Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the original hddvd of Troy had a 24.3gb disc size with a 262 minute run time, IME and True Hd. That leaves 5.7gb for the extras 29 minutes. That should be easily done. I am severly hoping they do not drop the IME from the hddvd because bluray can't support it. It is the best of the extras.

LOL, i don't think the movie is 4 hours and 22 mins :D
More like 162.
Lets do some basic math then

24.3 gb / 162 mins = 0.15 gb/min
0.15 gb/min * 29 mins = 4.35 gb

Now this is assuming it always stays at abr.
This is really pushing it.

By the way, why would they drop ime. They haven't for blood diamond or 300 did they ?

My mistake 162 minutes.

Kris,
Did you finish your new place yet ?
If so, give us the details.

Sure did, well almost. I have two curtains that are arriving today that will go on either side of the screen.

120" diagonal Studiotek 130 fixed 16x9 screen
BenQ W10000 1080p DLP
Anthem Statement D2
Anthem Statement A5&A2 amps
Onix Reference 3 Loudspeakers L, R, Surrounds and Rears
Paradigm Signature C5 center channel
Dual SVS PB12/2+ subwoofers
Behringher Feedback Destroyer Pro EQ
Toshiba XA2
PS3
Xbox 360 Elite
Exact Power EP-15A and SP-15x4 Power Management
PS Audio Ultimate Outlet for projector
Dedicated 20 amp circuits for projector, amps, and main equipment
Room has various room acoustic treatments for bass trapping and first reflections

Two rows of Berkline 088 seating with the second row on a wideband acoustic absorber platform that is decoupled from the floor (very similar to the one that Audioholics wrote about designed by Auralex).

Room is completely light controlled and pretty much all black except some of the treatments are a very dark gray and the carpet is charcoal.

Bass response is +/- 3db from about 15Hz through the crossover point. Not quite as tight as my last room, but still very impressive.

Absolutely LOVING the new room!!

Kris Deering,
Your setup is killer ! I have a similar vision when I sell my condo and buy a house someday :)

Forgot to mention:

DVDO VP50
Denon DVD-5910
Oppo DV-981,970,971,980
Classe CDP-300

I swap these in and out as necessary depending on what I want to do. The Denon is usually in for high rez audio and DVD playback though. The VP50 is used extensively for testing and evaluation and will later be integrated in permanently.

Wow, some people really don't know ANYTHING about the people they post about. Robert is VERY supportive of the Blu-ray format. He is a personal friend of mine and we've hung out down there in Florida several times.

You guys really need to stop assuming you know anything about the people you are making personal comments about.

My comments are about the POSTS he has made in the past here.
I didn't state I "know" your "friend."
And besides, no one here needs to "know" him or anyone else for that matter when commenting on posts.
You know that.

Take 5 and grab a beer. :)

Sure did, well almost. I have two curtains that are arriving today that will go on either side of the screen.

You mean like this :D .....................
http://www.accucal.org/

Sorry, but I find it hard to pass up the opportunity to give a plug for a good friend. ;)
(Especially when his son could be soon off to Iraq as a 1st Lt. ---if we’re still there en masse come next year)

I appreciate your support of Robert but, I think some of the frustration felt here may have been also the result of his recent comments on other Blu-ray software threads giving an overall perception of his *position*.

But, be that as it may, enough with that. I’m truly glad you got the room done ! :)
B.T.W. – I see you didn’t give any recognition to your wife for help with the room acoustics ? :confused:

Care to edit ?
You never know, she could be reading this. :eek:

Back on to the discussion of Troy DC.
Anyone care to comment on how low they think the Limbo Dude will go with this title, if WB doesn’t do a separate BD encode……………………

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja_wc77SYAM

You mean like this :D .....................
http://www.accucal.org/

Sorry, but I find it hard to pass up the opportunity to give a plug for a good friend. ;)
(Especially when his son could be soon off to Iraq as a 1st Lt. ---if we’re still there en masse come next year)

I appreciate your support of Robert but, I think some of the frustration felt here may have been also the result of his recent comments on other Blu-ray software threads giving an overall perception of his *position*.

But, be that as it may, enough with that. I’m truly glad you got the room done ! :)
B.T.W. – I see you didn’t give any recognition to your wife for help with the room acoustics ? :confused:

Care to edit ?
You never know, she could be reading this. :eek:

She actually didn't do much on the acoustic side. She is helping me install the panels but my friend Paul and I did all the measurements and adjustments. She helped A LOT though with paiting, installing and is doing all the hemming on the curtains. She is also putting some fabric touches on the acoustic panels. She is a sweetie and loves the room too.

I haven't seen all of Robert's posts, but again he has his opinion and is a big boy.

my friend Paul and I did all the measurements and adjustments.
Does he post on this or any other forum ?

He does on occasion. I think his handle is ptaaty something.

Sure did, well almost. I have two curtains that are arriving today that will go on either side of the screen.

120" diagonal Studiotek 130 fixed 16x9 screen
BenQ W10000 1080p DLP
Anthem Statement D2
Anthem Statement A5&A2 amps
Onix Reference 3 Loudspeakers L, R, Surrounds and Rears
Paradigm Signature C5 center channel
Dual SVS PB12/2+ subwoofers
Behringher Feedback Destroyer Pro EQ
Toshiba XA2
PS3
Xbox 360 Elite
Exact Power EP-15A and SP-15x4 Power Management
PS Audio Ultimate Outlet for projector
Dedicated 20 amp circuits for projector, amps, and main equipment
Room has various room acoustic treatments for bass trapping and first reflections

Two rows of Berkline 088 seating with the second row on a wideband acoustic absorber platform that is decoupled from the floor (very similar to the one that Audioholics wrote about designed by Auralex).

Room is completely light controlled and pretty much all black except some of the treatments are a very dark gray and the carpet is charcoal.

Bass response is +/- 3db from about 15Hz through the crossover point. Not quite as tight as my last room, but still very impressive.

Absolutely LOVING the new room!!

Wait, people use that in Home theater? I have one that I use for my Guitar Rig. :confused:

BenQ W10000 1080p DLP
Absolutely LOVING the new room!!OT.. Glad your new room is almost done. What happened to your Marantz DLP? Have you commented on the BenQ elsewhere?

Wait, people use that in Home theater? I have one that I use for my Guitar Rig. :confused:
Makes life much easier for EQing the dual subs. ;)
(and it’s inexpensive ! :D )

Wait, people use that in Home theater? I have one that I use for my Guitar Rig. :confused:Don’t worry, its (Behringher Feedback Destroyer Pro EQ) not prejudiced about the origination of the electrons entering the input spigots :).

OT.. Glad your new room is almost done. What happened to your Marantz DLP? Have you commented on the BenQ elsewhere?

Sold the Marantz. Great projector, but moving into a new house and building a new room from scratch takes it toll on the funds.

The BenQ is highly underrated for a 1080p DLP. It's quiet, great contrast, and can be dialed in far more than the Marantz and JVC that I had recently. No complaints here at all.

