Troy was officially announced on highdefdigest this morning.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Disc_Announcements/Warner_Announces_Troy:_Directors_Cut_for_Blu-ray,_HD_DVD/754

While we all knew for a while this was coming, I don't recall seeing the length of the film being discussed.

According to imdb, the director's cut is a whopping 201 minutes...

That's about 3 and a half hours...

If Warner is going to use the same encodes for both HD DVD and Blu Ray versions, then this is seriously going to push the limits of what can be acheived in 30 GB of space.

I'm not sure, but I believe this may be the longest movie attempted to be stored in 30 GB of space... In addition to the movie to fit in 30 GB of space are a slew of new bonus features as well... I can't help but get paranoid in thinking that this is going to be a complete mess... If 2 and a half hour movies fitting into 30 GB of space was "arguable" on whether the quality could be benefited by using more disc space and higher bitrates, I must be honest, this is seriously pushing it.

It would be quite a shame if Warner treated Blu Ray owners to their first taste of Troy with a low bitrate, compressed mess... Are they already getting ready for a triple dip? :confused:

How much space would 201 minutes of PCM use against 201 minutes of lossless TrueHD ??

I was wondering the same thing myself. I for one thought the PQ on my HD-DVD copy was fantastic as is the TrueHD audio track. However, Universal pulled it off with King Kong but that title also did not have a lossless track. Warner would have to drop all extras and commentary off the disc and put them on a separate disc. Or go the combo route and put the extras on the flip side SD version.

Alexander:The Final Cut is also rumored to be released alongside Troy on the same day and that title is also going to push the space limits on an HD-30. If anybody can pull it off, it would be Warner, despite what people say about Blood Diamond, they have a very good track record.

Alexander:The Final Cut is also rumored to be released alongside Troy on the same day and that title is also going to push the space limits on an HD-30. If anybody can pull it off, it would be Warner, despite what people say about Blood Diamond, they have a very good track record.

seems blood diamond just has a bad master.

This is a concern of mine as well. This is lord of the rings territory with 3 hrs and 21 mins. Unless I am mistake, this will be the longest movie on hddvd. Please correct me if I am wrong. Warner will probably make it two disc for extras and other useless garbage. But will they be able to fit the main feature, a lossless track, and the SD stream all on one 30 gb disc without compromise? The theatrical cut on hddvd looked pretty good but not reference pq. I hope this one doesn't look worse !
Perhaps this is a great opportunity for Warner to finally do two seperate encodes. Two VC-1 encodes(bluray obviously higher bitrate) or one VC-1 and one Mpeg-4/avc encode. Either way we do not want bad PQ for this movie or a lossy track.
Please listen to your customers Warner !!!!!!!!!!!

This is a concern of mine as well. This is lord of the rings territory with 3 hrs and 21 mins. Unless I am mistake, this will be the longest movie on hddvd. Please correct me if I am wrong. Warner will probably make it two disc for extras and other useless garbage. But will they be able to fit the main feature, a lossless track, and the SD stream all on one 30 gb disc without compromise? The theatrical cut on hddvd looked pretty good but not reference pq. I hope this one doesn't look worse !
Perhaps this is a great opportunity for Warner to finally do two seperate encodes. Two VC-1 encodes(bluray obviously higher bitrate) or one VC-1 and one Mpeg-4/avc encode. Either way we do not want bad PQ for this movie or a lossy track.
Please listen to your customers Warner !!!!!!!!!!!

My prediction: the usual mediocre Warner botch.

Has anyone ever seen this 201 minute version of Troy? Any good?

^^^ Only the director and editing crew that worked on the film. This version is Wolfgang Petersen's vision as he wanted "Troy" to be, but which he had to cut down to a more manageable (i.e. shorter so it could be replayed in theaters more often per day) running time. When its released on video and rumored limited theatrical engagement it's when we all get to see wheter Petersen's vision was better or just more of the same overblown epic pap that was in the theatrical version.

How much space would 201 minutes of PCM use against 201 minutes of lossless TrueHD ??

are either getting those sound options?

How much space would 201 minutes of PCM use against 201 minutes of lossless TrueHD ??
Let's say the track is 16-bit/48kHz.

5.1 channel PCM would be 4.6Mbps as I understand it.

TrueHD is variable bit rate, so impossible to know for sure since it shifts based on the content, but I'd say about half would be a good guesstimate, at 2.3Mbps average.

201 minutes x 60 seconds per minute x 60 seconds per minute = 723,600 seconds of audio.

PCM calculation :

723,600 seconds x 4.6Mbps / 8 bits per byte = 416,070,000 bytes

TrueHD approximation at 50% storage requirement puts this it at 208,035,000 bytes.

EDIT: Apparently I can't use a calculator today.

How much space would 201 minutes of PCM use against 201 minutes of lossless TrueHD ??

16 bit track at 48 kHz of uncompressed should be 6934.5 megabytes or 6.9 Gigs
24 bit track at 48 kHz of uncompressed should be 10401.75 megabytes or 10.4 Gigs

The equivalent Dolby TrueHD track would probably a be maybe half of that ? Its hard to tell because its variable bitrate and depends on the soundtrack.

^^^ Only the director and editing crew that worked on the film. This version is Wolfgang Petersen's vision as he wanted "Troy" to be, but which he had to cut down to a more manageable (i.e. shorter so it could be replayed in theaters more often per day) running time. When its released on video and rumored limited theatrical engagement it's when we all get to see wheter Petersen's vision was better or just more of the same overblown epic pap that was in the theatrical version.

Interesting, sounds like a KoH scenario. Here's hoping...it was an entertaining action movie...kind of wary of it as a 3 and a half hour epic though.

Thanks for sharing.

I'm worried about some of these longer movies coming from the dual support studios. I dont want to see a 3 hour movie like Troy or LOTR EE's being put onto blu-ray using an encode made to fit the space of HDDVD. The chances of Warner doing the same encode for both are pretty likely though.

Warners has always optimized for HD DVD and let Blu-ray manage however it can.

Another reason for ending the format war. [Sorry to keep saying this but I think it is the central point behind every issue and complaint that we have.]

Warners has always optimized for HD DVD and let Blu-ray manage however it can.

Another reason for ending the format war. [Sorry to keep saying this but I think it is the central point behind every issue and complaint that we have.]

I agree 100%.

I love all this chatter about Warner optimizing for HD DVD and not Blu-ray or how films would look so much better if they used the extra space on BD discs. Like a single soul here has any idea what they are talking about. NO one here has any evidence to the contrary and from the discussions I've had with people that actually DO this for a living your gripes are completely off.

Warner has done plenty of great looking HD DVD releases and Blu-ray releases. Most of the things people complain about have to do with the masters, not the encode. Blood Diamond is a great example. It is a great looking disc that was shot in a stylized way that some people find disagreeable. There is nothing wrong with the encode or the master, THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO LOOK.

Until someone actually does real comparisons by doing different encodes with the same master at different bitrates and sizes can we get a stop to all the whining from people that really don't know what they are talking about?? I know it is a lot to ask for a forum like this, but perpetuating misinformation and making complaints with no base at all to stand on is getting old.

One thing seems for sure - we aren't getting at 48khz/24bit track be it PCM or Dolby TrueHD.

No problem for a BD 50, which is really annoying.

I love all this chatter about Warner optimizing for HD DVD and not Blu-ray or how films would look so much better if they used the extra space on BD discs. Like a single soul here has any idea what they are talking about. NO one here has any evidence to the contrary and from the discussions I've had with people that actually DO this for a living your gripes are completely off.

Warner has done plenty of great looking HD DVD releases and Blu-ray releases. Most of the things people complain about have to do with the masters, not the encode. Blood Diamond is a great example. It is a great looking disc that was shot in a stylized way that some people find disagreeable. There is nothing wrong with the encode or the master, THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO LOOK.

Until someone actually does real comparisons by doing different encodes with the same master at different bitrates and sizes can we get a stop to all the whining from people that really don't know what they are talking about?? I know it is a lot to ask for a forum like this, but perpetuating misinformation and making complaints with no base at all to stand on is getting old.

Fine, tell us which disc from Warner uses some of the additional 20GB of space for a higher bit rate video encode on the same title? :rolleyes:

Most of title that have Posterization come from Warner.... It's not a codec problem, it's more of letting the Bitrate goes to 6mbits for way to long..

Universal don't usually have that problems..

I love all this chatter about Warner optimizing for HD DVD and not Blu-ray or how films would look so much better if they used the extra space on BD discs. Like a single soul here has any idea what they are talking about. NO one here has any evidence to the contrary and from the discussions I've had with people that actually DO this for a living your gripes are completely off.

Warner has done plenty of great looking HD DVD releases and Blu-ray releases. Most of the things people complain about have to do with the masters, not the encode. Blood Diamond is a great example. It is a great looking disc that was shot in a stylized way that some people find disagreeable. There is nothing wrong with the encode or the master, THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO LOOK.

Until someone actually does real comparisons by doing different encodes with the same master at different bitrates and sizes can we get a stop to all the whining from people that really don't know what they are talking about?? I know it is a lot to ask for a forum like this, but perpetuating misinformation and making complaints with no base at all to stand on is getting old.


I agree with you whole-heartedly.....I love Blood Diamond, I was one of the people on this site who actually thought it was a great looking disc. I saw it twice in the theatre and that is how it looked, if anything, it looks better. My only concern is the space use on such a long film with what would have to include a lossless track on an HD-30 and Warner cutting corners to make it fit. According to the manroom.com though it looks as if all 3 formats are going to be 2 disc sets which makes sense considering the extended length and extras. Fear not BD owners, it looks like all should be well.

Who cares as long as it looks good on both!

I love all this chatter about Warner optimizing for HD DVD and not Blu-ray or how films would look so much better if they used the extra space on BD discs. Like a single soul here has any idea what they are talking about. NO one here has any evidence to the contrary and from the discussions I've had with people that actually DO this for a living your gripes are completely off.

Warner has done plenty of great looking HD DVD releases and Blu-ray releases. Most of the things people complain about have to do with the masters, not the encode. Blood Diamond is a great example. It is a great looking disc that was shot in a stylized way that some people find disagreeable. There is nothing wrong with the encode or the master, THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO LOOK.

Until someone actually does real comparisons by doing different encodes with the same master at different bitrates and sizes can we get a stop to all the whining from people that really don't know what they are talking about?? I know it is a lot to ask for a forum like this, but perpetuating misinformation and making complaints with no base at all to stand on is getting old.

I was not complaining about Blood Diamond, I understand it is stylized.

Here are some of my issues.



1. There are numerous titles that have Dolby TrueHD on HD DVD and only Dolby Digital on Blu-ray. Clearly Warners could have used PCM (as Sony was doing), DTS HD MA (as Fox was doing) or I presume Dolby TrueHD. Yet, Blu-ray received an inferior sound mix. [Warners has been improving on this recently but I doubt that we will ever see new releases for many of the titles.]

2. There are a number of titles that seem to be encoded to fit on 30GB HD DVD disks that end up wasting the space on a BD50. I cannot say for certain that these titles could be better, but I have my suspicions. Clearly, Paramount has been trying some separate encodes even though they are neutral and could just give Blu-ray the same encode as they use for HD DVD.

3. Some of the Blu-ray studios have been using high-bandwidth AVC and getting excellent results. I do not know if this helps or not but I would feel a lot more confortable if Warners were at least trying it occasionally, giving an effort to making something that looks like they took the superior bandwidth and storage capacity of Blu-ray into account. Clearly Disney cares to try at least. With Warners, we predictably get what they could fit onto HD DVD, nothing more and nothing less (on the video anyway).

4. I am very concerned when we get to long titles like Ben-Hur or Gone With the Wind (both controlled by Warners). How are they doing to handle these titles? Will we see them bit-starved so they can fit onto HD DVD?

The DC of Troy will be about 30 minutes longer I understand. I would like to see a high-bandwidth AVC of this on a BD50 but I suppose we will find that we get a VC-1 that fits into 30GB.


Overall I think Warners could do a lot better to support Blu-ray in the same manner of optimality that they have always given HD DVD.

[I also have a lot to say about titles and Warners' obvious tilting toward HD DVD on this front but that is a different topic.]

Who cares as long as it looks good on both!

I certainly don't but how can we be sure if they haven't tried?

Perhaps high-bandwidth AVC using all 50GB would be better. With Warners, we will never know because all we are ever going to see is what fit into the constraints of the HD DVD spec.

rlsmith,

No need to re-make the case against Warner (but thanx anyway ;) ).
What Warner has been doing is not open to debate...it's in the numbers for anyone to see.

well, hopefully everyone's "pain" will end soon.

I believe the 17GB layers AND the triple layer disc have been formally ratified by the DVD forum. That would mean 34GB, 45GB, and 51GB discs could start appearing soon. At that time I think this issue will finally be a non-issue. Maybe Troy will be the first?? the LOTR movies are PRIME candidates for making use of this new space. HD-DVD will never really need PCM, though, as TrueHD is just as good.

Even with the lower space, there are many HD-DVD releases that have been stellar (and some better than the BD release of the same title). Of course, the more bandwidth they can allocate to the main feature, the better, right?:)

And, yea, I have a HD-DVD player, but I also have a PS3 so please refrain from fanboyism.

Perhaps they'll split the feature into 2 discs?

That's been happening practically since the dawn of recorded media - no reason they it has to be abandoned for HD DVD or BD.

I fully understand that having it on one disc would be nice if possible, but it personally doesn't bother me for 3-4 hour movies.

I don't have any idea if they will, and I support the idea of taking full advantage of each format, but we don't have to actively look for every possible speculative scenario just to have an excuse to bash the other format.

Every other thread about Warner releases now goes straight to the "They'll bit starve it to fit on 30GB HD DVD!" complaint. Maybe they'll use 2 HD DVDs and 1 BD for a title... and maybe we should all jump straight to "They bit starved it to fit on 50GB Blu-ray!"

I certainly don't but how can we be sure if they haven't tried?

How do you know they haven't tried? Just because they haven't release any different encodes, doesn't mean they haven't tried it. For all we know they have done different encodes found no noticeable difference. Perhaps they have decided based on tests that one encode is sufficient. Even Paramounts discs with different encodes look no different to each other.

I love all this chatter about Warner optimizing for HD DVD and not Blu-ray or how films would look so much better if they used the extra space on BD discs. Like a single soul here has any idea what they are talking about. NO one here has any evidence to the contrary and from the discussions I've had with people that actually DO this for a living your gripes are completely off.

Warner has done plenty of great looking HD DVD releases and Blu-ray releases. Most of the things people complain about have to do with the masters, not the encode. Blood Diamond is a great example. It is a great looking disc that was shot in a stylized way that some people find disagreeable. There is nothing wrong with the encode or the master, THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO LOOK.

