movies released with slim to none extras but meanwhile everyone is praising all this extra space BR has. Fox has 30 releases 28 of which are on BD25 with little to no extra features on most of them yet they charge and MSRP of like $40

Is VC-1 lossless at HD-DVD bitrates? If the answer is no then it does matter.

This VC-1 nonsense reminds me of Microsoft's ridiculous claim that 64kbps WMA is CD quality.

No lossy compression coded is 'lossless' at any bitrate. I don't see the big deal between BD25 and BD50. Is a movie on a BD25 really going to make you Blu-Ray owners say "you know.... if only this was on a 50 GB disc then I'd buy, but since it is on a single layer disc it is worthless"... because that actually wouldn't surprise me

No lossy compression coded is 'lossless' at any bitrate.Actually, H.264/AVC can be lossless, but I don't know if the format is supported by Blu-ray Disc (or HD DVD), see the x264 command line help:

C:\>x264.exe --help
x264 core:55 svn-655
Syntax: x264 [options] -o outfile infile [widthxheight]

Infile can be raw YUV 4:2:0 (in which case resolution is required),
or YUV4MPEG 4:2:0 (*.y4m),
or AVI or Avisynth if compiled with AVIS support (yes).
Outfile type is selected by filename:
.264 -> Raw bytestream
.mkv -> Matroska
.mp4 -> MP4 if compiled with GPAC support (yes)

Options:

-h, --help List the more commonly used options
--longhelp List all options

Frame-type options:

-I, --keyint <integer> Maximum GOP size [250]
-b, --bframes <integer> Number of B-frames between I and P [0]
--b-pyramid Keep some B-frames as references
--no-cabac Disable CABAC
-r, --ref <integer> Number of reference frames [1]
-f, --deblock <alpha:beta> Loop filter AlphaC0 and Beta parameters [0:0]
--interlaced Enable pure-interlaced mode

Ratecontrol:

-q, --qp <integer> Set QP (0=lossless) [26]
It's that last option which might do the trick. Never used it before though, and I highly doubt it would actually play on BD/HD, but there it is.

No, but luckily VC-1 is lossless at BD bit rates.

Sorry, try again.

No, but luckily VC-1 is lossless at BD bit rates.

:confused:

Actually, H.264/AVC can be lossless, but I don't know if the format is supported by Blu-ray Disc (or HD DVD), see the x264 command line help:

C:\>x264.exe --help
x264 core:55 svn-655
Syntax: x264 [options] -o outfile infile [widthxheight]

Infile can be raw YUV 4:2:0 (in which case resolution is required),
or YUV4MPEG 4:2:0 (*.y4m),
or AVI or Avisynth if compiled with AVIS support (yes).
Outfile type is selected by filename:
.264 -> Raw bytestream
.mkv -> Matroska
.mp4 -> MP4 if compiled with GPAC support (yes)

Options:

-h, --help List the more commonly used options
--longhelp List all options

Frame-type options:

-I, --keyint <integer> Maximum GOP size [250]
-b, --bframes <integer> Number of B-frames between I and P [0]
--b-pyramid Keep some B-frames as references
--no-cabac Disable CABAC
-r, --ref <integer> Number of reference frames [1]
-f, --deblock <alpha:beta> Loop filter AlphaC0 and Beta parameters [0:0]
--interlaced Enable pure-interlaced mode

Ratecontrol:

-q, --qp <integer> Set QP (0=lossless) [26]
It's that last option which might do the trick. Never used it before though, and I highly doubt it would actually play on BD/HD, but there it is.


In all likelihood neither format could handle the peak bandwidth and still have room left over for all the other stuff.

It will benefit movies over 3 hours and TV series shot in HD.

Is VC-1 lossless at HD-DVD bitrates? If the answer is no then it does matter.

This VC-1 nonsense reminds me of Microsoft's ridiculous claim that 64kbps WMA is CD quality.

I don't think either format has anywhere near the storage capacity for a lossless encode of a movie.

Uncompress 1080p 24fps, 24bit color, is 1920*1080*24*24 = ~1200mbps. 120 minutes would be ~1TB of storage. The higher video lossless compression offered about 2:1. Let's assume for argument sake AVC offers something similar that would be around 600mbps and 500GB.

Lossless video is simply impossible at HD DVD & BD levels. Even lossless DVD quality would be about 90mbps & 82GB. When compared to the bitrate of uncompressed HD (1200mbps) anyone describing BD (48mbps) as a massive improvement over HD DVD (36mbps) is simply foolish.