Makes life much easier for EQing the dual subs. ;)
(and it’s inexpensive ! :D )

Yes, yes it does. It is a bit daunting to use if you don't know what you're doing, but it does a superb job of helping with room issues that need tweaking. Couple that with the outstanding test tone generator in the Anthem D2, and you can have bass nirvana with a lot of patience and spare time. :p

Robert, am I correct in thinking that you are THE Robert George, otherwise known as "Obi"?

I have to say I am pretty shocked by your comments in this thread... I have been an avid follower of your reviews and thoughts on video since the laserdisc days, and have always held the greatest respect for your opinions. So when I see you posting comments that seem somewhat snippy and don't seem to have much provocation I really would like to know more about why you are saying these things...

AlexanderG seems to be saying quite a few things that make a lot of sense to me as a consumer, a home video fan, a FUTURE Blu-ray purchaser, and a person who is quite familiar with computers and data compression. I am no expert, but I have been following the topic for many many years. While some of his comments are perhaps worded in a way that could be considered too pasionate, the main points he is trying to make seem correct to me.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but here is my interpretation of some of his points that I have not seen addressed directly:

(1) He believes that if Warner were to utilize the full 50GB of space on a Blu-ray disc, rather than only utilizing 30GB, there is a good chance that they may be able to lesson the compression and produce a better picture and/or audio. This seems completely logical to me, and very probable. You seem to have the opposite opinion, but I have not seen in this thread a clear explanation of your opinion on this. Can you elaborate?

(2) He believes that the only reason that Warner is NOT utilizing this additional 20GB of space is because they also need to produce a 30GB encode for HD-DVD, and obviously a single encode is cheaper than two. He believes this is detrimental to the Blu-ray version, and he would like to see them utilize the full bandwidth available. Does this not seem reasonable for him to desire? (I understand that whether it is financially feasible for Warner to do two encodes is a different matter entirely and has an effect on the situation...)

(3) He is suggesting that King Kong is likely pushing HD-DVD's limits, and his primary evidence seems to be the film's length and that they did not include a lossless soundtrack. This again seems pretty reasonable to me, particularly when it was one of the early discs released. It seems to me that the logic falters a bit here, because codecs and compressionists get better over time (a new transfer of the same movie on DVD using much less space than the old DVD often looks much better due to progress in the technology). But it also seems like a perfectly reasonable fear that technology may not have advanced far enough yet to overcome whatever limitations may have been present at the time of King Kong's encode. In addition, point (1) still seems valid, that providing even more space should allow more headroom and be more forgiving, and not present any downsides to the consumer.

If you could enlighten me as to your counterpoints I'd love to hear them, because as I said I have learned over many years to respect your opinion and am curious as to why you seem to have been riled by his posts.

Thanks!

Thank you very much. I believe you're completely on point, and have been able to pick up exactly what I was trying to say.

I'm still trying to figure out how some people can pick up exactly what I'm saying, agree with its logic and reason, while a certain group of unnamed people can say that I am totally off base, pathetic, and that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Still waiting on those counterpoints, as well. :cool:

Let's make sure I clarify my position here. I think that Blu-ray because of its higher bitrate and larger capacity has a definite advantage over HD DVD in terms of being able to deliver the highest quality picture and sound.

The statement that is perpetuated here that has no basis other than belief is that Warner has been making compromises on Blu-ray for image quality by using the same encode as the HD DVD. Again, I have information from people that do this for a living saying that is not the case and that testing has been done where seperate encodes were made and compared and there was no benefit. If a studio doesn't see any difference in video presentation, they are not going to continue to do seperate encodes, the law of economics wins there. And making this accusation with no proof whatsoever is blatantly spreading misinformation based on speculation. BUT, based on what I said there is a case that on a title by title basis there could be cases where BD's higher bitrate could help with issues, but from what I've been told this hasn't been the case with any titles produced so far. A title I did point out that this came into effect with was the Nine Inch Nails disc.

What Warner (and Paramount for that matter) has been doing that is BAD is denying Blu-ray owners high quality lossless or uncompressed soundtracks (or in the case of Paramount higher bitrate soundtracks) on discs that should have them. ESPECIALLY if they've included a lossless track on the HD DVD counterpart.

Let's make sure I clarify my position here. I think that Blu-ray because of its higher bitrate and larger capacity has a definite advantage over HD DVD in terms of being able to deliver the highest quality picture and sound.

The statement that is perpetuated here that has no basis other than belief is that Warner has been making compromises on Blu-ray for image quality by using the same encode as the HD DVD. Again, I have information from people that do this for a living saying that is not the case and that testing has been done where seperate encodes were made and compared and there was no benefit. If a studio doesn't see any difference in video presentation, they are not going to continue to do seperate encodes, the law of economics wins there. And making this accusation with no proof whatsoever is blatantly spreading misinformation based on speculation. BUT, based on what I said there is a case that on a title by title basis there could be cases where BD's higher bitrate could help with issues, but from what I've been told this hasn't been the case with any titles produced so far. A title I did point out that this came into effect with was the Nine Inch Nails disc.

What Warner (and Paramount for that matter) has been doing that is BAD is denying Blu-ray owners high quality lossless or uncompressed soundtracks (or in the case of Paramount higher bitrate soundtracks) on discs that should have them. ESPECIALLY if they've included a lossless track on the HD DVD counterpart.

You've only cited one example, and the NIN concert is hardly long enough to even put that much of a strain on HD DVD, much less Blu Ray.

You have no information to suggest that a ~ 3 1/2 hour movie with a lossless track won't benefit from an increase of storage space, especially when it's no speculation, merely FACT that King Kong pushed the limits of a 30 GB disc with 30 minutes shorter runtime and no lossless track.

Once again, I reiterate, no one is saying that Troy: DC WILL turn out bad.

I'm also going to reiterate that no matter how much you disagree, that doesn't change the fact that everything discussed are still perfectly legitimate and valid concerns.

Let's make sure I clarify my position here. I think that Blu-ray because of its higher bitrate and larger capacity has a definite advantage over HD DVD in terms of being able to deliver the highest quality picture and sound.

The statement that is perpetuated here that has no basis other than belief is that Warner has been making compromises on Blu-ray for image quality by using the same encode as the HD DVD. Again, I have information from people that do this for a living saying that is not the case and that testing has been done where seperate encodes were made and compared and there was no benefit. If a studio doesn't see any difference in video presentation, they are not going to continue to do seperate encodes, the law of economics wins there. And making this accusation with no proof whatsoever is blatantly spreading misinformation based on speculation. BUT, based on what I said there is a case that on a title by title basis there could be cases where BD's higher bitrate could help with issues, but from what I've been told this hasn't been the case with any titles produced so far. A title I did point out that this came into effect with was the Nine Inch Nails disc.

What Warner (and Paramount for that matter) has been doing that is BAD is denying Blu-ray owners high quality lossless or uncompressed soundtracks (or in the case of Paramount higher bitrate soundtracks) on discs that should have them. ESPECIALLY if they've included a lossless track on the HD DVD counterpart.

Take a look at this mouse-over comparisons between the MIIII blu-ray and HD-DVD one..Look at all the comparisons and then go ahead and tell me they are both the same...