Until someone actually does real comparisons by doing different encodes with the same master at different bitrates and sizes can we get a stop to all the whining from people that really don't know what they are talking about?? I know it is a lot to ask for a forum like this, but perpetuating misinformation and making complaints with no base at all to stand on is getting old.
Excellent post!

The only difference I think would be worthwhile is TrueHD on the HD DVD (since it is supported by all players) and PCM on the Blu-ray disc (since it is supported by all players). If the video is encoded to typical WB standards for HD DVD (excellence, in other words), there is utterly no reason to go back and re-encode it all over again but with less care (since using more data than is needed is exactly that, just being less careful/more sloppy or lazy or whatever) just because you can. How silly can people get?

Excellent post!

The only difference I think would be worthwhile is TrueHD on the HD DVD (since it is supported by all players) and PCM on the Blu-ray disc (since it is supported by all players). If the video is encoded to typical WB standards for HD DVD (excellence, in other words), there is utterly no reason to go back and re-encode it all over again but with less care (since using more data than is needed is exactly that, just being less careful/more sloppy or lazy or whatever) just because you can. How silly can people get?
There are a number of us on this forum who don't think Warner Brothers is doing as well as they ought to be. Decent, yes. Excellent? Not really.

There are currently two discs that I am aware of where different encodes were used on Blu-ray DL50 and HD DVD DL30: Paramount's Flags of Our Fathers, where the Blu-ray AVC wins handily, and Disney's The Prestige, released in the UK by Warner, where again Blu-ray AVC beats the HD DVD VC-1.

If that's being "lazy", I'll take Disney and Paramount's approach to Blu-ray over the micromanaging of bandwidth that has to happen to encode on HD DVD.

Icemage - do you belong to a different Ice Age ?

There is no way the AVC is better than VC-1.

AVC = sharpness + EE
VC-1 = smooth + clean

VC-1 handles detailing better than AVC.

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/

If Paramount has no trouble splitting a lengthy movie into two discs on both HD formats (Warren Beatty's Reds) then what's Warner's problem doing this with the DC of Troy? :confused:

I love all this chatter about Warner optimizing for HD DVD and not Blu-ray or how films would look so much better if they used the extra space on BD discs. Like a single soul here has any idea what they are talking about. NO one here has any evidence to the contrary and from the discussions I've had with people that actually DO this for a living your gripes are completely off.

Warner has done plenty of great looking HD DVD releases and Blu-ray releases. Most of the things people complain about have to do with the masters, not the encode. Blood Diamond is a great example. It is a great looking disc that was shot in a stylized way that some people find disagreeable. There is nothing wrong with the encode or the master, THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO LOOK.

Until someone actually does real comparisons by doing different encodes with the same master at different bitrates and sizes can we get a stop to all the whining from people that really don't know what they are talking about?? I know it is a lot to ask for a forum like this, but perpetuating misinformation and making complaints with no base at all to stand on is getting old.

It really is an amazing coincidence that Warner has so many titles with source material that ends up looking mediocre in high def. Other studios don't seem to have this problem.

Icemage - do you belong to a different Ice Age ?

There is no way the AVC is better than VC-1.

AVC = sharpness + EE
VC-1 = smooth + clean

VC-1 handles detailing better than AVC.

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/
Excuse me?

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. :) Arguably the best reference disk on Blu-ray right now is AVC-encoded : Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

There is no added "sharpness". NO EE. Just crisp detail, meticulously preserved grain, and more 3D pop than you can shake a stick at.

Someone's been drinking a bit too much of Microsoft's VC-1 Kool-Aid.

"Arguably" is bliss.

"Arguably" is bliss.
You don't have to take my word for it. Take a look at the Blu-ray Tier thread and see what title pops up at the top of the Tier 0 reference category.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316

...that's right. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

I'm no expert on video encoding, and have not really followed the AVS vs VC1 debates. I'm just glad we are seeing MPEG2 on the way out for HD media.

What I don't understand is why people are against high bit rate encodes?

I can only think of my own experience with music. A CD sounds much better than an MP3 encode even when it uses a bitrate as high as 320 kbps. From my perspective music encodes below 320 kbps are unlisternable.

But I've just spent too long being used to high quality sound, I can tell the difference between CD and MP3 instantly and I only use my iPod which has only 320kbs encodes on the move, never at home, due to the deregration in sound quality.

How come what is true for bitrate with MP3 audio is not true for video?

Surely a higher bitrate VC1 or AVS encode would yield a more pleasing image, than a low bitrate encode using the same codec?

I don't care whether VC1 or AVS is used, but I would like the encode to be as high as possible.

Is it not an empirical fact that a high bitrate encode will look better than it's low bitrate equivalent when using the same codec?

Now that is a loooong movie... I don't know if I could sit thru it... :eek:

Seriously...

Excellent post!

The only difference I think would be worthwhile is TrueHD on the HD DVD (since it is supported by all players) and PCM on the Blu-ray disc (since it is supported by all players). If the video is encoded to typical WB standards for HD DVD (excellence, in other words), there is utterly no reason to go back and re-encode it all over again but with less care (since using more data than is needed is exactly that, just being less careful/more sloppy or lazy or whatever) just because you can. How silly can people get?

First of all, Warner's encodes are NOT typically "excellent".

If you take a step back and look at the reviews of the HD DVD version of Troy last year, you'd see that it was met with reviews claiming it was mediocre and soft - And that's when compared against "reference" titles from over a year ago, which we know are now far surpassed.

Then, if you take another step back, and realize that no movie on HD DVD is as long as this one, you can see why there is actually a VALID reason to suspect that this won't turn out so well.

Putting the bonus features on a seperate disc won't suffice, since they're more than likely SD features that take up no more than a few GB anyways.

Yes, for the average 1 and a half hour - 2 hour length, 30 GB may be perfectly capable of storing a 1080p movie and preserving its quality fine.

But we're not talking about a 1 and a half hour - 2 hour long movie here. We're talking about a THREE AND A HALF HOUR LONG movie here.

There's absolutely NO possible way that this title could not benefit from a higher bitrate encode (because the bitrate WILL be lowered to get the movie to fit on the disc), especially when one considers that the original 2 and a half hour long encode was mediocre itself!

I REALLY don't like this "Let's see how long of a film we can cram into 30 GB of space" game, potentially at the expensive of the quality of one of my favorite movies.

And you know what, if they decide to split the movie onto 2 discs, that's almost just as bad. I shouldn't have to get up to switch discs in the middle of a movie. That's why I bought into Blu Ray in the first place, because of it's bigger storage capacity that would be able to holder longer movies. So, if that were the case, I'd be getting screwed by Warner by not taking advantage of the technology I bought and paid for - and a large reason is indeed because of its increased storage capacity to hold longer movies.

I mean, is it really too much to ask for when asking Warner merely to use the technology that's given to us (studios AND customers)? If they have such a problem with 2 seperate encodes, then perhaps they should just let Sony encode for them like Paramount does.

First of all, Warner's encodes are NOT typically "excellent".



They certainly are not.

Until someone actually does real comparisons by doing different encodes with the same master at different bitrates and sizes can we get a stop to all the whining from people that really don't know what they are talking about?? I know it is a lot to ask for a forum like this, but perpetuating misinformation and making complaints with no base at all to stand on is getting old.

Kris, you are SO wasting your breath on this in this forum. For the people that continue to harp on this, it is not about science and facts, it is a simple numbers game combined in some cases with an irrational hatred of Microsoft (VC-1). Until they get 50 gigs of something, they will never be satisfied.

I don't know, Batman Begins and Goblet of Fire are two off the top of my head that are up there with the best encodes.

Also to the comment Icemage made regarding Flags of our Father supposedly being superior on BD, that's plain bulldust. Even reviewers using high end equipment can a best say they think it might look slightly better but ren't sure. Highdef digest said it looked (they think) slightly sharper, but that is hardly imperical or a landslide win.

Both formats look just as good as each other and that is freakin sweet.

Nicks comment, yes as a general rule you could ay that a higher bitrate should look/sound better. That said there is also the rule of diminishing returns at which point adding more "bits" will make less and less of an impact. On current displays we are at that point with HD DVD and Blu-ray. For example if you have a low bitrate mp3 (as you used as an example) and you double it's bitrate. Yes it will sound much better. Double it again and yes it will sound better again, but not twice as good as the first time you doubled it. Each time you increase it's bit rate it will sound better but by a smaller degree until adding bits makes no discernable difference,

Kris, you are SO wasting your breath on this in this forum. For the people that continue to harp on this, it is not about science and facts, it is a simple numbers game combined in some cases with an irrational hatred of Microsoft (VC-1). Until they get 50 gigs of something, they will never be satisfied.

What are you talking about?

It has nothing to do with irrational hatred of MS and VC-1.

In reality, it has to do with the irrational idea of trying to fit a 3 and a half hour long movie into 30 GB of space while maintaining pristine quality - a feat that apparently is hard enough to do on feature films that are an hour shorter.

The only film that has come close to fitting 3 and a half hours onto a disc was the ~3 hour long King Kong, that had its picture quality come at the expense of audio quality.

So no, it really has nothing to do with an "irrational hatred" of MS and VC-1. If anything, it has to do with combating the irrational blind love of MS and VC-1.

I don't know, Batman Begins and Goblet of Fire are two off the top of my head that are up there with the best encodes.

Also to the comment Icemage made regarding Flags of our Father supposedly being superior on BD, that's plain bulldust. Even reviewers using high end equipment can a best say they think it might look slightly better but ren't sure. Highdef digest said it looked (they think) slightly sharper, but that is hardly imperical or a landslide win.

Both formats look just as good as each other and that is freakin sweet.

Nicks comment, yes as a general rule you could ay that a higher bitrate should look/sound better. That said there is also the rule of diminishing returns at which point adding more "bits" will make less and less of an impact. On current displays we are at that point with HD DVD and Blu-ray. For example if you have a low bitrate mp3 (as you used as an example) and you double it's bitrate. Yes it will sound much better. Double it again and yes it will sound better again, but not twice as good as the first time you doubled it. Each time you increase it's bit rate it will sound better but by a smaller degree until adding bits makes no discernable difference,

Yes, but were Batman Begins and Goblet of Fire THREE AND A HALF HOURS LONG?

No, they weren't... Meaning they're not as heavily compressed to fit into the space allotted, and also meaning that they wouldn't benefit from higher bitrate/more store space as much as a longer film, like Troy: DC would.

What are you talking about?

My point exactly.

My point exactly.

I already explained myself. I shall do it one more time, only.

The only film on HD DVD that has come close to Troy DC's length was King Kong, and that is shorter than Troy: DC.

Now, in order to maintain good picture quality, that film had to sacrifice lossless audio.

Plain and simply, that sacrifice would NOT have been made if it was released on Blu Ray and tailored to Blu Ray specs.

So, are you saying that you support NEEDLESSLY sacrificing the quality of audio/and or video? Due to Blu Ray disc's increased storage space and bandwidth (that are going unused by Warner), these quality sacrifices don't need to be made - and we can have the total package. Do you not want the total pacakge? Are you satisfied with lower quality audio just because that's all HD DVD's specifications can provide?

Once again, this has nothing to do with VC-1 or AVC or any codec for that matter... I don't think any movie above 3 hours should be crammed into 30 GB, regardless of what codec is used. Next gen codecs are good - But they're not divine miracle workers that will make anything look perfect under any kind of space limitation or somehow remedy the lack of additional space/bandwidth for a lossless track.

Because from your posts above, it seems like that was what you were trying to argue.

And you know what, if they decide to split the movie onto 2 discs, that's almost just as bad. I shouldn't have to get up to switch discs in the middle of a movie. That's why I bought into Blu Ray in the first place, because of it's bigger storage capacity that would be able to holder longer movies.

I guess you won't be picking Warren Beatty's Reds on Blu-ray anytime soon then? :rolleyes:

In reality, it has to do with the irrational idea of trying to fit a 3 and a half hour long movie into 30 GB of space while maintaining pristine quality - a feat that apparently is hard enough to do on feature films that are an hour shorter.
Why do you guys keep bringing up Blood Diamond as an example? That movie uses like 23 GB of total space and doesn't max out HD DVD's capacity.

I guess you won't be picking Warren Beatty's Reds on Blu-ray anytime soon then? :rolleyes:

So that's the excuse and example that's going to be used now - That because Reds, a movie with a built in intermission, AND a movie encoded before BD50 discs became commonplace, was split onto 2 discs, it's somehow acceptable now?

Funny. I didn't know Troy had an intermission. I also didn't know that two BD 25 discs equaled one BD50 disc. I also didn't know that it's acceptable just because it's been done before.

Why do you guys keep bringing up Blood Diamond as an example? That movie uses like 23 GB of total space and doesn't max out HD DVD's capacity.

What are you talking about?

I didn't mention Blood Diamond AT ALL. I didn't even mention Blood Diamond in the quote that you quoted me with! Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I made no mention to Blood Diamond whatsoever.

Now, if you want to talk about Blood Diamond now, since YOU brought it up, not I, let's do so.

Blood Diamond is a 2 and a 23 long movie that takes up 23 GB of space.

Troy DC is a 3 and a half hour long movie, about 1 hour longer than Blood Diamond.

Doing some simple math would reveal that Troy DC would more than likely have trouble in a 30 GB space, even if Blood Diamond was a flawless encode at 23 GB, which while good, it most certainly is not.

I didn't mention Blood Diamond AT ALL. I didn't even mention Blood Diamond in the quote that you quoted me with! Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I made no mention to Blood Diamond whatsoever.

Now, if you want to talk about Blood Diamond now, since YOU brought it up, not I, let's do so.

Down boy, down! :cool:

Kris, you are SO wasting your breath on this in this forum. For the people that continue to harp on this, it is not about science and facts, it is a simple numbers game combined in some cases with an irrational hatred of Microsoft (VC-1). Until they get 50 gigs of something, they will never be satisfied.

Prior to this format war, I had no particular feelings about Microsoft, except for the occasional irritation at the irrationalities of Word.

Now, however, after observing the behavior of various Microsoft insiders here, I have what I consider to be a rational hatred of Microsoft.

Let's say the track is 16-bit/48kHz.

5.1 channel PCM would be 4.6Mbps as I understand it.

TrueHD is variable bit rate, so impossible to know for sure since it shifts based on the content, but I'd say about half would be a good guesstimate, at 2.3Mbps average.

201 minutes x 60 seconds per minute x 60 seconds per minute = 723,600 seconds of audio.

PCM calculation :

723,600 seconds x 4.6Mbps / 8 bits per byte = 416,070,000 bytes

TrueHD approximation at 50% storage requirement puts this it at 208,035,000 bytes.

EDIT: Apparently I can't use a calculator today.
201 minutes = 201 x 60 seconds = 12060 seconds

4.6Mbps x 12060 / 8 = 6934,5 MB = 6.7 GB

That's your size.