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/missionimpossible3_bd-vs-hd/02.html


Also take a look at these from Flags of our Fathers which are two seperate encodes, one AVC and one VC-1... Notice the artifacting that appears with the VC-1 encode in this scene...

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsofourfathers_bd-vs-hd/02.html

Take a look at this mouse-over comparisons between the MIIII blu-ray and HD-DVD one..Look at all the comparisons and then go ahead and tell me they are both the same...

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/missionimpossible3_bd-vs-hd/02.html

Yeah, you can clearly tell in those screenshots that VC-1 has eliminated alot of grain, which unfortunately is at the expense of some detail. Most noticably to me was the blurry explosion in the VC-1 encode.

Yeah, you can clearly tell in those screenshots that VC-1 has eliminated alot of grain, which unfortunately is at the expense of some detail. Most noticably to me was the blurry explosion in the VC-1 encode.


Also take a look at these from Flags of our Fathers which are two seperate encodes, one AVC and one VC-1... Notice the artifacting that appears with the VC-1 encode in this scene...

Flags of our Fathers - Blu-ray (AVC/32.90GB) vs. HD DVD (VC-1/20.80GB) comparison

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsofourfathers_bd-vs-hd/02.html

You can clearly see that a higher bitrate AVC encode vs a VC-1 from the same master will have less artifacting from compression when compared side by side.

^ I dont see compression artifacts in this example....the VC-1 does look slightly softer, but thats been known and many complain about it.

Where in the picture do you see them?

Maybe there is somthing wrong with what I am doing, but when I move the mouse and the title changes from HDDVD to BluRay the picture looks the same. It did this for me in both examples.

Maybe there is somthing wrong with what I am doing, but when I move the mouse and the title changes from HDDVD to BluRay the picture looks the same. It did this for me in both examples.

If you look hard, you can see the VC-1 is slightly softer....I dont know if its the tool or encoder who does this, but its done some times to slightly reduce the film grain.

IMO - The difference in Flags shows how VC-1 can produce an excellent picture while being smaller.

You are comparing seperate encodes made with completely different video compression codecs. Warner isn't doing that, they are using one compression codec. Now if the case was that Warner all of a sudden decided to support a different codec and have a completely different encoding house do the seperate encodes (which is the case with the Paramount examples above) then you are on to something. But in the case of the VC-1 encodes that you are griping about, this is not the case.

You also have to take into acount that Warner and Paramount are having their VC-1 encodes done by different companies than each other. This would also play a part as the quality of work being done may affect the end result. Too many variables at work here to help prove your point in regards to Warner dumbing down their Blu-ray releases.

Too many variables at work here to help prove your point in regards to Warner dumbing down their Blu-ray releases.

Exactly, CJ even said the experience of the encoder/compressionist can come into play. There are many many factors other than just the bitrate.

So, maybe you should find out the best encoder and start asking for Bluray to encode only using this person? ;)

As for the detail and film grain, one could easily argue that the MI:III could be the MPEG-2 encode boosting up sharpness. This would lead to slightly harder lines which could easily be mistaken for true detail and more noise which would make the VC-1 encode look like it had less film grain. I am not saying that is the case, only that with no proof one way or another other than a picture is different, there is as much evidence for my guess as there is for yours. This is the beauty of this game, unless you have the master to directly compare to, all you have are assumptions on which one is more accurate.

If you look hard, you can see the VC-1 is slightly softer....I dont know if its the tool or encoder who does this, but its done some times to slightly reduce the film grain.

IMO - The difference in Flags shows how VC-1 can produce an excellent picture while being smaller.

The difference in Flags is that Flags is a compressionist's perfect dream.

Flags comes from a flawless, grainless digital source. I wouldn't expect a title like that to benefit much from a high bitrate encode, because due to the pristine, flawless, digital nature of the source, it doesn't require that high of a bitrate in the first place, and I in fact don't think it benefits from the extra bits much at all.

It's a direct and complete contrast to the grainy, Super35 film-based Troy.

Flags of our Fathers VC-1 consumes 20 GB of space at 132 minutes - And is an enitrely digitally produced motion picture with no lossless track.

As I've said many times before, Troy: DC is clearly fighting an uphill battle, given that it is over an hour longer than Flags, contains a lossless track, contains bonus features, and was shot using a notoriously grainy filming method, and therefore is inherently more complex to encode.

Based on Flags' data specs, one can compute some numbers to find it would max out a 30 GB disc if it was the same length as Troy DC - leaving no space for extras or a lossless audio track. Once again, that's not even factoring in that Troy inherently has a more complex visual structure to it and WILL require a higher bitrate to maintain equal visual fidelty. That's not speculation. A digital source WILL require a lower average bitrate than a film based source every single time, due to the limitations of celluloid film structure itself, and also consume less space.

Clearly, something has to give.

Flags comes from a flawless, grainless digital source.

Where is your proof on this? I do not believe Flags was completely digital. As with many recent movies, I thought that they utilized both film and digital cameras.

EDIT - From IMDB....

Camera -
Arriflex 235 (hand-held/steadicam shots)
Arriflex 435 (high-speed shots)
Panavision Platinum, C Series Lenses
Sony HVR-Z1U

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418689/technical

^ I dont see compression artifacts in this example....the VC-1 does look slightly softer, but thats been known and many complain about it.

Where in the picture do you see them?


http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsofourfathers_bd-vs-hd/02.html

On this example, go to the bottom left hand corner of the football field... You can clearly see blocks created out of shadows that are seamless on the AVC encode. This is apparent with many scenes of the film since I have both versions at home. If this was a sky shot you would call it banding in a way, however in this case there is no banding in the AVC encode and lots of it in the VC-1 encode with this shot and others. I agree that there are many factors involved with producing quality out of encodes however having a higher bitrate and a lot more room to work with does hellp quite a lot.. I am of the opinion that VC-1 given more room to breath in and pumped up to a higher bitrate could achieve better results than AVC at the same bitrate level. However the AVC encoding team would have more practice/experience at the higher bitrate level so the match can still be won by AVC in a head to head. HD-DVD VC-1 encoders claim they can't achieve anything better than what they already are achieving at the capped bitrate and 30GB discs so AVC could very well have the advantage at higher bitrates in either case..

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsofourfathers_bd-vs-hd/02.html

On this example, go to the bottom left hand corner of the football field... You can clearly see blocks created out of shadows that are seamless on the AVC encode. This is apparent with many scenes of the film since I have both versions at home. If this was a sky shot you would call it banding in a way, however in this case there is no banding in the AVC encode and lots of it in the VC-1 encode with this shot and others. I agree that there are many factors involved with producing quality out of encodes however having a higher bitrate and a lot more room to work with does hellp quite a lot.. I am of the opinion that VC-1 given more room to breath in and pumped up to a higher bitrate could achieve better results than AVC at the same bitrate level. However the AVC encoding team would have more practice/experience at the higher bitrate level so the match can still be won by AVC in a head to head. HD-DVD VC-1 encoders claim they can't achieve anything better than what they already are achieving at the capped bitrate and 30GB discs so AVC could very well have the advantage at higher bitrates in either case..

I still do not see this blocking. Not saying it isnt there, but I dont see it.

Even if its there, it is possible that it could be eliminated by other means in the encoding tools versus just upping the bitrate. I just do not know. CJ has said they can do all kind of tweaks in the various tools. Thats where the experience and keen eye come into play.

What are these images captured from? Are they lifted right off the disc by a PC or are they being captured from the output of the player? If it is the latter that would also skew the result.

Even if its there, it is possible that it could be eliminated by other means in the encoding tools versus just upping the bitrate. I just do not know. CJ has said they can do all kind of tweaks in the various tools. Thats where the experience and keen eye come into play.
But isn't that the concern we have here? That we have to rely on somebody to provide the optimal PQ with all this tweaking, when BD has the capacity to increase bitrate to eliminate problems before they occur.

I don't know much about the encoding process, but it seems risk factors increase as bitrates drop. The first risk is that they can actually catch all the problem scenes. Good as they are, isn't it likely that mistakes can still happen and some slip through? The second risk is that after identifying the scene, can they apply the tweaks to properly fix up the problem without raising other issues.

I can understand what the OP is saying. Let's not introduce the human error element unneccessarily into the equation - max out BD's top end bitrate and just focus on the problematic scenes that occur after that. As A/V enthusiasts, we should advocate the best possible solution, not the one that fits the lowest common denominator. If a small studio like R&B Films can afford to put out two separate encodes, Warner can certainly do it for a blockbuster like Troy.

But isn't that the concern we have here? That we have to rely on somebody to provide the optimal PQ with all this tweaking, when BD has the capacity to increase bitrate to eliminate problems before they occur.

Well lets look at that. Let's say studio A wants to encode their movies for Blu-ray and they decide to do their first pass at 35MBps for video to eliminate the need to have it hand tuned or looked at by the human eye. Should be plenty of room shouldn't it? But the problem here is most of the movie needed less than 20 and even down into the 8-10 range. But instead we used 35 the whole time. Studio A also wants some trailers, commentary, behind the scenes stuff, blah blah blah but unfortunately the movie now takes up almost all of the available space (which was unnecessarily taken up) so they have to spend the extra money to use another disc.

Again, most people here have A. No idea how movies are encoded, B. No idea all the OTHER considerations that are made, C. No idea how the economics and other dealings are playing into the politics as to why titles are done they way they are. In a perfect world every title would have an audio track that is an EXACT duplicate of the master and a video encode that left nothing to spare using every bit available for it, but in a perfect world there would be no war, no poverty, plenty of food for everyone and everything else that just isn't going to happen as long as there are people on this earth. Until you guys figure that out, you are never going to be happy and this constant speculation and unfounded bickering will continue.

Well lets look at that. Let's say studio A wants to encode their movies for Blu-ray and they decide to do their first pass at 35MBps for video to eliminate the need to have it hand tuned or looked at by the human eye. Should be plenty of room shouldn't it? But the problem here is most of the movie needed less than 20 and even down into the 8-10 range. But instead we used 35 the whole time. Studio A also wants some trailers, commentary, behind the scenes stuff, blah blah blah but unfortunately the movie now takes up almost all of the available space (which was unnecessarily taken up) so they have to spend the extra money to use another disc.

Again, most people here have A. No idea how movies are encoded, B. No idea all the OTHER considerations that are made, C. No idea how the economics and other dealings are playing into the politics as to why titles are done they way they are. In a perfect world every title would have an audio track that is an EXACT duplicate of the master and a video encode that left nothing to spare using every bit available for it, but in a perfect world there would be no war, no poverty, plenty of food for everyone and everything else that just isn't going to happen as long as there are people on this earth. Until you guys figure that out, you are never going to be happy and this constant speculation and unfounded bickering will continue.
But wouldn't all that have already been taking into consideration? I know studios love throwing in extras (which I do enjoy most of the time), but wouldn't the process be worked backwards? ie start with 50Gb and allocate space for audio, trailers, behind-the-scenes clips, games, etc. and then use the remaining space for the video encode? Why is there a need to artificially set a cap bitrate? I doubt there's cost savings when doing a movie with 15Mbps vs 30Mbps, if the capacity is there for it. Whatever space is left, just let it run at the highest bitrate and not worry about it. Actually, wouldn't the 30Mbps (if it fits) be easier/cheaper if professional man-hours are not spent tweaking it?

I'm sure somewhere in the Nature's Journey thread that's what Richard Casey did. He budgeted his disc capacity to meet their needs. Fortunately, their priority was to max video quality, but other studios can surely use the same budget process to fit the extra material and then max out the remaining space for the video.

As for your A, B and C - well, that's why a lot of us are members of AVS. It's our hobby and this is probably one of the best places to learn stuff about it. What I really want to know is what you mentioned about politics - what do you know that's involved and not telling us?!?

By that ration you are saying studios should priortize supplements over video then. The ideal situation is the studios should optimize video and audio and whatever space is left over should be used to provide the supplements. If there isn't enough room, move it to another disc. But the only way to do that is to find your best efficiency and start from there and then hand tune during the second pass as needed. Yes, Blu-ray should be able to have more flexibility in where they start for their efficiency since they have more bits to work with, but at the end of the day they still have to figure out if even with that overhead you actually gain anything in the process (time consumption, hand tuing needs).

Let's say you can afford to do first pass at 20Mbps with BD as opposed to 12Mbps with HD DVD you still may end up doing as much fine tuning in the second pass regardless. This is what I mean when I say that theory is one thing, but at the end of the day that is all it is and no one in this discussion has the experience to say otherwise.

The thread's central arguement is Warner has been crippling their video encodes for Blu-ray because they aren't doing seperate encodes, but no one has proof of that and all the information I've been given from people that are involved in the processes has been otherwise, and it hasn't been from people who care one way or another or have an agenda.

Let's say you can afford to do first pass at 20Mbps with BD as opposed to 12Mbps with HD DVD you still may end up doing as much fine tuning in the second pass regardless.

That is complete rubbish. If you do a Blu-Ray CBR 30Mbps encode, you never have to look at it again, as a HD-DVD encode will NEVER reach 30 in the first place, so there is 0 reason to tweak it. 1 pass, 30Mbps CBR, done deal. You add in lossless audio Track(s), directors commentary + more and STILL have bandwidth left over. That is what we as the consumer should want, not hand tweaked, 2 week per movie encodes.

Flags comes from a flawless, grainless digital source.
Flags was shot on film (and a little bit DV) and had a DI. That's all. Just like Troy.

That is complete rubbish. If you do a Blu-Ray CBR 30Mbps encode, you never have to look at it again, as a HD-DVD encode will NEVER reach 30 in the first place, so there is 0 reason to tweak it. 1 pass, 30Mbps CBR, done deal. You add in lossless audio Track(s), directors commentary + more and STILL have bandwidth left over. That is what we as the consumer should want, not hand tweaked, 2 week per movie encodes.

Wow just wow....

That is complete rubbish. If you do a Blu-Ray CBR 30Mbps encode, you never have to look at it again, as a HD-DVD encode will NEVER reach 30 in the first place, so there is 0 reason to tweak it. 1 pass, 30Mbps CBR, done deal. You add in lossless audio Track(s), directors commentary + more and STILL have bandwidth left over. That is what we as the consumer should want, not hand tweaked, 2 week per movie encodes.