For a 50GB blu-ray disc, it's no problem since you'll still have 43GB for the video (maximum) => a maximum of 43*8192/201/60 = 29.2Mbps average bitrate :eek:

I think it's more than enough to have a perfect AVC encode :)

Yes, but were Batman Begins and Goblet of Fire THREE AND A HALF HOURS LONG?

No, they weren't... Meaning they're not as heavily compressed to fit into the space allotted, and also meaning that they wouldn't benefit from higher bitrate/more store space as much as a longer film, like Troy: DC would.
I was responding to the claim that all warner encodes are "crap" (not your claim btw, just what others have been saying)

King Kong was only 25Gb. Take out the various DD+ tracks and there was plenty of room for a Dolby True HD track. The only reason there wasn't one is because for some reason Universal doesn't use DTHD on any of it's releases.

Funny. I didn't know Troy had an intermission.
He he, maybe Wolfgangs vision for his DC includes an intermission :D

I was responding to the claim that all warner encodes are "crap"

King Kong was only 25Gb. Take out the various DD+ tracks and there was plenty of room for a Dolby True HD track. The only reason there wasn't one is because for some reason Universal doesn't use DTHD on any of it's releases.

The problem with King Kong wasn't JUST space, it was the bandwidth cap as well, that was not high enough to provide peak video bitrates to satisfy both high quality video and lossless audio, thus lossless audio was cut to satisfy high quality video.

The problem with King Kong wasn't JUST space, it was the bandwidth cap as well, that was not high enough to provide peak video bitrates to satisfy both high quality video and lossless audio.
I musst admit I don't know enough to speak to that so...........I won't :D

Warner sucks. I refuse to purchase any of their low bitrate garbage. All they have to do is a CBR 35Mb/sec AVC/VC-1 encode and just let it finish overnight, put it on a BD50 with PCM/TrueHD and you would have me singing praises for warner like no other. I would LOVE warner to take the easy way out! But they want to give us low bitrate garbage with banding all over the place movies and expect me to pay top dollar for them. F that.

I was responding to the claim that all warner encodes are "crap" (not your claim btw, just what others have been saying)
Warner encodes are "OK"... but nothing to write home about. They do take some TLC to their encodes, but a lot of them are just starved for bits in the worst way (Happy Feet comes to mind).

King Kong was only 25Gb. Take out the various DD+ tracks and there was plenty of room for a Dolby True HD track. The only reason there wasn't one is because for some reason Universal doesn't use DTHD on any of it's releases.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=750870

Maximum HD DVD 30 capacity is about 30,000,000,000 bytes.
King Kong weighs in at 29,482,090,496 bytes.

Half a gigabyte would not be enough space to upgrade from DD+ to TrueHD for a movie of this length.

I love all this chatter about Warner optimizing for HD DVD and not Blu-ray or how films would look so much better if they used the extra space on BD discs. Like a single soul here has any idea what they are talking about. NO one here has any evidence to the contrary and from the discussions I've had with people that actually DO this for a living your gripes are completely off.

Warner has done plenty of great looking HD DVD releases and Blu-ray releases. Most of the things people complain about have to do with the masters, not the encode. Blood Diamond is a great example. It is a great looking disc that was shot in a stylized way that some people find disagreeable. There is nothing wrong with the encode or the master, THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO LOOK.

Until someone actually does real comparisons by doing different encodes with the same master at different bitrates and sizes can we get a stop to all the whining from people that really don't know what they are talking about?? I know it is a lot to ask for a forum like this, but perpetuating misinformation and making complaints with no base at all to stand on is getting old.

Thank you! Finally.

I have a professionally calibrated 71in DLP and Ive seen some GREAT looking lower bitrate discs on hd-dvd using VC-1. Great titles on both are Casino Royale, King Kong, Batman Begins and The Patriot (I justed watched this last night!).

Thank you! Finally.

Except he's not right, though.

Macroblocking is not hardly the way "it was intended to look".

Macroblocking is a direct result of insufficient bitrate, and while not necessarily "plagued" by macroblocking, Blood Diamond certainly suffers from this problem. Macroblocks are not "in the master", macroblocking is not a form of "stylization", and macroblocks are not "the intended look" either. Macroblocking is a COMPRESSION ARTIFACT.

201 minutes = 201 x 60 seconds = 12060 seconds

4.6Mbps x 12060 / 8 = 6934,5 MB = 6.7 GB

That's your size.

For a 50GB blu-ray disc, it's no problem since you'll still have 43GB for the video (maximum) => a maximum of 43*8192/201/60 = 29.2Mbps average bitrate :eek:

I think it's more than enough to have a perfect AVC encode :)
Yeah I noticed my error above (hence my edit).

On BD50s, there's more than sufficient capacity and bandwidth to allow for this sort of thing. 6.7GB eats a huge chunk out of a BD25 or HD30, though.

Except he's not right, though.

Macroblocking is not hardly the way "it was intended to look".

Macroblocking is a direct result of insufficient bitrate, and while not necessarily "plagued" by macroblocking, Blood Diamond certainly suffers from this problem. Macroblocks are not "in the master", macroblocking is not a form of "stylization", and macroblocks are not "the intended look" either.

I have not watched Blood Diamond yet. Ill watch it this week. But, one title that uses VC-1 does not mean that it proves lower bitrates are less quality.

Ive seen MANY hd-dvds that were encoded with VC-1 that look as good as anything ive watched on BD.

Both formats have their lemons. CJ who does this for a living also agrees with Kris. He believes that VC-1 can get extremely high quality picture with lower bitrates. Why people keep bringing this up is ridiculous.

I have not watched Blood Diamond yet. Ill watch it this week. But, one title that uses VC-1 does not mean that it proves lower bitrates are less quality.

Ive seen MANY hd-dvds that were encoded with VC-1 that look as good as anything ive watched on BD.

Both formats have their lemons.

The whole point of this thread isn't to discuss whether Warner/VC-1 is capable of putting out exceptional quality encodes. Not hardly, I think we all know that can and have.

The point is to discuss whether or not they can put out an exceptional version of a 3 and a half hour long movie with a lossless audio track in a 30 GB space with a 30 mbps bitrate cap, which as demonstrated by King Kong, a shorter movie, and closest in length thus far of any other release, more than likely isn't possible... I for one don't feel the need to take part in this unncessary gamble, when a BD-50 specific encode can provide the desired quality for certain.

Both formats have their lemons. CJ who does this for a living also agrees with Kris. He believes that VC-1 can get extremely high quality picture with lower bitrates. Why people keep bringing this up is ridiculous.
Cjplay works for Warner, so his commentary on the issue isn't exactly neutral. ;)

That said, I agree that VC-1 can produce some excellent results at low bitrates. What irritates the bejeezus out of me is that some of the studios using VC-1 are simply abusing this feature, which results in subtle to severe loss of PQ. At its best, it makes the encode look softer than it should due to the deblocking filter kicking in. And then there are times when the macroblocks just bust out despite everything the deblocking filter can do. In theory VC-1 should never exhibit macroblocking if properly encoded; when you start seeing the blocks, its a good sign that the encode is so bitstarved that even the loop filter can't save the image.

As previously calculated, a PCM track would weigh in at about 6.7GB. That means a comparable TrueHD track should be about half that - let's say 3.4GB. So with a HD DVD 30, that leaves up 26.6GB for video (approximately, because menus, other audio tracks, subtitles, and any interactive stuff will eat up some space as well).

26.6GB = 26,600MB = 212,800Mb
201min = 12,060s
212,800Mb/12,060s = 17.65Mbps

As an average bit rate, that shouldn't be bad at all. Am I missing why people are so up in arms about this? At least they realized they need two discs because an HD DVD 30 isn't big enough.

Warner sucks. I refuse to purchase any of their low bitrate garbage. All they have to do is a CBR 35Mb/sec AVC/VC-1 encode and just let it finish overnight, put it on a BD50 with PCM/TrueHD and you would have me singing praises for warner like no other. I would LOVE warner to take the easy way out! But they want to give us low bitrate garbage with banding all over the place movies and expect me to pay top dollar for them. F that.

Absolutely correct.

As previously calculated, a PCM track would weigh in at about 6.7GB. That means a comparable TrueHD track should be about half that - let's say 3.4GB. So with a HD DVD 30, that leaves up 26.6GB for video (approximately, because menus, other audio tracks, subtitles, and any interactive stuff will eat up some space as well).

26.6GB = 26,600MB = 212,800Mb
201min = 12,060s
212,800Mb/12,060s = 17.65Mbps

As an average bit rate, that shouldn't be bad at all. Am I missing why people are so up in arms about this? At least they realized they need two discs because an HD DVD 30 isn't big enough.

You're forgetting that all of those things also consume bandwidth in addition to space. Bandwidth is also a huge factor, and can severely limit peak bitrates, and thus cause compression artifacts to be apparent under certain scenarios, regardless of how much space is available.

Also as noted before, King Kong also takes up 29.5 GB - Without a lossless track.

You're forgetting that all of those things also consume bandwidth in addition to space. Bandwidth is also a huge factor, and can severely limit peak bitrates, and thus cause compression artifacts to be apparent under certain scenarios, regardless of how much space is available.

I'm not forgetting them, I just recognize that the bandwidth issue applies to all Warner releases, not just this one. But in discussion with issue, and the wish for two separate encodes, I don't understand why? I am a fan of high bit rate encodes and all, but Warner should be able to do a good job with that much available space. It won't be great, but it can be good. That is all I expect out of Warner until they drop HD DVD and focus on Blu-ray.

HD-DVD is holding us back! boo! LOL

Same old argument, different day.

One of the main reasons I have leaned toward the blu side from the beginning is the fact that it has BD50. HD DVD supporters can say it is overkill but the fact of the matter, HD DVD is going to run out of space eventually.

Blu Ray also has the capacity to have higher bitrates, which probably will not be needed now that mpeg2 is not being used as much.

Now, all of you HD DVD fans can bring up the "51GB" triple layer disc. Vaporware?? Probably.

I do feel that Warner has screwed Blu Ray from the beginning. I would have encoded for BD50 and then stripped the encode down for HD DVD 30.

I'm not forgetting them, I just recognize that the bandwidth issue applies to all Warner releases, not just this one. But in discussion with issue, and the wish for two separate encodes, I don't understand why? I am a fan of high bit rate encodes and all, but Warner should be able to do a good job with that much available space. It won't be great, but it can be good. That is all I expect out of Warner until they drop HD DVD and focus on Blu-ray.

Why should you expect less out of them?

Paramount has set the bar when it comes to multiformat releases, and it's a bar that Warner has fallen far under.

I don't really care if Paramount outsources their encodes to another company - As a consumer, that's completely irrelevant to me. Their releases are encoded to make use of my format's specifications, and aren't encoded to accomodate the lowest common denominator. While differences haven't been too drastic (although to say FooF is the same on both formats would not be true), they haven't tried to fit a 3 and a half hour long movie on either format, either.

Why should I allow Warner a free pass? :confused:

I'm not forgetting them, I just recognize that the bandwidth issue applies to all Warner releases, not just this one. But in discussion with issue, and the wish for two separate encodes, I don't understand why? I am a fan of high bit rate encodes and all, but Warner should be able to do a good job with that much available space. It won't be great, but it can be good. That is all I expect out of Warner until they drop HD DVD and focus on Blu-ray.

It will be mediocre at best, like everything else that Warner has put out for some time now except the Matrix set, where they knew they didn't dare use their usual mediocre practices.

Why should you expect less out of them?

Paramount has set the bar when it comes to multiformat releases, and it's a bar that Warner has fallen far under.

I don't really care if Paramount outsources their encodes to another company - As a consumer, that's completely irrelevant to me. Their releases are encoded to make use of my format's specifications, and aren't encoded to accomodate the lowest common denominator. While differences haven't been too drastic (although to say FooF is the same on both formats would not be true), they haven't tried to fit a 3 and a half hour long movie on either format, either.

Why should I allow Warner a free pass? :confused:


You shouldnt. Paramount does Seperate encodes, heck even RBFilms, a small time company, also does seperate encodes. Warner has no excuse other then a) they want to hurt blu-ray by not maximizing for the format and letting hd-dvd get some breathing room in regards to PQ, or b) They are lazy. I personally think it is reason A, since they have a stake in HD-DVD, they want to give them any type of edge possible. Of course, if consumers actually found out that warner was giving us chicken scratch encodes, the sales would fall bigtime, but no one other then the informed knows what is going on. I am not saying warner is incapable of good encodes, but what ive seen from them (especially Banding feet, err happy feet) was mediocre at best. After seeing movies with PQ that is beyond stunning (Casino Royale, POTC1/2, Crank, Ghost Rider, etc etc), i have 0 doubt that warner is really blu-rays insider spy enemy.

I hate you warner :(

Why should I allow Warner a free pass? :confused:

b/c at this point your other option is no warner title on blu-ray. :eek:

is the dc of troy even announced for hd-dvd? the fact that KK weighed in at 29.5GB is pretty scary, that means they maximized their specs on one of the very first titles released on the format, and w/o lossless audio at that.

b/c at this point your other option is no warner title on blu-ray. :eek:

is the dc of troy even announced for hd-dvd? the fact that KK weighed in at 29.5GB is pretty scary, that means they maximized their specs on one of the very first titles released on the format, and w/o lossless audio at that.

yes, it is announced for both hd dvd and blu ray.

You shouldnt. Paramount does Seperate encodes, heck even RBFilms, a small time company, also does seperate encodes. Warner has no excuse other then a) they want to hurt blu-ray by not maximizing for the format and letting hd-dvd get some breathing room in regards to PQ, or b) They are lazy. I personally think it is reason A, since they have a stake in HD-DVD, they want to give them any type of edge possible. Of course, if consumers actually found out that warner was giving us chicken scratch encodes, the sales would fall bigtime, but no one other then the informed knows what is going on. I am not saying warner is incapable of good encodes, but what ive seen from them (especially Banding feet, err happy feet) was mediocre at best. After seeing movies with PQ that is beyond stunning (Casino Royale, POTC1/2, Crank, Ghost Rider, etc etc), i have 0 doubt that warner is really blu-rays insider spy enemy.

I hate you warner :(

Warner is putting out mediocre work because they can get away with it. And then a little bit later, after HD DVD dies, they will come out with superbit versions and expect everyone to buy the same title again.

More unbased claims spreading all over the place here. Paramount has its encodes done by different people for BD and HD DVD because of the deals it gets by doing it that way. If someone offers a studio the oppurtunity to have its encodes done for a certain format cheaper, I'm sure economics would win out.

Warner has been favoring HD DVD in its support of advanced audio, of that I will not argue. My gripe is all this bashing of low bitrate encodes that are supposedly hurting BD or not taking advantage of it. This is totally unfounded and no one here has any evidence to the contrary. Comparing Troy on HD DVD to POTC on BD also has no merit either, that is like saying the soundtrack on Saving Private Ryan is better than the soundtrack on The Wedding Planner because it is in DTS (which I am sure some people here are actually ignorant enough to say).