Don't you think if it was really that simple the studios would already be doing this? Don't you guys actually think about what you post before you post it. But then again, you guys probably know a lot more about this stuff than the studios, encoders and QA people that do them. I forgot.

Kris, you are just wasting your time with these guys. Maybe the mods should put this thread to sleep.

That is complete rubbish. If you do a Blu-Ray CBR 30Mbps encode, you never have to look at it again, as a HD-DVD encode will NEVER reach 30 in the first place, so there is 0 reason to tweak it. 1 pass, 30Mbps CBR, done deal. You add in lossless audio Track(s), directors commentary + more and STILL have bandwidth left over. That is what we as the consumer should want, not hand tweaked, 2 week per movie encodes.
So... now you're going to "school" Kris Deering, huh?

As Christopher Moltisanti would say, "Where do you get your balls?"

As Christopher Moltisanti would say, "Where do you get your balls?"

At the brain store.

At the brain store.
:D

Maybe the mods should put this thread to sleep.
Are you kidding!?!
This is one of the best threads EVER.
I'm serious, this is entertainment at it's very finest.

It seems to me that single frame screenshots are pretty much worthless for comparing compression differences, at least those like the ones shown on the MI3 and FOOF pages (in other words, pretty subtle). There are just too many variables... you could probably comb through the Blu-ray and find a frame that was badly compressed that looked fine on the HD-DVD.

Sure, it could be argued that random sampling at several frames on the disc (the more the better) would give you a statistically relevant idea of the merits of each compression scheme. But the fact still remains that the human element of tweaking will cause the results to not be definitive.

It really seems like the argument should be theoretical, rather than something that can be substantiated with direct evidence like this.

That said, I still agree with the point that the risks of compression issues are far less at 50GB than at 30GB. Ideally, I would really like to see them throw the 50GB at it and then ALSO hand tweak the image. And it still seems to me that the only reason that doesn't happen is that doing it at 30GB allows the same encode to be used for HD-DVD.

In my mind, that is the thing that makes someone who has only Blu-ray somewhat agitated... and I think that's legitimate. But it's just an unfortunate side-effect of the war.

I would have to give Warner props for trying to please both sides, and being for the most part successful (though I dread double sided discs and will not purchase them period).

But I also agree with AlexanderG's notion that for longer, challenging titles in particular, a separate encode for Blu-ray seems ideal.

Are you kidding!?!
This is one of the best threads EVER.
I'm serious, this is entertainment at it's very finest.

Ok, I'll defer to you guys, keep it open. It has been a howler. Hows Vegas Steeb ? A little warm? :D

Well lets look at that. Let's say studio A wants to encode their movies for Blu-ray and they decide to do their first pass at 35MBps for video to eliminate the need to have it hand tuned or looked at by the human eye. Should be plenty of room shouldn't it? But the problem here is most of the movie needed less than 20 and even down into the 8-10 range.

I thought a lot of your points were germane Kris, but for someone who was taking others to task for lack of proof in regards to bitrate and picture quality, you seem to be doing the exact same thing here: Where is your evidence that most movies "need" under 20 and even into the 8-10mbps range? Or did you just drink the VC-1 koolaid and decide that was good enough? Do you have access to the originals (e.g. Lady in the Water or Blood Diamond) that we don't, or is your recall of the film presentation superior to that of others who recall it looking better than low bitrate VC-1 encodes?

You are, of course, right that studios have other economic pressures, and you are also right that somewhere along the line there will be a point of diminishing returns when it comes to bitrate and PQ. That said, in general a higher bitrate encode means less compression, and so should be closer to the orginal. Right here on AVS there are a couple of threads that seem to show that higher bitrate AVC Paramount BDs look better than lower bitrate VC-1 encodes of the same movie, should we not trust our lying eyes? And regardless of the economics, why shouldn't Blu-ray users feel slighted if Warner is not utilizing the extra space to give us higher image fidelity?

I know you feel that some of these others have "no idea" how movies are encoded (and in some cases that appears true), but assuming you do not have special access to the originals or photo-perfect memory, what evidence do you have to support your numbers? How many movies have you encoded?

People who live in glass houses...

What are these images captured from? Are they lifted right off the disc by a PC or are they being captured from the output of the player? If it is the latter that would also skew the result.


Xylon does captures from HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players in his PC..

I am someone who wants to see the best possible quality out of any encode. I do not like seeing or buying a movie encoded to HD-DVD standards and then placed on Blu-Ray unchanged and leaving tons of empty space on the disc. It is as simple as that so I along with others feel the need to ask Warner not to make the same mistake and utilize Blu-Ray's higher bitrate and space so that this long movie can look its best without compromise...

I thought a lot of your points were germane Kris, but for someone who was taking others to task for lack of proof in regards to bitrate and picture quality, you seem to be doing the exact same thing here: Where is your evidence that most movies "need" under 20 and even into the 8-10mbps range? Or did you just drink the VC-1 koolaid and decide that was good enough? Do you have access to the originals (e.g. Lady in the Water or Blood Diamond) that we don't, or is your recall of the film presentation superior to that of others who recall it looking better than low bitrate VC-1 encodes?

You are, of course, right that studios have other economic pressures, and you are also right that somewhere along the line there will be a point of diminishing returns when it comes to bitrate and PQ. That said, in general a higher bitrate encode means less compression, and so should be closer to the orginal. Right here on AVS there are a couple of threads that seem to show that higher bitrate AVC Paramount BDs look better than lower bitrate VC-1 encodes of the same movie, should we not trust our lying eyes? And regardless of the economics, why shouldn't Blu-ray users feel slighted if Warner is not utilizing the extra space to give us higher image fidelity?

I know you feel that some of these others have "no idea" how movies are encoded (and in some cases that appears true), but assuming you do not have special access to the originals or photo-perfect memory, what evidence do you have to support your numbers? How many movies have you encoded?

People who live in glass houses...

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsofourfathers_bd-vs-hd/02.html

You make some great points. I want you to tell me what difference you see with this comparison above please since only one other person has so far to comment on these movie's screenshots from both AVC and VC-1.

I want you to tell me what difference you see with this comparison above please since only one other person has so far to comment on these movie's screenshots from both AVC and VC-1.

Awesome site! I will give this the proper amount of time later this evening and respond comparison by comparison, although first glance at one (comparison two) suggests taht the HD DVD version is warmer in color balance, and seems to smooth out the grain ever so slightly (particularly noticeable in gradients, e.g. the grass underneath the flag that goes from shadow to lighter and back into shadow.

But isn't that the concern we have here? That we have to rely on somebody to provide the optimal PQ with all this tweaking, when BD has the capacity to increase bitrate to eliminate problems before they occur.

Yup.
See last two paragraphs (I think :o) of this..................
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=131531#post131531

You all are not asking the right question :). The real question is: What would Warner’s encodes be like if their was no HD DVD?

I know what slot my money would be on :D.

You all are not asking the right question :). The real question is: What would Warner’s encodes be like if their was no HD DVD?

I know what slot my money would be on :D.


That's an interesting question. However I still believe Warner's encoding team needs to go over the Buena Vista and take some lessons on the proper way to perform an encode before we start seeing the level of quality I'm already viewing on Disney Blu-Ray...

That's an interesting question. However I still believe Warner's encoding team needs to go over the Buena Vista and take some lessons on the proper way to perform an encode before we start seeing the level of quality I'm already viewing on Disney Blu-Ray...Without HD DVD to contend with I believe Warner would be doing AVC/MPEG-2 at data rates comparable to that of Sony or Disney.

It would be nice if the Studios launch a SUPERBIT version of the BD/HD DVD that would satisfy the VIDEOPHILES. No special features. Only the movie with uncompressed track or true HD.

It would be nice if the Studios launch a SUPERBIT version of the BD/HD DVD that would satisfy the VIDEOPHILES. No special features. Only the movie with uncompressed track or true HD.


There is no need for this since already there is plenty of space left over on a 50GB disc for extra's after a proper encode even when PCM Lossless audio is used on a Blu-Ray. For King Kong (using this as an example since it is a long movie) on HD-DVD, they could have used an extra 20GB for the True-HD audio track and have enough room for plenty of extra's in HD that were lacking. Furthermore I am very happy with both POTC films and Apocalypto picture and audio quality as it is so there is no need for a superbit of any title if it is done right the first time...

Ok, responding to Superman's question about this site: http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsof...d-vs-hd/02.html, which I encourage all of you to go check out.

First of all, every HD DVD clip appears to be color timed to be warmer than the equivalent Blu-ray. In this case the BD looks more natural to me, but of course I could not tell you what Clint Eastwoods intent was...only he could. In every case it appears that VC-1 is smoothing out grain detail (and is otherwise nothing more than personal opinion...and opinion that could be shifted by TV callibration at that). The smoothing would obviously improve the compression ratio; if I were a betting man I would guess that this is the result of the "frame specific grain optimization" that is much touted by the codecs developers. Whether it's a good thing I suppose depends on personal preference and how much of a slave you want a format to be to the original, although in this case there is frequently an effect on level of detail...on to the specifics!

Comparison 1) In this case, however, there is also a loss of detail in some areas. The most easily noticeabble is in the pin-striping of the seeated gentleman's right sleeve, specifically across the first fold up from his wrist. The HD DVD version loses many of the stripes, especially the horizontally oriented ones. Most of the rest of the image could come down to a viewers preference regardig original film grain.

Comp 2) Both versions show some (albeit different) subtle banding (e.g. in the smoke and stadium crowd on the right side of the frame). There is clearly a loss of shadow detail in the stadium crowds on the left and in the back on the HD DVD version, although I doubt it would make a huge difference in actual viewing.

Comp 3) the main difference (outside of the color and grain differences) in this one is the detail on the coastal hillside, where the BD clearly has more small detail of the rock faces.

4) The usual film grain differences; in this case it's hard to tell if the fine grained sediment detail is being smoothed, or if it's just film grain superimposed on the terrain. This probably highlights how small the differences would be to most viewers.

5) The least difference in apparent detail of the bunch; it looks like some high frequency noise has been filtered out of the HD DVD version in the darker portion of the blast behind and to the right of the soldier. On the other hand, from a purely aesthetic point of view, the smoothing of the grain makes certain portions of the HD DVD version look more natural to me, such as the dark shadows directly behind the truck to the left of the soldier. I'm less confident it's "how the scene was shot", but it looks good.

6) The large amount of sky does not seem to show the same shance in color balane that the other shots do, so this comparison shows the least amount of color change between the two. While the soldiers show the same degree of grain-smoothing in the HD DVD version that other frames show, the only place it seems to result in a loss of detail is in the foreground rocks int he far lower right corner of the frame. I'm sure the differences in this scene would be utterly unoticeable under normal watching conditions.

Last) There is also a 200% blowup of comp 2, showing the upper part of the stadium and a detail of some clouds/smoke. mostly this confirms the film grain smoothing of the HD DVD version. In some places it looks as good or better than the BD version 9depending on how you feel about film grain) although in some parts of the sky there is some subtle banding introduced into the HD DVD version.

Conclusion: I doubt most of these differences would be overt during a normal viewing experience, although it could explain the overly-slick presentation of batman begins in places. I don't know the bitrates of both encodes off hand...does anyone have that information?

This particular example shows me that a) AVC clearly can do better (under some circumstances and bitrates) than VC-1, and b) the difference (in this case) is generally small. You could use this to argue Kris or Alexander's case, although I would hesitate to generalize either way from this movie.

That said, since there is an improvement (albeit small) I still think BD-only owners are justified in wishing their format was not subject to the lowest-common-denominator encode, although at this point the differences should not be exaggerated (and often are).

That's my $15 and 2 cents... :)

I thought a lot of your points were germane Kris, but for someone who was taking others to task for lack of proof in regards to bitrate and picture quality, you seem to be doing the exact same thing here: Where is your evidence that most movies "need" under 20 and even into the 8-10mbps range? Or did you just drink the VC-1 koolaid and decide that was good enough? Do you have access to the originals (e.g. Lady in the Water or Blood Diamond) that we don't, or is your recall of the film presentation superior to that of others who recall it looking better than low bitrate VC-1 encodes?

You are, of course, right that studios have other economic pressures, and you are also right that somewhere along the line there will be a point of diminishing returns when it comes to bitrate and PQ. That said, in general a higher bitrate encode means less compression, and so should be closer to the orginal. Right here on AVS there are a couple of threads that seem to show that higher bitrate AVC Paramount BDs look better than lower bitrate VC-1 encodes of the same movie, should we not trust our lying eyes? And regardless of the economics, why shouldn't Blu-ray users feel slighted if Warner is not utilizing the extra space to give us higher image fidelity?

I know you feel that some of these others have "no idea" how movies are encoded (and in some cases that appears true), but assuming you do not have special access to the originals or photo-perfect memory, what evidence do you have to support your numbers? How many movies have you encoded?

People who live in glass houses...

Nope, not doing encodes myself. But lets just say I am very close with some of the people that do and some of the people that do QA work as well (comparing to the master). I also am close with people who have access to the masters to compare directly and I have also done comparisons between encodes and masters (with Warner titles no less). So while I am not chugging away on it myself I am not leaving my education on the matter up to a bunch of fanboys who look at nothing but numbers and assume that means it must be so.

AGAIN. I am not saying that Blu-ray doesn't have an advantage with higher bitrates and more space. IT DOES. There is no denying that. All things considered you should have a better chance at making a movie look as good as it possibly can on Blu-ray over HD DVD, no doubt about it. I am with you on that, hook line and sinker. My argument is that people are saying Warner has been dumbing down their releases for Blu-ray because they are using the same encodes and that is not true and there is no proof that it is other than saying, "but what about that extra space!?!" I've already stated that I know for a FACT that seperate encodes have been done to prove this already and that decisions were made based on this, AND IT WAS EXTENSIVE to say the least.

Warner HAS dumbed down its audio support for BD compared to HD DVD though, and I think that is outright wrong.