I know personally of a studio that did the test that all of you are talking about and encoded a VERY high profile title for BD and HD DVD seperately using the same video codec "optimized" for the specific format. Like CJPlay had stated in his posts back in the day, there wasn't any difference. You do realize that there is a cap where throwing bits doesn't buy you anything right?

I didn't see any macroblocking on Blood Diamond. I use a 120" diagonal screen and sit at about 1.5x. I am using a 1080p display that actually resolves the entire 1080p image (most projectors used commonly today do not). To say that I'm sensitive to banding and MB is an understatement. There was some mild banding in some of the white outs in Blood Diamond, but no MB.

Banding is another thing thrown around here, mainly with animation titles. I remember people getting in an uproar about Happy Feet and the banding in it and how it was because of Warner's "low bit rate" encode. Funny, I had a conversation with someone who was involved with this title and he checked every scene that had banding on the HD release against the master and guess what, every scene had the exact same banding IN THE MASTER.

Until someone actually has the oppurtunity to compare directly against the master the encode was struck from or can do side by side, level matched comparisons of seperate encodes at different bitrates, ALL OF THIS BANTER IS COMPLETELY SPECULATIVE AND ESSENTIALLY CRAP.

Did we start another thread on why Warner is a piece of crap for not giving us Bitrates above 30mbps???? *yawn*, this poor horse has been turned to glue already, it's past dead.

More unbased claims spreading all over the place here. Paramount has its encodes done by different people for BD and HD DVD because of the deals it gets by doing it that way. If someone offers a studio the oppurtunity to have its encodes done for a certain format cheaper, I'm sure economics would win out.

Warner has been favoring HD DVD in its support of advanced audio, of that I will not argue. My gripe is all this bashing of low bitrate encodes that are supposedly hurting BD or not taking advantage of it. This is totally unfounded and no one here has any evidence to the contrary. Comparing Troy on HD DVD to POTC on BD also has no merit either, that is like saying the soundtrack on Saving Private Ryan is better than the soundtrack on The Wedding Planner because it is in DTS (which I am sure some people here are actually ignorant enough to say).

I know personally of a studio that did the test that all of you are talking about and encoded a VERY high profile title for BD and HD DVD seperately using the same video codec "optimized" for the specific format. Like CJPlay had stated in his posts back in the day, there wasn't any difference. You do realize that there is a cap where throwing bits doesn't buy you anything right?

I didn't see any macroblocking on Blood Diamond. I use a 120" diagonal screen and sit at about 1.5x. I am using a 1080p display that actually resolves the entire 1080p image (most projectors used commonly today do not). To say that I'm sensitive to banding and MB is an understatement. There was some mild banding in some of the white outs in Blood Diamond, but no MB.

Banding is another thing thrown around here, mainly with animation titles. I remember people getting in an uproar about Happy Feet and the banding in it and how it was because of Warner's "low bit rate" encode. Funny, I had a conversation with someone who was involved with this title and he checked every scene that had banding on the HD release against the master and guess what, every scene had the exact same banding IN THE MASTER.

Until someone actually has the oppurtunity to compare directly against the master the encode was struck from or can do side by side, level matched comparisons of seperate encodes at different bitrates, ALL OF THIS BANTER IS COMPLETELY SPECULATIVE AND ESSENTIALLY CRAP.

Have you actually seen Blood Diamond? It has macroblocking. There is a certain group of people that continue to deny that it is present in Blood Diamond, but there is also a group of people that deny that the Holocaust ever happened. It doesn't mean they're right. Macroblocking is a direct result of insufficient bitrate. Yes, it would benefit from a higher bitrate, and you don't even need to see a master or even another encode to figure that out. Macroblocking is a COMPRESSION ARTIFACT that can only be fixed with an increase in bitrate.

Second, there is no speculation in King Kong weighing in at 29.5 GB, having a runtime of 3 hours, and lacking a lossless track. That is not speculation, that is FACT. It is ALSO a fact that Troy:DC is even longer than King Kong, and it is ALSO a fact that the original Troy had many soft moments, and was not even considered a top tier release ~a year ago, when it was released. Speculation would be trying to draw a connection between the softness and a low bitrate, which would indeed be unfounded unless there was a master to compare it to. But much of the softness in the flick was pointed to the CG (armies and such) in the movie, something that most people don't usually associate with softness... In fact, CG is usually so sharp that in the HD world, it sometimes sticks out like a sore thumb.

Therefore, it is REASONABLE, even LOGICAL, to assume that if a 3 hour movie fills up a 30 GB disc with only ~500 MB to spare, while leaving out a lossless track, that a 3 and AND A HALF hour long movie may have even MORE trouble.

There is a huge difference between encoding a ~2 hour movie on a 30 GB disc, and a 3 and a half hour movie on a 30 GB disc. Logic states that if there's less movie to cram onto the disc, then it can be provided at a higher quality than that of a disc which has more movie to fit on to it - So yes, in the case of the 2 hour movie, having a film encoded to each specification may not yield much of a difference.

However, the concern with Troy is that it's a 3 and a half hour long film, and is the longest film thus far attempted to be put into a 30 GB confinement. Logic dictates that because it is longer than a 2 hour movie, the bitrate must be lowered in comparison to a 2 hour movie in order to accomodate a longer runtime. That is not speculation, that is fact.

So in a nutshell, no, none of this is "speculation", it's rational estimations based on factual data of previous releases.

...they will come out with superbit versions and expect everyone to buy the same title again.

Your sense of history is rather lacking. SONY invented "Superbit" as a way to get people to re-buy the same thing.

Therefore, it is REASONABLE, even LOGICAL, to assume that if a 3 hour movie fills up a 30 GB disc with only ~500 MB to spare, while leaving out a lossless track, that a 3 and AND A HALF hour long movie may have even MORE trouble.The only problem with your "logic" is that you don't know whether capacity or bitrate was the reason for King Kong not having a TrueHD track. None of the early Universal releases had one, so perhaps it's just because of policy, or because they didn't have the authoring tools. You also don't know whether they could have used a smaller video encode and still get excellent picture quality.

Your argument is like saying that because "Pirates of the Carribean" fills up a BD50, Bluray cannot do movies over two hours long ...

However, the concern with Troy is that it's a 3 and a half hour long film, and is the longest film thus far attempted to be put into a 30 GB confinement. Logic dictates that because it is longer than a 2 hour movie, the bitrate must be lowered in comparison to a 2 hour movie in order to accomodate a longer runtime. That is not speculation, that is fact.Yes. But you have no idea what impact (if any) that will have on the picture quality. Why don't you just wait until the title is out before you start bashing it?

PS: I didn't notice any macroblocking in Blood Diamond either ...

Therefore, it is REASONABLE, even LOGICAL, to assume that if a 3 hour movie fills up a 30 GB disc with only ~500 MB to spare, while leaving out a lossless track, that a 3 and AND A HALF hour long movie may have even MORE trouble.

You are so out of your depth here, it is beyond pathetic. You have no idea what you are talking about yet you have the temerity to come into this forum and spout your uninformed beliefs with people that are not only experts on their own, but with access to the professionals that not only use, but actually create these technologies. Incredible, even for the Blu-ray forum on AVS.

BTW, it is pretty easy to fill up even a 50 GB disc with just about anything.

The only problem with your "logic" is that you don't know whether capacity or bitrate was the reason for King Kong not having a TrueHD track. None of the early Universal releases had one, so perhaps it's just because of policy, or because they didn't have the authoring tools. You also don't know whether they could have used a smaller video encode and still get excellent picture quality.

Your argument is like saying that because "Pirates of the Carribean" fills up a BD50, Bluray cannot do movies over two hours long ...

Yes. But you have no idea what impact (if any) that will have on the picture quality. Why don't you just wait until the title is out before you start bashing it?

PS: I didn't notice any macroblocking in Blood Diamond either ...

1. Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't fill up a BD50, though. If you take a minute to look at the file size of the movie in a thread on this very site, you'd see it doesn't even reach 40 GB. It's also about an hour shorter than Troy: The Director's Cut.

2. I'm suggesting that because a 3 hour long movie barely fits onto an HD DVD, filling 29.5 GB without a lossless track, that Blu Ray owners are going to get shafted when it comes to this 3 and a half hour long movie in the same confinements. Universal couldn't have fit a TrueHD track onto the HD DVD disc - even if they wanted to, simply because 500 MB is simply NOT enough room for a 3 hour True HD track. Blu Ray has the space for both high quality audio AND high quality video, and as the 3 hour long King Kong demonstrates, there MORE THAN LIKELY is not enough room for a 30 GB/36 mbps encode to handle both. This is a COMPLETELY reasonable, logical, and most importantly, well-founded concern.

You are so out of your depth here, it is beyond pathetic. You have no idea what you are talking about yet you have the temerity to come into this forum and spout your uninformed beliefs with people that are not only experts on their own, but with access to the professionals that not only use, but actually create these technologies. Incredible, even for the Blu-ray forum on AVS.

BTW, it is pretty easy to fill up even a 50 GB disc with just about anything.

Argue with the post, not the poster. You did not provide any infromation to back up what you said, other than just telling me I am out of my depth and beyond pathetic.

I said that a 3 hour long movie takes up 29.5 GB of space and lacks a lossless track. This is fact. This is not speculation or even assumption. That is fact.

There's absolutely nothing "out of depth" or "pathetic" with assuming that a 3 and a half hour long movie will provide more trouble than a 3 hour long movie, if the 3 hour movie leaves only 500 MB left! In fact, that is the only logical assumption one can make.

I do not believe it is possible to cram a lossless track and 30 additional minutes of footage into 500 MB of space without sacrificing quality - whether it be found in video and/or audio. I refuse to believe that a 201 minute TrueHD track can fit in 500 MB of space. I also refuse to believe that 30 minutes of footage can fit into 500 of space at a reasonable bitrate, let alone both of them. Please provide some information that would prove otherwise. If you can not, I do not expect you to make any more responses in this thread.

Maybe Warner could use the extra space of Bluray to provide a seperate HD video stream with a burnt in PIP window. The space on Bluray and HD DVD would be used up and the two editions for the two formats would be equal.

1. Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't fill up a BD50, though. If you take a minute to look at the file size of the movie in a thread on this very site, you'd see it doesn't even reach 40 GB. It's also about an hour shorter than Troy: The Director's Cut.Jeez, it was just an example. But here you go: If Pirates at 143 minutes fills up 40 GB, than by your "logic" Bluray could not do a movie longer than 143*50/40=~178 minutes. I guess that means no Troy for you. :D

2. I'm suggesting that because a 3 hour long movie barely fits onto an HD DVDYou don't know whether it "barely fits". Perhaps they didn't maximize the video compression because they just didn't have to. The European King Kong release has six (!) audio tracks with different languages. The US version has three plus secondary video for the IME feature. And still the picture has reference quality. Doesn't look to me like they were short of bandwidth.
Blu Ray has the space for both high quality audio AND high quality videoAnd so does HD-DVD, as King Kong and many other excellent releases prove. There is is no evidence whatsoever that disc capacity or bandwidth is a problem for HD-DVD.

Jeez, it was just an example. But here you go: If Pirates at 143 minutes fills up 40 GB, than by your "logic" Bluray could not do a movie longer than 143*50/40=~178 minutes. I guess that means no Troy for you. :D

You don't know whether it "barely fits". Perhaps they didn't maximize the video compression because they just didn't have to. The European King Kong release has six (!) audio tracks with different languages. The US version has three plus secondary video for the IME feature. And still the picture has reference quality. Doesn't look to me like they were short of bandwidth.
And so does HD-DVD, as King Kong and many other excellent releases prove. There is is no evidence whatsoever that disc capacity or bandwidth is a problem for HD-DVD.

Apparently, you didn't look in the thread. I just did, so I'll provide the data for you.

Pirates consumes almost exactly 33.5 GB of space and is 143 minutes.

Reconstruct your math problem, and you'll find that 201 minutes is indeed possible on a single BD-50 disc, given the benchmark in quality provided by Pirates.

Have you actually seen Blood Diamond? It has macroblocking. There is a certain group of people that continue to deny that it is present in Blood Diamond, but there is also a group of people that deny that the Holocaust ever happened. It doesn't mean they're right. Macroblocking is a direct result of insufficient bitrate. Yes, it would benefit from a higher bitrate, and you don't even need to see a master or even another encode to figure that out. Macroblocking is a COMPRESSION ARTIFACT that can only be fixed with an increase in bitrate.

Oh no, you didn't go there, did you? Yep, you did! :eek:

Apparently, you didn't look in the thread. I just did, so I'll provide the data for you.

Pirates consumes almost exactly 33 GB of space and is 143 minutes.

Reconstruct your math problem, and you'll find that 201 minutes is indeed possible on Blu Ray. :rolleyes: I give up. The point is completely lost on you.

:rolleyes: I give up. The point is completely lost on you.

Jeez, it was just an example. But here you go: If Pirates at 143 minutes fills up 40 GB, than by your "logic" Bluray could not do a movie longer than 143*50/40=~178 minutes. I guess that means no Troy for you. :D


Your point was that if Pirates, the benchmark in HD quality for Blu Ray owners, consumed 40 GB of space (which is incorrect), that a 201 minute movie wouldn't be able to fit on a BD-50 disc either, thus the complaints about lowering bitrate and quality to fit on a disc would be moot, since it wouldn't be able to fit on a BD-50 without dropping the bitrate below Pirates' standards (which Blu Ray owners hope all titles meet or exceed) anyways.

You are incorrect, given that Pirates takes up 33.5 GB of space, and is 143 minutes long.

As previously calculated, a PCM track would weigh in at about 6.7GB. That means a comparable TrueHD track should be about half that - let's say 3.4GB. So with a HD DVD 30, that leaves up 26.6GB for video (approximately, because menus, other audio tracks, subtitles, and any interactive stuff will eat up some space as well).

26.6GB = 26,600MB = 212,800Mb
201min = 12,060s
212,800Mb/12,060s = 17.65Mbps

As an average bit rate, that shouldn't be bad at all. Am I missing why people are so up in arms about this? At least they realized they need two discs because an HD DVD 30 isn't big enough.
Thing is, Warner will want to add extras, also there will be multiple track audios, granted they're small but still take a few precious GBs:
640 kbit x 12060 s = 942MB... put 2 of them and you get 1.8GB
Let's say 4.8 GB of extras => there will be 20GB left for video and the average bitrate will become 13.2Mbps, already much lower (and unfortunately more realistic).

Your point was that if Pirates, the benchmark in HD quality for Blu Ray owners, consumed 40 GB of space (which is incorrect), that a 201 minute movie wouldn't be able to fit on a BD-50 disc either, thus the complaints about lowering bitrate and quality to fit on a disc would be moot, since it wouldn't be able to fit on a BD-50 without dropping the bitrate below Pirates' standards anyways.