As for Blood Diamond and Lady in the Water, they look identical to the masters from my source, who checked them. All the complaints people have said are in the master. Same goes for the banding in Happy Feet (animation masters almost always have banding, but then again I've seen film masters with quite a bit too).

Kris, see my "review"of the differences in Flags of our Fathers to find an opinion that probably does not substantially differ from your larger point about bitrates and PQ.

I would humbly suggest that people who do something for a living, while often trained to have better powers of observation for what they do (say...video encoding as a random example) they may also on occasion have their own personal biases, such as not wanting to admit to a less than stellar job (or more precisely, not seeing the flaws in their own work). Not saying that is the case in the Warner titles under consideration (I know I don't have the masters to check), but I think it's at least a fair line of inquiry to persue. Also, initial tests, even extensive ones, may not have been on par with current state of the art in rapidly changing tenchology. For example, Paramount's testing procedures (which I presume they feel as good about as Warner execs do about their own) has now lead them to embrace AVC in a number of situations, without the obvious political bias that some other studios have (e.g. Sony) and in fact without abandoning VC-1. Perhaps warner is right and Paramount wrong (or they are so close that other factors were deemed more important at the respective studios) but clearly it's possible for other professionals to come to a differnce conclusion than Warner has arrived at.

That said, I agree that at least some films clearly do not need the highest bit rates possible, and certainly a lack of used space is not in and of itself evidence that the PQ could have been improved simply by throwing more bits at it, or by switching codecs. Audio on the other hand... well, we're already in agreement there, and I sincerely hope that 300 is a sign of things to come from Warner in that department.

I still hope (especially on disks where a lot of space is being given on the HD DVD to extra features) that Warner moves towards utilizing at least some of the extra space to ensure nothing is being sacrificed in terms of BD PQ in favor of HD DVD interactivity, but I won't personally belabour the point until/unless there are some clear examples of where we are being short changed.

Ok, responding to Superman's question about this site: http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsof...d-vs-hd/02.html, which I encourage all of you to go check out.

First of all, every HD DVD clip appears to be color timed to be warmer than the equivalent Blu-ray. In this case the BD looks more natural to me, but of course I could not tell you what Clint Eastwoods intent was...only he could. In every case it appears that VC-1 is smoothing out grain detail (and is otherwise nothing more than personal opinion...and opinion that could be shifted by TV calibration at that). The smoothing would obviously improve the compression ratio; if I were a betting man I would guess that this is the result of the "frame specific grain optimization" that is much touted by the codecs developers. Whether it's a good thing I suppose depends on personal preference and how much of a slave you want a format to be to the original, although in this case there is frequently an effect on level of detail...on to the specifics!

Comparison 1) In this case, however, there is also a loss of detail in some areas. The most easily noticeable is in the pin-striping of the seated gentleman's right sleeve, specifically across the first fold up from his wrist. The HD DVD version loses many of the stripes, especially the horizontally oriented ones. Most of the rest of the image could come down to a viewers preference regarding original film grain.

Comp 2) Both versions show some (albeit different) subtle banding (e.g. in the smoke and stadium crowd on the right side of the frame). There is clearly a loss of shadow detail in the stadium crowds on the left and in the back on the HD DVD version, although I doubt it would make a huge difference in actual viewing.

Comp 3) the main difference (outside of the color and grain differences) in this one is the detail on the coastal hillside, where the BD clearly has more small detail of the rock faces.

4) The usual film grain differences; in this case it's hard to tell if the fine grained sediment detail is being smoothed, or if it's just film grain superimposed on the terrain. This probably highlights how small the differences would be to most viewers.

5) The least difference in apparent detail of the bunch; it looks like some high frequency noise has been filtered out of the HD DVD version in the darker portion of the blast behind and to the right of the soldier. On the other hand, from a purely aesthetic point of view, the smoothing of the grain makes certain portions of the HD DVD version look more natural to me, such as the dark shadows directly behind the truck to the left of the soldier. I'm less confident it's "how the scene was shot", but it looks good.

6) The large amount of sky does not seem to show the same chance in color balance that the other shots do, so this comparison shows the least amount of color change between the two. While the soldiers show the same degree of grain-smoothing in the HD DVD version that other frames show, the only place it seems to result in a loss of detail is in the foreground rocks int he far lower right corner of the frame. I'm sure the differences in this scene would be utterly unnoticeable under normal watching conditions.

Last) There is also a 200% blowup of comp 2, showing the upper part of the stadium and a detail of some clouds/smoke. mostly this confirms the film grain smoothing of the HD DVD version. In some places it looks as good or better than the BD version 9depending on how you feel about film grain) although in some parts of the sky there is some subtle banding introduced into the HD DVD version.

Conclusion: I doubt most of these differences would be overt during a normal viewing experience, although it could explain the overly-slick presentation of batman begins in places. I don't know the bitrates of both encodes off hand...does anyone have that information?

This particular example shows me that a) AVC clearly can do better (under some circumstances and bitrates) than VC-1, and b) the difference (in this case) is generally small. You could use this to argue Kris or Alexander's case, although I would hesitate to generalize either way from this movie.

That said, since there is an improvement (albeit small) I still think BD-only owners are justified in wishing their format was not subject to the lowest-common-denominator encode, although at this point the differences should not be exaggerated (and often are).

That's my $15 and 2 cents... :)

Thanks for taking a look. Some people in this thread have already said they notice no difference and to others the difference is too small to matter. However all these differences between the two encodes for Flags of our Father's increase the larger a screen you view it on. I can clearly see differences on a 17 inch LCD and more so on my 50 inch DLP and 120 inch theater screen. Both VC-1 and AVC can smooth out grain at the cost of detail. We see that already with all the PS3 AVC encoded trailers which look silky smooth and very High Def like with very low bitrates.

Take for example the Casino Royale trailer that is in 1080p on the PS3. It is AVC encoded at a very low bitrate and looks silky smooth. If you compare that with the actual 50GB Blu-Ray disc and its encode, you see detail that simply is no longer there on everything with the trailer.. Superman Returns was filmed in High Def and is silky smooth on purpose because the director decided he wanted that type of a look. I don't know of any other director or movie made where it was the director's intent to smooth out the entire film at loss of detail so to me that is not something I want in a VC-1 encode.

I do believe that based on space constraints, VC-1 encoder's have been resorting to this type of smoothing out to get rid of the grain on almost all of the releases using VC-1 on HD-DVD. I feel the same way about massive amounts of EE applied to SD-DVD's to make them look sharper. If using a higher bitrate along with more room on the disc eliminates this type of procedure when doing the Blu-Ray encode, I definitely will fight for Warner to work on a second encode of any movie for release on Blu-Ray.