You are incorrect, given that Pirates takes up 33.5 GB of space, and is 143 minutes long.Sigh. :rolleyes: Do you know what the word "example" means? Ok, one last try, and this time I use actual numbers. Casino Royal is 144 minutes long and, according to your thread, occupies about 47 GB on disc. Does that mean that Bluray cannot hold movies longer than 144*50/47=~153 minutes without "sacrificing" something? Of course not. It is just silly to assume that just because some movie happens to be authored to fill a disc that no longer movie could fit. You don't know what decisions and tradeoffs were made when authoring the disc.

Sigh. :rolleyes: Do you know what the word "example" means? Ok, one last try, and this time I use actual numbers. Casino Royal is 144 minutes long and, according to your thread, occupies about 47 GB on disc. Does that mean that Bluray cannot hold movies longer than 144*50/47=~153 minutes without "sacrificing" something? Of course not. It is just silly to assume that just because some movie happens to be authored to fill a disc that no longer movie could fit. You don't know what decisions and tradeoffs were made when authoring the disc.

Once again, you're incorrect. The 144 minute long Casino Royale consumes 35 GB of disc space, and the entire disc, including MPEG 2 encoded extras, is 47 GB. Please take the time to correctly read and digest information before rushing to prove someone wrong.

Once again, you're incorrect. The 144 minute long Casino Royale consumes 35 GB of disc space, and the entire disc, including MPEG 2 encoded extras, is 47 GB. Please take the time to correctly read and digest information before rushing to prove someone wrong.So then that means Bluray can only do movies over 153 minutes by dropping extras, right?

Is this guy for real? :cool:

More unbased claims spreading all over the place here. Paramount has its encodes done by different people for BD and HD DVD because of the deals it gets by doing it that way. If someone offers a studio the oppurtunity to have its encodes done for a certain format cheaper, I'm sure economics would win out.

Warner has been favoring HD DVD in its support of advanced audio, of that I will not argue. My gripe is all this bashing of low bitrate encodes that are supposedly hurting BD or not taking advantage of it. This is totally unfounded and no one here has any evidence to the contrary. Comparing Troy on HD DVD to POTC on BD also has no merit either, that is like saying the soundtrack on Saving Private Ryan is better than the soundtrack on The Wedding Planner because it is in DTS (which I am sure some people here are actually ignorant enough to say).

I know personally of a studio that did the test that all of you are talking about and encoded a VERY high profile title for BD and HD DVD seperately using the same video codec "optimized" for the specific format. Like CJPlay had stated in his posts back in the day, there wasn't any difference. You do realize that there is a cap where throwing bits doesn't buy you anything right?

I didn't see any macroblocking on Blood Diamond. I use a 120" diagonal screen and sit at about 1.5x. I am using a 1080p display that actually resolves the entire 1080p image (most projectors used commonly today do not). To say that I'm sensitive to banding and MB is an understatement. There was some mild banding in some of the white outs in Blood Diamond, but no MB.

Banding is another thing thrown around here, mainly with animation titles. I remember people getting in an uproar about Happy Feet and the banding in it and how it was because of Warner's "low bit rate" encode. Funny, I had a conversation with someone who was involved with this title and he checked every scene that had banding on the HD release against the master and guess what, every scene had the exact same banding IN THE MASTER.

Until someone actually has the oppurtunity to compare directly against the master the encode was struck from or can do side by side, level matched comparisons of seperate encodes at different bitrates, ALL OF THIS BANTER IS COMPLETELY SPECULATIVE AND ESSENTIALLY CRAP.

Why is it that there are so many complaints from so many different posters about the PQ on so many Warner releases when there are no comparable consistent complaints about any other studio?

Is there some sort of conspiracy directed against Warner?

Or is there a problem with Warner's encoding practices?

So then that means Bluray can only do movies over 153 minutes by dropping extras, right?

Is this guy for real? :cool:

Stop it immediately, or I will be forced report you to a moderator.

A little over half of the "extra" space could be freed up by using a more efficient codec like AVC to encode the extras instead of the MPEG 2 that was used in Casino Royale. That right there will extend the maximum length of a movie without dropping any extras and without having to add extras to a second disc.

Also, I don't think many would complain about a 2 disc set with the main feature on a BD-50 and bonus features on the second disc, when dealing with a 3 and a half hour long epic.

Why is it that there are so many complaints from so many different posters about the PQ on so many Warner releases when there are no comparable consistent complaints about any other studio?

Is there some sort of conspiracy directed against Warner?

Or is there a problem with Warner's encoding practices?

I second those and every other inquiry made regarding Kris Deering post. I've never seen he sound so off base.

Is he trying to make pass the old Amir's "Warner's low bit rate VC-1 are transparent to the master"?

I thought this was way behind us now.

Sony was once mercilessly criticized left and right for their subpar discs (deservingly so). They acknowledged it and changed. Now their releases are usually considered top notch and reference, much like Disney's.

So why it every time Warner Bros is the one that's questioned (and not without evidence) people seem to get so defensive for them. $#*% it's almost like they are perfect and unquestionable.

I know they were the best studio for DVD for the past years, but they are no longer for HD. The lack of lossless audio for every title is reason enough for that already.

Gee, I really don't understand this protectiveness towards them

You are also confusing something else. Space consumed on a disc doesn't have to do with the length of the movie nearly as much as the difficulty of the encode. If a movie is easy to encode it doesn't need as many bits (this happens with animation a lot because it is so clean) so you could fit a movie in a very small space this way.

Troy's CG effects (especially the armies) looked soft even in the theatrical release, the CG wasn't as good as some other films. It was also filmed a bit bright which sacrifices contrast and is a softer looking film than POTC. This is not an issue with VC-1 or Warner, rather the decisions made by the filmmakers.

Also, Troy was an early release on HD DVD and since this is an entirely different encode of a new cut, and we KNOW that VC-1 has been updated significantly since then (at least I know) couldn't you make the guess that they could take up less space due to efficiency improvements??

Who's to say they don't just do the film and some IME on one disc and all the supplements on another? 30GB is a lot of space if that is the case, especially if they don't use the same IME as they did on the first one.

You are also confusing something else. Space consumed on a disc doesn't have to do with the length of the movie nearly as much as the difficulty of the encode. If a movie is easy to encode it doesn't need as many bits (this happens with animation a lot because it is so clean) so you could fit a movie in a very small space this way.

Troy's CG effects (especially the armies) looked soft even in the theatrical release, the CG wasn't as good as some other films. It was also filmed a bit bright which sacrifices contrast and is a softer looking film than POTC. This is not an issue with VC-1 or Warner, rather the decisions made by the filmmakers.

Also, Troy was an early release on HD DVD and since this is an entirely different encode of a new cut, and we KNOW that VC-1 has been updated significantly since then (at least I know) couldn't you make the guess that they could take up less space due to efficiency improvements??

Who's to say they don't just do the film and some IME on one disc and all the supplements on another? 30GB is a lot of space if that is the case, especially if they don't use the same IME as they did on the first one.

Err. Listen.

29.5 GB for a 3 hour movie and no lossless track.

Tell me.

Is it possible to fit a 201 min TrueHD lossless track and 30 additional minutes of footage into 500 MB of space? Is it even possible to fit that in 1 GB, or 2 GB or even 3 GB of space? No. It's not.

I'd advise you to return to the HD DVD section of this forum, as it's painfully/annoyingly clear that that is your home.

Why is it that there are so many complaints from so many different posters about the PQ on so many Warner releases when there are no comparable consistent complaints about any other studio?

Is there some sort of conspiracy directed against Warner?

Or is there a problem with Warner's encoding practices?

Bad setups? Non-professional calibration? Football piling?

The ones Ive seen are those who are BD-only supporters. They just want to bitch about hd-dvd.

Err. Listen.

29.5 GB for a 3 hour movie and no lossless track.

Tell me.

Is it possible to fit a 201 min TrueHD lossless track and 30 additional minutes of footage into 500 MB of space? Is it even possible to fit that in 1 GB, or 2 GB or even 3 GB of space? No. It's not.

I'd advise you to return to the HD DVD section of this forum, as it's painfully/annoyingly clear that that is your home.

You dont know that because you do not work in the field. Unless you have proof that they could not get the same quality picture from encoding differently? Your completely assuming on something you do not know about.

For a fact, you have NO proof that the bitrate is the problem. Yes, there was not enough space, but that DOES NOT mean they could not have changed something to include it. At that time, Universal was not including lossless tracks.

For the record, I think King Kong looks as good or better than any BD release that I have seen (POTC: DMC being one).

You dont know that because you do not work in the field. Unless you have proof that they could not get the same quality picture from encoding differently? Your completely assuming on something you do not know about.

For a fact, you have NO proof that the bitrate is the problem. Yes, there was not enough space, but that DOES NOT mean they could not have changed something to include it. At that time, Universal was not including lossless tracks.

For the record, I think King Kong looks as good or better than any BD release that I have seen (POTC: DMC being one).

Uh, you don't have to work in the field to know that a 201 minute TrueHD track won't fit into 500 MB of space. That's just a matter of simple math, no assumption is even necessary for that one. No one is saying bitrate is a problem with King Kong. What I *AM* saying however is that King Kong practically maxed out the HD DVD 30 GB disc, while lacking a lossless/uncompressed track that Blu Ray owners have grown accustomed to all while being 30 minutes shorter than Troy DC. Hell, King Kong came from an IMPECCABLE DI master source as well, and more than likely required less bitrate than a movie like Troy because of it, anyways, so that's another strike that wasn't even mentioned before.

Also, as all of us should be able to tell by the 29.5 disc size of King Kong - Universal couldn't have even added a TrueHD track if they wanted to.

[unnecessary comment deleted by moderator]

Uh, you don't have to work in the field to know that a 201 minute TrueHD track won't fit into 500 MB of space. That's just a matter of simple math, no assumption is even necessary for that one. No one is saying bitrate is a problem with King Kong. What I *AM* saying however is that King Kong practically maxed out the HD DVD 30 GB disc, while lacking a lossless/uncompressed track that Blu Ray owners have grown accustomed to all while being 30 minutes shorter than Troy DC. Hell, King Kong came from an IMPECCABLE DI master source as well, and more than likely required less bitrate than a movie like Troy because of it, anyways, so that's another strike that wasn't even mentioned before.

Also, as all of us should be able to tell by the 29.5 disc size of King Kong - Universal couldn't have even added a TrueHD track if they wanted to.

I'll give you the same message that I directed towards another poster - Please return to the HD DVD forum.

Your not getting my point. If Universal had it in the specs, they could have adjusted the encode to account for the size. There is no proof the quality would have been any worse. Since it wasn't they didnt account for it.

The claims that it just wouldn't fit aren't accurate. Its speculation only.

Yes, it would not fit on what they encoded, but that doesnt mean that it was excluded for quality reasons.

FYI- Im a dual supporter and can post in any thread I want. You should watch your tone before the mods get after you.

AlexanderG is right, why the hell won't Warner use the extra space is beyond me. If you have it, DAMN IT USE IT!!!! I don't care for the HD-DVD version and I hope they won't dumbed down the size to hit into 30GB. It's like having a ferrari on the autobahn but you drive it like a Camry.

Your not getting my point. If Universal had it in the specs, they could have adjusted the encode to account for the size. There is no proof the quality would have been any worse. Since it wasn't they didnt account for it.

The claims that it just wouldn't fit aren't accurate. Its speculation only.

Yes, it would not fit on what they encoded, but that doesnt mean that it was excluded for quality reasons.

FYI- Im a dual supporter and can post in any thread I want. You should watch your tone before the mods get after you.

In King Kong's current video form, a TrueHD track would not be able to fit on the HD DVD 30 disc, even if Universal did want to add one. That is fact.

The speculation is in saying that King Kong would have looked the same if the bitrate was lowered to accomodate it.

AlexanderG is right, why the hell won't Warner use the extra space is beyond me. If you have it, DAMN IT USE IT!!!! I don't care for the HD-DVD version and I hope they won't dumbed down the size to hit into 30GB. It's like having a ferrari on the autobahn but you drive it like a Camry.

Then why didn't Sony use the extra space for their releases? Or the leftover space for Disney's Pirates?

Just because there is extra space doesn't mean that the encode was not done properly. Every movie is different. The encoding tools are different and even the encoder!

Stop it immediately, or I will be forced report you to a moderator.Stop what?
A little over half of the "extra" space could be freed up by using a more efficient codec like AVC to encode the extras instead of the MPEG 2 that was used in Casino Royale. That right there will extend the maximum length of a movie without dropping any extras and without having to add extras to a second disc.And couldn't they have done the same with the IME video on King Kong, which is also encoded in MPEG2? Or perhaps they could have encoded the main movie to use, say, 23.5 instead of 25 GB and exchange the 1.5 Mbps DD+-Track for a 2 Mbps TrueHD track?
Also, I don't think many would complain about a 2 disc set with the main feature on a BD-50 and bonus features on the second disc, when dealing with a 3 and a half hour long epic.Yeah, some people only complain when the same is done on HD-DVD ...

In King Kong's current video form, a TrueHD track would not be able to fit on the HD DVD 30 disc, even if Universal did want to add one. That is fact.

The speculation is in saying that King Kong would have looked the same if the bitrate was lowered to accomodate it.

Has anyone seen the HD broadcast version of King Kong. It is mpeg-2 and highly compressed. Aside from a few fast moving scenes where macroblocking occurs, it looks super sharp and bright. This movie has an impeccable master ! You can't compare King Kong to Troy. Troy will suffer at the same bitrate levels that king kong was offered at. I suspect an almost 3 and a half hour movie encoded at the same levels of king kong with a lossless track will be problematic to fit into 30GB.

In King Kong's current video form, a TrueHD track would not be able to fit on the HD DVD 30 disc, even if Universal did want to add one. That is fact.

The speculation is in saying that King Kong would have looked the same if the bitrate was lowered to accomodate it.

Wow, your saying the same thing I said, but putting your spin on it.

Your trying to prove your "Troy needs another encode" argument by using King Kong as an example.

So, your speculating and trying to prove it on another speculation. Niiice.

Yeah, some people only complain when the same is done on HD-DVD ...

The difference is that to maintain the same quality a single BD-50 disc containing ONLY the movie at a high bitrate, the movie itself must be split upon two discs while on HD DVD, while only the movie and extras are split on Blu Ray. That's a huge difference.

The difference is that to maintain the same quality a single BD-50 disc containing ONLY the movie at a high bitrate, the movie itself must be split upon two discs while on HD DVD, while only the movie and extras are split on Blu Ray. That's a huge difference.Do you have an example for that claim? There are several counter examples, on the other hand. Flags of our Fathers and The Prestige come to mind, which look all but the same on both media even though the BD versions occupy more space than an HD-DVD can hold.

Do you have an example for that claim? There are several counter examples, on the other hand. Flags of our Fathers and The Prestige come to mind, which look all but the same on both media even though the BD versions occupy more space than an HD-DVD can hold.


It would apear that examples are not nearly as effective for some posters as assumptions and speculations... :rolleyes:

Wow, your saying the same thing I said, but putting your spin on it.

Your trying to prove your "Troy needs another encode" argument by using King Kong as an example.

So, your speculating and trying to prove it on another speculation. Niiice.

King Kong comes from a pristine DI negative transferred source. It is perhaps the best possible film source an HD disc can come from, and aside from a film that was digitally shot/animated, the easiest to encode, as well. That's not speculation. That is fact.

Troy was shot using Super35, a film process that is NOTORIOUS for having higher amounts of grain than other filming methods, and having a direct effect on the complexity of encoding.

To put it simply, King Kong is perhaps one of the easiest film based sources to encode, while Troy is one of the hardest.

Therefore it is logical to assume that Troy would need a higher average bitrate to keep quality in league, as its source is more complex in structure.

Add all of what I just explained to the FACTS that King Kong is a half hour shorter than Troy: DC, lacking a lossless track, and consuming 29.5 GB of disc space, it really is not off base to assume that Troy: DC would simply require more disc space than 30 GB can provide if the audio and video quality would be up to par against the quality benchmark Blu Ray exclusive titles have provided.

Hope this clears things up.

Stop it immediately, or I will be forced report you to a moderator.


There's a difference between sarcasm and a personal attack (referencing the post that elicited this response from you). How 'bout you grow up or get off the playground.

Do you have an example for that claim? There are several counter examples, on the other hand. Flags of our Fathers and The Prestige come to mind, which look all but the same on both media even though the BD versions occupy more space than an HD-DVD can hold.

Once again, provide some examples of 3 1/2 hour long movies that have been compressed to fit into 30 GB. That's where you'll see the main difference, not in ~ 2 hour ones that don't have trouble fitting into 30 GB to begin with.

With King Kong, the difference wouldn't be in video quality since it already looks great, but clearly, there would be much more space for the higher quality audio, which believe it or not, is part of the "total package".

To put it simply, King Kong is perhaps one of the easiest film based sources to encode, while Troy is one of the hardest...Hope this clears things up.

Ok, well, then since your doing so much speculation...then ill do some too.

Since you say that King Kong was so easy to encode, wouldn't it be possible that they didn't pay much attention to the size (other than fitting it on to a 30gb disc) and efficiency?

Maybe King Kong was not an efficient encode since YOU claim it was so easy to encode. Maybe Troy will be MUCH more efficient since they are accounting for a lossless track and extras.

My speculation is just as valid since all we are doing is making assumptions. Plus, has it been confirmed that its not 2 discs?

Once again, provide some examples of 3 1/2 hour long movies that have been compressed to fit into 30 GB.So now you are saying that because there isn't such a movie yet it can't be done? :rolleyes: I guess we'll see when movies like Troy DC or Lord of the Rings come out.
That's where you'll see the main difference, not in ~ 2 hour ones that don't have trouble fitting into 30 GB to begin with.Neither do ~3 hour ones, as King Kong proves.
With King Kong, the difference wouldn't be in video quality since it already looks great, but clearly, there would be much more space for the higher quality audioBetter than King Kong's? I doubt it. The 1.5 Mbps DD+ is just excellent.

Ok, well, then since your doing so much speculation...then ill do some too.

Since you say that King Kong was so easy to encode, wouldn't it be possible that they didn't pay much attention to the size (other than fitting it on to a 30gb disc) and efficiency?

Maybe King Kong was not an efficient encode since YOU claim it was so easy to encode. Maybe Troy will be MUCH more efficient since they are accounting for a lossless track and extras.

My speculation is just as valid since all we are doing is making assumptions. Plus, has it been confirmed that its not 2 discs?

There's no speculation in saying a DI scanned negative is easier to encode than a movie that is transferred from a Super35 film post-production. That's fact. 100% confirmed fact. No assumptions, no speculation. Are you really going to argue with me over every point just because you are unwilling to admit that a 201 minute movie may possibly benefit from a 50 GB disc over a 30 GB disc?

So now you are saying that because there isn't such a movie yet it can't be done? :rolleyes: I guess we'll see when movies like Troy DC or Lord of the Rings come out.
Neither do ~3 hour ones, as King Kong proves.
Better than King Kong's? I doubt it. The 1.5 Mbps DD+ is just excellent.

King Kong proves there's no space left over for a lossless track, and that it's not capable of retaining BOTH top quality video and audio, i.e. "The total package."

It's FACT to say that there's no space left, given King Kong's current video quality, for a lossless audio track. It is SPECULATION however, to say that video quality would NOT suffer to add one.

1.5 Mbps DD+ may be excellent, but it's not lossless. Every exclusive Blu Ray disc includes lossless and/or uncompressed master audio. End of story.

There's no speculation in saying a DI scanned negative is easier to encode than a movie that is transferred from a Super35 film post-production. That's fact. 100% confirmed fact. No assumptions, no speculation. Are you really going to argue with me over every point just because you are unwilling to admit that a 201 minute movie may possibly benefit from a 50 GB disc over a 30 GB disc?

Wow, you didnt even read my post. I said that maybe King Kong was not the most efficient encode....and that Universal (whatever company they used) could have made it more efficient and included a lossless track.

And yes, your making alot of assumptions by making the process too black and white. CJ has said that there are many, many factors in making a good encoding. Bitrate is just one of them and is less important than it used to be because of the newer tools.

King Kong proves there's no space left over for a lossless track, and that it's not capable of retaining BOTH top quality video and audio, i.e. "The total package."

AGAIN, your assumption is that Universal left it off for quality reasons. Unless you have proof, you should stop pushing this as fact. Its just as valid that Universal was NOT putting lossless on their releases at that time. Thats most likely the reason.

You have NO proof that had it been in the specs, they could not have made an efficient encode to account for the lossless track size.

AND YES, I have no proof that it wasn't removed for quality, but that said, we should not use it as an example just because you want to speculate/bitch.

Lets just wait and see what Troy looks like....Im sure many will just bitch about it because they wont want to admit they were incorrect though.

AGAIN, your assumption is that Universal left it off for quality reasons. Unless you have proof, you should stop pushing this as fact.

You have NO proof that had it been in the specs, they could not have made an efficient encode to account for the lossless track size.

AND YES, I have no proof that it wasn't removed for quality, but that said, we should not use it as an example.

I never said it was left off for quality reasons. I am saying it simply can't fit onto the disc.

30 GB minus 29.5 GB = .5 GB.

You can't fit a 3 hour lossless track into .5 GB.

Once again, it's speculation to assume that the video quality would not have suffered if it was downsized to accomodate a lossless track.

It is FACT however, to say that a lossless track could not have fit into King Kong given its current video size and quality.

Stop arguing with this, it's clear as day, and no one is spinning anything but you.

I've been trying to keep up with the argument on this page but its been difficult !
Lets look at another example.
Crank on bluray. It was filmed digitally and is pretty much one of the best looking films available. It uses mpeg-2 but yet, it doesn't have high bitrates like say pirates of the Caribbean. The reason is because of the digital master. It transfers very well over to disc, just like king kong. I'm sorry, but if anyone thinks that Troy will look great encoded in VC-1 with king kong bitrates, they're in for a real shock. I foresee artifacting galore !!!!
One cannot handle an encode of a pristine digital master like king kong or crank like one would troy or pirates of the caribbean.
So in the end, comparing king kong to troy is comparing apples and oranges.
Troy is going to require a little more TLC than king kong or crank. And the format to give it that would be blu-ray ;)

I never said it was left off for quality reasons. I am saying it simply can't fit onto the disc.

30 GB minus 29.5 GB = .5 GB.

You can't fit a 3 hour lossless track into .5 GB.

Once again, it's speculation to assume that the video quality would not have suffered if it was downsized to accomodate a lossless track.

It is FACT however, to say that a lossless track could not have fit into King Kong given its current video size and quality.

Stop arguing with this, it's clear as day, and no one is spinning anything but you.

Your still not getting it.....I understand exactly what your saying above.

I agree with you that its ALL speculation....THATS MY POINT!

Neither of us know, so you shouldnt be using it as an example to prove your point.

I'm sorry, but if anyone thinks that Troy will look great encoded in VC-1 with king kong bitrates, they're in for a real shock. I foresee artifacting galore !!!!

Lets see what happens! For all we know, it might end up being a 2 disc set.

Personally, ive been happy with WB releases (overall).....and I am confident they will do a good job either on a single disc or 2.

Lets see what happens! For all we know, it might end up being a 2 disc set.

Personally, ive been happy with WB releases (overall).....and I am confident they will do a good job either on a single disc or 2.

I hope you don't mean the main movie on two discs.
That would be very, very bad and even laughable. A next gen format can't fit a movie on one disc ?
Actually i'd really enjoy that. Troy on two discs for hddvd and one 50GB disc for blu-ray :p

Lets see what happens! For all we know, it might end up being a 2 disc set.

Personally, ive been happy with WB releases (overall).....and I am confident they will do a good job either on a single disc or 2.

Err - Why would I want a 2 disc set of 2 BD-25s, when it could just fill an entire BD-50?

Why would I want to swap discs in the middle of a movie, when if Warner actually utilized the BD-50 disc, I wouldn't have to?

You're sounding silly by making all of these excuses for Warner all because of an unncessary gamble that doesn't even need to be made in the first place, which is what the core of my argument is.

Here is a quote from CJ about Hamlet...

"The 2.20 aspect does help the ABR get smaller. 04:02 long? Sure. The action level is so low. Big plus. I'm thinking 11Mbps average with a 24 peak could pull it off very nice with a TrueHD, 3 5.1DD+, commentary, and NO extras on one disc. No big quality loss either. When Dukes and Batman comes out and you think the quality sucks, then I'm totally wrong about this..."

I wouldn't be surprised if Troy doesn't have the IME on hd-dvd. It would be easiest to port to BD.

Remember KK was 1.85:1 and Troy was 2.35:1. Which will make a difference too.

Again, there are MANY factors that an encoder has to take into account. Its not black and white.

I hope you don't mean the main movie on two discs.
That would be very, very bad and even laughable. A next gen format can't fit a movie on one disc ?
Actually i'd really enjoy that. Troy on two discs for hddvd and one 50GB disc for blu-ray :p

Personally, I dont mind the movie on 2 discs if its longer than 3 hours, but I dont think that will be needed.

Movie on 1 disc and extras on another. Similar to what Paramount does.

Here is a quote from CJ about Hamlet...

"The 2.20 aspect does help the ABR get smaller. 04:02 long? Sure. The action level is so low. Big plus. I'm thinking 11Mbps average with a 24 peak could pull it off very nice with a TrueHD, 3 5.1DD+, commentary, and NO extras on one disc. No big quality loss either. When Dukes and Batman comes out and you think the quality sucks, then I'm totally wrong about this..."

I wouldn't be surprised if Troy doesn't have the IME on hd-dvd. It would be easiest to port to BD.

Remember KK was 1.85:1 and Troy was 2.35:1. Which will make a difference too.

Again, there are MANY factors that an encoder has to take into account. Its not black and white.

Did you even read the quote about Hamlet? He specifically says "the action level is so low"...

For those of us that have seen Troy, we know that the action level in it is VERY high. There's tons of action with battling armies literally filling the entire screen. Sounds much more demanding to me.

Also, he praises Dukes and Batman - A flick that has been referred to as "soft" (whether or not thats the director's intent, I'm not arguing here) for many months now, so of course the bitrate required isn't as high - if only because there's not nearly as much information to retain (in the event that the lower bitrate of it isn't smearing up detail, therefore softening the picture).

There's no speculation in saying a DI scanned negative is easier to encode than a movie that is transferred from a Super35 film post-production.
Both KK and Troy are Super35 and had a digital intermediate.

Did you even read the quote about Hamlet? He specifically says "the action level is so low"...

For those of us that have seen Troy, we know that the action level in it is VERY high. There's tons of action with battling armies literally filling the entire screen. Sounds much more demanding to me.

Yes, I read it....the action level in Troy is higher, but its also 30 minutes less. My point being that its possible it can be done. Neither of us know.

Also, he praises Dukes and Batman - A flick that has been referred to as "soft" (whether or not thats the director's intent, I'm not arguing here) for many months now, so of course the bitrate required isn't as high - if only because there's not nearly as much information to retain (in the event that the lower bitrate of it isn't smearing up detail, therefore softening the picture).

BB looks superb....One of the best of the hd releases in my opinion (right up there with Kong, Casino Royale and Pirates of the Caribbean DMC).

I havent seen Dukes nor want to.

Yes, I read it....the action level in Troy is higher, but its also 30 minutes less. My point being that its possible it can be done. Neither of us know.



BB looks superb....One of the best of the hd releases in my opinion (right up there with Kong, Casino Royale and Pirates of the Caribbean DMC).

I havent seen Dukes nor want to.

Correct. I will admit neither of us know.

But you wouldn't say, that at the very least, it is a VALID CONCERN, to think that the 3 and a half hour long version of Troy, the longest movie ever attempted on a 30 GB disc, may suffer (whether it be video and/or audio) from being confined to a disc space that is about half the size the Blu Ray 50 GB disc can provide?

Troy doesn't have that much action, considering its running length.

And why is it that Blu-ray fans who have a poor arguement always say something to the affect of "you should go back to the HD DVD forum". You no NOTHING about me. I don't have any preference either way in this arguement, I am just telling you things based on FACTS from people who actually do this for a living, not spend their time speculating on some forum what might or should or could happen if you were in your little perfect world with no master limitations, no economic limitations or no agenda.

King Kong has nothing to do with this arguement. Universal was not supporting TrueHD when that title came out. Efficiency levels of VC-1 were also different. Now if you could prove that Universal could not release King Kong RIGHT NOW starting from scratch on HD DVD with a TrueHD soundtrack and the same supplements you might have something. But you can't.

Troy is a 2.40 movie so there is less data to compress than KK which is 1.85. VC-1 has been updated SEVERAL times over since the first Troy was released. You have NO idea what supplemental materials or soundtrack options are going to be included with the main feature. The only real arguement you can make about Troy is how you COULDN'T have done the same release you have on HD DVD right now on Blu-ray because of IT'S limitations. Funny how we can swing an argument BASED ON REAL FACTS.

I can GUARANTEE you this, the video encode for the Blu-ray and HD DVD of Troy DC will be IDENTICAL. People will always say "it could be better if it was authored specifically for BD" but they would have NOTHING to base that on. They are not doing the encode or comparing encodes.

I'd advise you to return to the HD DVD section of this forum, as it's painfully/annoyingly clear that that is your home.

I'm sure Kris can defend himself but I have to say this seems a might intolerant. The man reviews both formats and said that Apocalypto was 'reference material' so he doesn't seem biased to me. Why should he only post in the HD DVD forum?

For the record, there is a Blu-ray disc that does have an advantage because of a seperate encode WITH THE SAME FORMAT. That is NIN Beside You In Time. Blu-ray has a higher max bitrate for video and in this case it was necessary as this footage is a compressionist nightmare. But even with that release I can bet that only a handful of people on the planet would notice the difference, and even then you'd have to almost go frame by frame in pause.