I know that I could live with and be very happy with HD-DVD's current quality if and only if Blu-Ray hadn't surpassed it with the latest titles. Even though HD-DVD looks superior to SD-DVD and VC-1 is superior to Mpeg2 at the same bitrates, I am pushing for a format that has taken quality a step further already and has moved past the "having more potential" stage with its latest offerings.. I know I am picky about this, however as an AVS forum member I have learned a lot about both formats and own many movie's in both. I am glad the competition is there between the two formats, however what Warner does by using a single encode for both formats is eliminate the competition and the quality suffers for it on the Blu-Ray side of things.. If Warner was serious about this format war and wanted the best quality products being released, they would have two separate teams working on encodes using two separate codecs (or the same) and tell each of them to do their very best... With the human factor being the only thing in HD-DVD's favor at that point, Blu-Ray picture quality should range from a little better to a lot sharper in my opinion as we have seen with Flags of our Fathers...

As for Blood Diamond and Lady in the Water, they look identical to the masters from my source, who checked them.
That's interesting Kris, as "identical" is a mighty strong word.

Was this comparison/viewing done at their MPI facility or the place out near the airport and on what type/size display ?

Really appreciate Supermans, ottscay, Robert and Kris for taking twist and turns.

That's interesting Kris, as "identical" is a mighty strong word.

Was this comparison/viewing done at their MPI facility or the place out near the airport and on what type/size display ?

Neither.

Really appreciate Supermans, ottscay, Robert and Kris for taking twist and turns.


Thanks :) Having both formats has given me a different perspective. Both have delivered a high def experience that a few years ago I could only dream of. These comparisons between encodes would seem silly to most people and even more, a plea to the studio to do separate encodes in order for one version to be slightly better would seem even more ridiculous. However at this stage in the game where both sides have raised the stakes, small differences matter to my eyes and ears. So now I find myself pushing for the Blu-Ray version to get the treatment it deserves since I know it can be better if the encoder wanted it to be. You have said in some posts in other threads that you have seen trailers look more impressive than their disc counterparts and have smaller bitrates etc.. Upon closer inspection though, you might find that the smoothening of the grain that occurs at low bitrates is what you prefer to actual film grain. In Pearl Harbor, you noticed the scenes with film grain and didn't like them as much. Everyone has different tastes and I for one am not for or against film grain as long as it isn't added artificially or taken away artificially. In other words if it was their originally, I want to see it as it was in the theater. I don't like what VC-1 has done to Flags of our Fathers and also Batman Begins for that matter. Flags looks better in AVC and Batman could have been better using AVC and a higher bitrate. I know banding is found in master's however banding can also be made worse as we have seen as well. Whatever Warner's decision, I am afraid they have already made their choice and will do a single encode. At least Blu-Ray will get high quality sound this time around and not have another Superman Returns...

I havent watched it, but I heard it (Grand Prix, a 3-hour movie released in October 2006) looks stellar.
It does look stellar, indeed.

That is complete rubbish. If you do a Blu-Ray CBR 30Mbps encode, you never have to look at it again, as a HD-DVD encode will NEVER reach 30 in the first place, so there is 0 reason to tweak it. 1 pass, 30Mbps CBR, done deal. You add in lossless audio Track(s), directors commentary + more and STILL have bandwidth left over. That is what we as the consumer should want, not hand tweaked, 2 week per movie encodes.

This idea is "complete rubbish". No reasonable consumer I can imagine in the world, would try to tell a home video company "Please do a quick, inefficient video encode of one of your movies", or particularly "Please do a quick, inefficient video encode of one of your movies, because this is the way I decided one HD disc format can be made to seem better than the other". As I said, This idea is "complete rubbish".

Can someone explain to me why they want lowbitrate, hand tuned vs running at a CONSTANT bitrate HIGHER then the peak of the lowbitrate one? Maybe im taking crazy pills, but there is NO REASON not to want the highest possible quality. Unless of course, you are putting hd-dvd into the picture, which means this scenerio is IMPOSSIBLE to do, and hand tuned, frame by frame encodes are the only way to fit them on the disc. Please, someone answer this:

Would you rather have a movie encoded in Scenario A or B?

a) Hand tuned, low bitrate encode, where the encoder has to do several passes, adjust scene by scene, frame by frame, just to fit it on the disc and POSSIBLY comprimise picture quality in a scene or 2 to make it fit on the disc. This process also takes weeks to complete, limits audio tracks to lossy or lowbitrate lossless and leaves no room for HD extras.

or

b) Take the PEAK bitrate from that "hand tuned" encode above (lets just say 20, im being insanely generous), ADD 10Mbps more ontop of it, make the ENTIRE movie the same bitrate so that the ENTIRE movie has more bitrate then the PEAK of the hand tuned one, which in turn takes overnight to encode vs weeks, add MORE then 1 lossless audio track, HD Extras AND move onto the next movie in days vs weeks.

Please tell me why answer A would EVER, EVER, EVER be desired vs answer B?

Perhaps I missed it, but the Warner defenders still have not offered any satisfactory explanation as to why so many Warner HD titles (subsequent to the early stage releases) seem to be provoking PQ complaints, when this is not true of any of the other studios (putting aside the very recent Universal catalog binge). It just seems like an amazing coincidence that Warner would have so much mediocre looking source material.

It (Grand Prix) does look stellar, indeed.

Pretty good detail (as to be expected from a 70mm source) but way too much DNR.

This is just another example of an "all too clean" Warner transfer that has almost any natural film grain DNRed and therefor doesn't preserve the original film look.

Perhaps I missed it, but the Warner defenders still have not offered any satisfactory explanation as to why so many Warner HD titles (subsequent to the early stage releases) seem to be provoking PQ complaints, when this is not true of any of the other studios (putting aside the very recent Universal catalog binge). It just seems like an amazing coincidence that Warner would have so much mediocre looking source material.
They have no argument - regardless what Kris Deering says (I wonder how many FREE discs Warner sends 'Secrets'). Here are the facts - King Kong was a 187 minute long movie, and even though many reviewers said it looked great - it STILL shortchanged the VC1 codec.

Here is a GREAT link for anyone willing to read & learn (Kris Deering included).
http://www.klipschcorner.com/Articles.aspx

- regardless what Kris Deering says (I wonder how many FREE discs Warner sends 'Secrets').

That's a chickenshit cheapshot and doesn't belong here.

Perhaps I missed it, but the Warner defenders still have not offered any satisfactory explanation as to why so many Warner HD titles (subsequent to the early stage releases) seem to be provoking PQ complaints, when this is not true of any of the other studios...

You will never get a satisfactory explanation because you have made your mind up that your reality is what it is and your mind is closed to anything else. The simple fact is, Warner has become a lightning rod for criticism from Blu-ray fanboys because Warner more than any other company shows that Blu-ray isn't really superior in a practical sense. If 50 gigs and greater bandwidth really isn't NEEDED, then what's the point.

So, while you are stomping around these forums demanding answers to your supposed questions, what you are really demanding is that people agree with you. Many won't. Get over it.

You will never get a satisfactory explanation because you have made your mind up that your reality is what it is and your mind is closed to anything else. The simple fact is, Warner has become a lightning rod for criticism from Blu-ray fanboys because Warner more than any other company shows that Blu-ray isn't really superior in a practical sense. If 50 gigs and greater bandwidth really isn't NEEDED, then what's the point.

So, while you are stomping around these forums demanding answers to your supposed questions, what you are really demanding is that people agree with you. Many won't. Get over it.

Thank you for that polite, well-reasoned response.

time