Correct. I will admit neither of us know.

But you wouldn't say, that at the very least, it is a VALID CONCERN, to think that the 3 and a half hour long version of Troy, the longest movie ever attempted on a 30 GB disc, may suffer (whether it be video and/or audio) from being confined to a disc space that is about half the size the Blu Ray 50 GB disc can provide?

Yes, i understand what your argument is.

A valid concern though? I dont think so....just because of WB's track record. Ive been very happy with their releases and have no reason to doubt that they will make it look very good.

If we had an example of a long movie where they f***ed up, then I would be concerned. I just believe they have quality control and would put the extras on 2 discs or something.

Lets see what happens.

I can GUARANTEE you this, the video encode for the Blu-ray and HD DVD of Troy DC will be IDENTICAL. People will always say "it could be better if it was authored specifically for BD" but they would have NOTHING to base that on. They are not doing the encode or comparing encodes.

NOTHING to base it on?

The fact that this will be the longest movie ever attempted to be released on HD DVD, pushing the limits of that format, while not pushing the limits of Blu Ray at all certainly IS something to base it in.

Yes, i understand what your argument is.

A valid concern though? I dont think so....just because of WB's track record. Ive been very happy with their releases and have no reason to doubt that they will make it look very good.

If we had an example of a long movie where they f***ed up, then I would be concerned. I just believe they have quality control and would put the extras on 2 discs or something.

Lets see what happens.

We have plenty examples of where Warner has "f***ed" up, but unfortunately, we have absolutely nothing to compare those examples with since they refuse to show screen caps of masters or do a higher bitrate encoding to 'prove us wrong' with.

For the record, there is a Blu-ray disc that does have an advantage because of a seperate encode WITH THE SAME FORMAT. That is NIN Beside You In Time. Blu-ray has a higher max bitrate for video and in this case it was necessary as this footage is a compressionist nightmare. But even with that release I can bet that only a handful of people on the planet would notice the difference, and even then you'd have to almost go frame by frame in pause.

But the differences become more apparent when the screen size is bigger. Of course someone with a 42" 1080p tv is not going to notice the difference. Someone with a 71" DLP or a 110" Projector may.

But the differences become more apparent when the screen size is bigger. Of course someone with a 42" 1080p tv is not going to notice the difference. Someone with a 71" DLP or a 110" Projector may.

FYI - I just finished watching Blood Diamond on hd-dvd on my XA2 connected via HDMI to my Samsung 71in DLP (calibrated by Avical)....I saw no macroblocking.

I saw alot of film grain and lightened blacks at times, but no macroblocking. Its not as bad of a disc as I thought after reading reviews on this forum.

We have plenty examples of where Warner has "f***ed" up, but unfortunately, we have absolutely nothing to compare those examples with since they refuse to show screen caps of masters or do a higher bitrate encoding to 'prove us wrong' with.

That is precisely the on-point response to those who say "prove that Warner's low bit-rate encodes degrade picture quality." The information necessary to make such a proof is in the hands of Warner, who obviously has no interest in seeing such a proof performed. The fact that Paramount's different encodes look the same proves nothing about Warner's practices.

FYI - I just finished watching Blood Diamond on hd-dvd on my XA2 connected via HDMI to my Samsung 71in DLP (calibrated by Avical)....I saw no macroblocking.

I saw alot of film grain and lightened blacks at times, but no macroblocking. Its not as bad of a disc as I thought after reading reviews on this forum.

It's hardly a bad disc. Certainly, it is better than many would lead you to believe. As I said before, macroblocking definitely does not plague the release, but there are examples of it during the movie that should not be there, and while many scenes would more than likely not benefit from an increase of bitrate, some DEFINITELY would. And that's hardly what I call "The Look and Sound of Perfect".

We have plenty examples of where Warner has "f***ed" up, but unfortunately, we have absolutely nothing to compare those examples with since they refuse to show screen caps of masters or do a higher bitrate encoding to 'prove us wrong' with.

It must not be any discs that Ive watched....As Ive said, Ive been very satisfied with their high-def releases (my hd-dvd and bluray ones).

The fact that Paramount's different encodes look the same proves nothing about Warner's practices.

Why is that? They are the only example of a studio doing encodes for both...why do they not count as an example? Its clearly AVC versus VC-1?!?

Why is that? They are the only example of a studio doing encodes for both...why do they not count as an example? Its clearly AVC versus VC-1?!?

They've only moved to AVC vs VC-1 recently, starting with Flags of our Fathers I believe. Before, it was MPEG 2 Blu Ray vs. VC-1 HD DVD. None of their HD DVD (or blu ray for that matter) releases have lossless tracks, which will consume more space and bandwidth, allowing for a lower peak video bitrate and less disc space devoted to video. In addition, none of their releases have pushed the limits in terms of video duration, with nothing falling in the realm of ~3 hours.

I never really understood the big emphasis that was put on the comparisons of Flags of our Fathers, especially since it is a digitally shot video that is cleaner than any film based movie could ever hope to achieve, add that to its emphasis on drama more than action, and it's an encoders dream.

At this point, I don't see why there would be much of a difference between their releases. They're not really pushing either format to their limits yet in regards to audio capabilities (while maintaining top video quality) and video duration, which is where I believe HD DVD falls short.

Troy Director's Cut (Unrated)
Blu-ray | Blue BD Case Official Pre-Sell Date: July 10, 2007

Studio: Warner Bros.
Theatrical Release: 5/14/04
Theatrical Box Office (M): $132.00
Genre(s): Drama, War, Action/Adventure
MPAA: NR



Synopsis: Brad Pitt picks up a sword and brings a muscular, brooding presence to the role of Greek warrior Achilles in this spectacular retelling of The Iliad. Orlando Bloom and Diane Kruger play the legendary lovers who plunge the world into war, Eric Bana portrays the prince who dares to confront Achilles, and Peter O'Toole rules Troy as King Priam. Director Wolfgang Petersen recreates a long-ago world of bireme warships, clashing armies, the massive fortress city and the towering Trojan Horse.
Director: Wolfgang Petersen
Actors: Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, Peter O'Toole, Sean Bean, Brendan Gleeson, Brian Cox, Eric Bana, Diane Kruger


Critic's Quotes: "An action spectacle of weight, splendor and vast entertainment value" - Rex Reed / New York Observer
"Stunning. Raging excitement, visual grandeur and dramatic intelligence. ****." - Michael Wilmington / Chicago Tribune
"A gripping, well-told adaptation of one of the oldest human dramas." - Claudia Puig, USA Today The film is enormous and awe-inspiring" - Christy Lemire / Associated Press
"Brad Pitt scores in a visually astonishing epic." - Thelma Adams / US Weekly
"A brilliantly told story." -Sara Brady, Premiere Magazine
Copyright Info: (c) 2004 Warner Bros. Ent. All Rights Reserved.


Format: Blu-ray
Product Type: Sell Through
Latest Promotion: New Release
Announce Date: 7/10/07
Order Date: 8/14/07
Street Date: 9/18/07
UPC: 085391173779
Cat#: 117377
ISBN: 1-4198-5881-5
Closed Captioning: Yes
MSRP: $34.99
MPAA: NR
Packaging Type: Blue BD Case
Media Quantity: 1
Disc Configuration:
1) BD-50
Soundtrack Language: English
Run Time: 196
Units per Carton: 30

Subtitles: Brazilian Portuguese, English SDH, English, Francais, Korean, Latin Spanish
Aspect Ratio: Original Aspect Ratio - 2.40, Widescreen [16:9 Transfer]
Sound Quality: English: Dolby Surround 5.1
Francais (Q): Dolby Surround 5.1
English: Dolby Surround 5.1 MLP
Latin Spanish: Dolby Surround 5.1

Hmmm... Single BD-50...

Looks ilke it has a "Dolby Surround 5.1 MLP lossless" track. So, that's good...

Now, let's just see if it utilizes only 30 GB of the BD-50 disc, or if it's a single disc version of a 2 disc HD DVD set.

Hmmm... Single BD-50... Looks like no TrueHD track, either... So, unless this is incorrect, it looks like the audio quality is suffering for this release, at the minimum. Not good, so far.

MLP = TrueHD

MLP = TrueHD

No, it's not TrueHD.

TrueHD is capable of 7.1 audio. MLP only is capable of 5.1.

No, it's not TrueHD.

TrueHD is capable of 7.1 audio. MLP only is capable of 5.1.
Oh brother. Go read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueHD). Just because the DVD-Audio format was limited to 5.1 channels doesn't mean the MLP technology cannot extend to 7.1 for Blu-Ray and HD DVD.

Oh brother. Go read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueHD). Just because the DVD-Audio format was limited to 5.1 channels doesn't mean the MLP technology cannot extend to 7.1 for Blu-Ray and HD DVD.

i think he only meant it as trueHD is not the same as MLP

Now it's just a waiting game to see if this BD version is a single disc version of a 2 disc HD DVD set, or if it's only using 30 GB of the BD-50.

If this ENTIRE movie is supposed to fit only on within 30 GB of space, with all of the extras that high definition digest listed, the movie is most certainly going be compressed like hell... That right there is not speculation, unfortunately.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Disc_Announcements/Warner_Announces_Troy:_Directors_Cut_for_Blu-ray,_HD_DVD/754

Unless the HD DVD version is a 2 disc set, then they are SERIOUSLY pushing the limits of 30 GB confinement...

i think he only meant it as trueHD is not the same as MLP
Which is also wrong.

No, it's not TrueHD.

TrueHD is capable of 7.1 audio. MLP only is capable of 5.1.

Dude....its TrueHD

English Dolby TrueHD 5.1 Surround (48kHz/16-bit)

Oh brother. Go read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueHD). Just because the DVD-Audio format was limited to 5.1 channels doesn't mean the MLP technology cannot extend to 7.1 for Blu-Ray and HD DVD.

Shrug. I'm just looking at Dolby's site itself, not wikipedia. They're both lossless formats, but they're not the same. Pickin' nits, but they're not the same.

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/tech_overview.html

For the record, there is a Blu-ray disc that does have an advantage because of a seperate encode WITH THE SAME FORMAT. That is NIN Beside You In Time. Blu-ray has a higher max bitrate for video and in this case it was necessary as this footage is a compressionist nightmare. But even with that release I can bet that only a handful of people on the planet would notice the difference, and even then you'd have to almost go frame by frame in pause.

QED

Interesting ... by providing at least one example where the increased bit-rate/bandwidth of the BD PQ was superior to that of HD DVD PQ, I think the original point is taken. There *may* be instances with certain long-running titles, where higher VC-1 (or whatever) bit-rates on BD will provide better PQ.

Shrug. I'm just looking at Dolby's site itself, not wikipedia. They're both lossless formats, but they're not the same. Pickin' nits, but they're not the same.

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/tech_overview.html
It's the same technology. TrueHD is MLP under a different name, whether you like it or not.

Why is that? They are the only example of a studio doing encodes for both...why do they not count as an example? Its clearly AVC versus VC-1?!?

The issue is not AVC versus VC-1. The issue is whether Warner is getting mediocre PQ as a result of inadequate bitrates. Paramount has absolutely nothing to do with that except as an example of a studio that, in contrast to Warner, seems to care about PQ.

It's the same technology. TrueHD is MLP under a different name, whether you like it or not.

Exactly....on the back of the box, its gonna say TrueHD 5.1, just like the first Troy release.

It's the same technology. TrueHD is MLP under a different name, whether you like it or not.

http://www.dolby.com/images/products/dmp/ComparisonTable_800px.jpg

They're not the same, where you like it or not.

As I said, pickin' nits, but they're not the same.

They're not the same, where you like it or not.

Well, when they put it in the listings like this, they mean TrueHD....go look at some others.

Believe us, its gonna be TrueHD 5.1

TMNT example -

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10714525&&#post10714525

Well, when they put it in the listings like this, they mean TrueHD....go look at some others.

Believe us, its gonna be TrueHD 5.1

Right, in practice, it's going to be the same for Troy, but as you can see by the chart, it is erroneous to state that MLP = TrueHD, as you said, when clearly as you can see above, that's not the case.

The basic codec is the same, but the capbilities are different.

That is precisely the on-point response to those who say "prove that Warner's low bit-rate encodes degrade picture quality." The information necessary to make such a proof is in the hands of Warner, who obviously has no interest in seeing such a proof performed. The fact that Paramount's different encodes look the same proves nothing about Warner's practices.

If you don't have the tools available to prove your point about Warner Brothers maybe the speculation and accusations should stop. Why would Warner want to give anyone here proof? If anyone from Warner is reading this thread they must be laughing their asses off.

Right, in practice, it's going to be the same for Troy, but as you can see by the chart, it is erroneous to state that MLP = TrueHD, as you said, when clearly as you can see above, that's not the case.

The basic codec is the same, but the capbilities are different.

Whatever.....I didnt specify, but I guess I have to without getting jumped on.

I meant that in those dealer listings, MLP has meant TrueHD.

If you don't have the tools available to prove your point about Warner Brothers maybe the speculation and accusations should stop. Why would Warner want to give anyone here proof? If anyone from Warner is reading this thread they must be laughing their asses off.

They're laughing their asses off because they're going to get triple dips out of so many people when it comes to this release.

First dip - Troy Theatrical Cut on HD DVD.
Second dip - Troy Director's Cut tailored to HD DVD specs.
Third dip - Troy tailored to Blu Ray's specs.

Now it's just a waiting game to see if this BD version is a single disc version of a 2 disc HD DVD set, or if it's only using 30 GB of the BD-50.

If this ENTIRE movie is supposed to fit only on within 30 GB of space, with all of the extras that high definition digest listed, the movie is most certainly going be compressed like hell... That right there is not speculation, unfortunately.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Disc_Announcements/Warner_Announces_Troy:_Directors_Cut_for_Blu-ray,_HD_DVD/754

Unless the HD DVD version is a 2 disc set, then they are SERIOUSLY pushing the limits of 30 GB confinement...

The basic codec is the same, but the capbilities are different.
It's just a difference in name, and nothing else. It's utter nonsense for you to say they are different just because the new formats can use the MLP technology beyond that of DVD-Audio.

If you don't have the tools available to prove your point about Warner Brothers maybe the speculation and accusations should stop. Why would Warner want to give anyone here proof? If anyone from Warner is reading this thread they must be laughing their asses off.

If Warner considers consumer dissatisfaction a laughing matter then they deserve these complaints and criticisms even more.

It's just a difference in name, and nothing else. It's utter nonsense for you to say they are different just because the new formats can use the MLP technology beyond that of DVD-Audio.

Utter nonsense? Shoot, I'm not the one who renamed the format! :rolleyes:

If you bothered to take a look at the chart I provided, there's a little more to it than "difference in name"... And that chart isn't even fully correct, since TrueHD goes further in capabilities beyond specifications that HD DVD allows.

Utter nonsense? Shoot, I'm not the one who renamed the format! :rolleyes:

If you bothered to take a look at the chart I provided, there's a little more to it than "difference in name".

This is a dumb argument.....its gonna be TrueHD 5.1, so lets drop it.

In those listings, thats what MLP means.

Utter nonsense? Shoot, I'm not the one who renamed the format! :rolleyes:

If you bothered to take a look at the chart I provided, there's a little more to it than "difference in name".
TrueHD is the name for MLP for the new formats. When compared to DVD-Audio, the new formats just support higher sampling rates and more channels. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meridian_Lossless_Packing) the MLP wiki entry, even though you will probably object to that to. :rolleyes:

This is a dumb argument.....its gonna be TrueHD 5.1, so lets drop it.

In those listings, thats what MLP means.

Agreed.

Does anyone have any specifications for the HD DVD version, like whether or not it is a 2 disc set or a single disc edition?

Agreed.

Does anyone have any specifications for the HD DVD version, like whether or not it is a 2 disc set or a single disc edition?

egcarter posted the hd-dvd listing in the hd-dvd thread (with cover art).

Its gonna be a single disc according to that listing.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10995807&&#post10995807

egcarter posted the hd-dvd listing in the hd-dvd thread (with cover art).

Its gonna be a single disc according to that listing.

Thanks.

Now it's even more valid to be concerned about the quality of this release.

Dolby TrueHD track, 196 minutes, and a slew of extras including "a new introduction by director Wolfgang Petersen, multiple making-of featurettes and more", all on a 30 GB disc?

While this movie may end up being fine, which I certainly am hoping, it looks like the odds are heavily against it...

Thanks.

Now it's even more valid to be concerned about the quality of this release.

Dolby TrueHD track, 196 minutes, and a slew of extras including "a new introduction by director Wolfgang Petersen, multiple making-of featurettes and more", all on a 30 GB disc?

While this movie may end up being fine, which I certainly am hoping, it looks like the odds are heavily against it...

Very heavily.

egcarter posted the hd-dvd listing in the hd-dvd thread (with cover art).

Its gonna be a single disc according to that listing.It could still be a double-sided HD-DVD with the extras on the B-side (they did this with the German Flags of our Fathers too).

But I don't see what the fuzz is about. According to the specs, the movie is just 8 minutes longer than Kong. Shouldn't be a problem at all. According to the old CJPlay posts, even 4 hour movies are fine given a good master.

It could still be a double-sided HD-DVD with the extras on the B-side (they did this with the German Flags of our Fathers too).

Ah, true!

But I don't see what the fuzz is about. According to the specs, the movie is just 8 minutes longer than Kong. Shouldn't be a problem at all.

Yeah, im not worried....I am curious mostly about whether this one will look better than the theatrical version.

It could still be a double-sided HD-DVD with the extras on the B-side (they did this with the German Flags of our Fathers too).

But I don't see what the fuzz is about. According to the specs, the movie is just 8 minutes longer than Kong. Shouldn't be a problem at all.

It's longer than Kong, and Kong didn't even have a lossless track that consumes a few gigs of space. Kong also consumed 29.5 GB of space.

It's longer than Kong, and Kong didn't even have a lossless track that consumes a few gigs of space.

And the circle of arguments continue. ;)

It's longer than Kong, and Kong didn't even have a lossless track that consumes a few gigs of space. Kong also consumed 29.5 GB of space.OMG, really?
:rolleyes:

OMG, really?
:rolleyes:

I mean, you're using Kong as a reference to say "this shouldn't be a problem" , when this title pushes both formats way more than Kong did. Your assessment is hardly accurate.

If Warner considers consumer dissatisfaction a laughing matter then they deserve these complaints and criticisms even more.

They deserve criticism when justfied and as a consumer we all have that right to complain . My point about them laughing had more to do with the speculative nature of this thread and the fact that a studio should provide 'proof' in the form of screen caps from masters to members of AVS. Sorry if I wasn't more clear on that. My other general point is that without proof folks should state things as opinion and not fact. Just my opinion.

And the circle of arguments continue. ;)


Say in Best Parrot Voice:

"Kong is 29.5 gb of space, no room for lossless in .5 gb of space...bbrraacckk..Kong is 29.5 gb of space, no room for lossless in .5 gb of space...bbrraacckk..."

Say in Best Parrot Voice:

"Kong is 29.5 gb of space, no room for lossless in .5 gb of space...bbrraacckk..Kong is 29.5 gb of space, no room for lossless in .5 gb of space...bbrraacckk..."

It's a perfectly valid point that certain people are pretending doesn't matter whatsoever.

A TrueHD track not only consumes more space, leaving less room for the video encode, but lowers overall peak video bitrate as well. It's hardly a good thing, given the confinement of the HD DVD spec and the extreme length of Troy: DC.

It's a perfectly valid point that certain people are pretending doesn't matter whatsoever.

A TrueHD track not only consumes more space, but lowers overall peak bitrate as well. It's hardly a good thing, given the confinement of the HD DVD spec and the extreme length of Troy: DC.


no, it would be a valid point if it was acknowledged by the compressionists that the 29.5 gb size was the smallest that they could make it without losing PQ. It isn't, so the argument is not valid.

Another example: the fact that King Kong is 29.5 gb in size has stopped bears from attacking me in my back yard. i haven't been attacked by bears, so it must be true

They deserve criticism when justfied and as a consumer we all have that right to complain . My point about them laughing had more to do with the speculative nature of this thread and the fact that a studio should provide 'proof' in the form of screen caps from masters to members of AVS. Sorry if I wasn't more clear on that. My other general point is that without proof folks should state things as opinion and not fact. Just my opinion.

I am a consumer that is dissatisfied with Warner's HD releases and I intend to continue complaining about it until they change their ways. Surely adding "in my opinion" at the end of each of these complaints is superfluous.

no, it would be a valid point if it was acknowledged by the compressionists that the 29.5 gb size was the smallest that they could make it without losing PQ. It isn't, so the argument is not valid.

Another example: the fact that King Kong is 29.5 gb in size has stopped bears from attacking me in my back yard. i haven't been attacked by bears, so it must be true

Hold on one second.

No one is saying that Troy HD will lack in PQ for a FACT. It's probably not even finished the encoding process.

All that is being said is that, given the circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable, valid, and appropriate to be concerned about how this disc will turn out.

This title is singlehandedly the grandest attempt any studio's made at confining a film to HD DVD's specifications. It's the longest, it has a lossless track, and it has a slew of bonus features - And it's on a single disc. King Kong has a higher peak video bitrate and more raw space devoted to video.

If every other Warner title was PERFECT, there still would be valid reason for concern simply because it's going further than any other film has before it. That's not the case though, as every Warner title IS NOT perfect, which lends even more legitimacy to the concern of the quality of this title.

Once again, no one is saying for fact that this release will turn out to be sub par. But it is foolish to close your eyes to the facts and not recognize that it's fighting an uphil battle.

I am a consumer that is dissatisfied with Warner's HD releases and I intend to continue complaining about it until they change their ways. Surely adding "in my opinion" at the end of each of these complaints is superfluous.

Whats your setup? And what titles are you not happy with? Just curious.

Thanks.

Now it's even more valid to be concerned about the quality of this release.

Dolby TrueHD track, 196 minutes, and a slew of extras including "a new introduction by director Wolfgang Petersen, multiple making-of featurettes and more", all on a 30 GB disc?

While this movie may end up being fine, which I certainly am hoping, it looks like the odds are heavily against it...

The odds are so strong that the PQ on this one will look even worse than Warner's usual low standard, I may have to buy it just to satisfy my curiosity and provide fodder for my complaints.

I was really hoping it would be split across 2 discs for HD DVD and be one BD50, but WB would rather risk quality than admit BD having any kind of advantage.

Troy will be difficult to compress too, due to it being an actual film transfer from Super 35 (AFAIK anyway). A lot of grain structure to deal with. Unless WB just filters it all out so that it's "smooth and transparent to the source." Usually, they just look flat to me, and not in the "lack 3D pop" kind of way, seeing as how not that many films really have that look. They just tend to look 2nd generation, like the difference between an original VHS tape and a copy. Not all, but some. Firewall springs to mind. Superman was less impressive to me the 2nd time I watched it too. I know it was shot with a soft look, but some parts just looked like flat (greenish) video, not like its cinemotography.

I am a consumer that is dissatisfied with Warner's HD releases and I intend to continue complaining about it until they change their ways. Surely adding "in my opinion" at the end of each of these complaints is superfluous.
I agree that you should complain as much as you want. Opinions stated as facts are what I have a problem with, if it is just an opinion then you ceratinly wouldn't need to say IMO.

The odds are so strong that the PQ on this one will look even worse than Warner's usual low standard, I may have to buy it just to satisfy my curiosity and provide fodder for my complaints.

I dont get that....low standard? You must be a frequent poster in the crappy Tier threads.

I watched The Patriot last night on my Sony BDP-300 and just got finished watching Blood Diamond on my XA2...Both looked stellar in my opinion. Maybe I need a bigger tv or screen to see these stark differences in quality.

I just dont get it.

I dont get that....low standard? You must be a frequent poster in the crappy Tier threads.

I watched The Patriot last night on my Sony BDP-300 and just got finished watching Blood Diamond on my XA2...Both looked stellar in my opinion. Maybe I need a bigger tv or screen to see these stark differences in quality.

I just dont get it.

I'd say that says more about Sony's capabilities regarding 7 year old catalog titles than it does Warner's capabilities with new releases.

I love all this chatter about Warner optimizing for HD DVD and not Blu-ray or how films would look so much better if they used the extra space on BD discs. Like a single soul here has any idea what they are talking about. NO one here has any evidence to the contrary and from the discussions I've had with people that actually DO this for a living your gripes are completely off.

Warner has done plenty of great looking HD DVD releases and Blu-ray releases. Most of the things people complain about have to do with the masters, not the encode. Blood Diamond is a great example. It is a great looking disc that was shot in a stylized way that some people find disagreeable. There is nothing wrong with the encode or the master, THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO LOOK.

Until someone actually does real comparisons by doing different encodes with the same master at different bitrates and sizes can we get a stop to all the whining from people that really don't know what they are talking about?? I know it is a lot to ask for a forum like this, but perpetuating misinformation and making complaints with no base at all to stand on is getting old.

I agree. I don't encode for a living, but I do tons of .wmv-hd encodes for my own personal use. And I can say, wmv/vc1 can hold it's own quite well even at low bitrates.

I think if Blu-ray didn't have so much extra space (ala 50gigs) no one would give it a second thought. Think of DVD. 8.5gigs was a lot for the time, but if there was a DVD that offered 15gigs, everyone would raise their voices to fill 15gigs.

In the end, though, as long as the final result looks and plays fantastic (whether it fills a BD 25 or a BD 50) that's all that matters.

I agree. I don't encode for a living, but I do tons of .wmv-hd encodes for my own personal use. And I can say, wmv/vc1 can hold it's own quite well even at low bitrates.

I think if Blu-ray didn't have so much extra space (ala 50gigs) no one would give it a second thought. Think of DVD. 8.5gigs was a lot for the time, but if there was a DVD that offered 15gigs, everyone would raise their voices to fill 15gigs.

In the end, though, as long as the final result looks and plays fantastic (whether it fills a BD 25 or a BD 50) that's all that matters.

I can't really argue with you about anything you've said, you're pretty much on point, but I really should reiterate what I posted a few posts ago about this title in particular.

This title is singlehandedly the grandest attempt any studio's made at confining a film to HD DVD's specifications. It's the longest, it has a lossless track, and it has a slew of bonus features - And it's on a single disc. King Kong is the only title that comes close, but it has a higher peak video bitrate and more raw space devoted to video.

This title may very well end up looking perfect, but to say it's not fighting an uphill battle is not accurate.

I was really hoping it would be split across 2 discs for HD DVD and be one BD50, but WB would rather risk quality than admit BD having any kind of advantage.

Troy will be difficult to compress too, due to it being an actual film transfer from Super 35 (AFAIK anyway). A lot of grain structure to deal with. Unless WB just filters it all out so that it's "smooth and transparent to the source." Usually, they just look flat to me, and not in the "lack 3D pop" kind of way, seeing as how not that many films really have that look. They just tend to look 2nd generation, like the difference between an original VHS tape and a copy. Not all, but some. Firewall springs to mind. Superman was less impressive to me the 2nd time I watched it too. I know it was shot with a soft look, but some parts just looked like flat (greenish) video, not like its cinemotography.These are really strange examples if you want to argue that the HD-DVD format is somehow at fault. Since according to our local compression expert Mr. G HD-DVD hits it's limits exactly at Kong's 188 minutes (yeah yeah, without lossless audio), it follows that the way Superman looks cannot be caused by HD-DVD's "confinement", since it is a much shorter movie, no? :p

Personally, I have been very satisfied with Warner's discs. They have one of the most consistent high quality standards. In all cases where the picture is not so great (mostly older catalog titles, e.g. Full Metal Jacket) it's clearly because of the master and has nothing to do with the encode.

Lossless audio is a big deal. It lowers overall maximum average bitrate in addition to peak video bitrate.

95% of the movie may be just fine with those lowered caps, but what about the other 5% that might need that little extra nudge of a few more bits to keep it looking sharp? This is what I believe happened to Blood Diamond. 95% of it looks fine, but there are a few places that just needed a little extra bump to get it up to the perfect level. 95% is not "The Look and Sound of Perfect". 100% is.

I'd say that says more about Sony's capabilities regarding 7 year old catalog titles than it does Warner's capabilities with new releases.

Lets dont even get into this topic....have you seen The Searchers? WB did a stellar job on that! They do very good work imo.

Lets dont even get into this topic....have you seen The Searchers? WB did a stellar job on that! They do very good work imo.

Yeah, but The Searchers just underwent total restoration, vastly different than any release on either format thus far. It does look STUNNING, though. I'd say Warner overdelivered on that one.

Yeah, but The Searchers just underwent total restoration, vastly different than any release on either format thus far. It does look STUNNING, though. I'd say Warner overdelivered on that one.

Casablanca and Robin Hood also.

The Patriot went through remastering...they did a superbit transfer of the EE.

Both are doing good work and Sony is really the only one with a lemon on its hands (of what ive seen so far). Luckily, they are re-releasing it. I applaud them for that. ;)

Lets dont even get into this topic....have you seen The Searchers? WB did a stellar job on that! They do very good work imo.

The Searchers was one of Warner's very early HD releases; they in fact did a good job with these early releases. It was not until about the time of Batman Begins that their bad practices started. In my opinion.

Im watching Brotherhood of the Wolf UK import right now, very good picture so far, but very grainy in many scenes.

The Searchers was one of Warner's very early HD releases; they in fact did a good job with these early releases. It was not until about the time of Batman Begins that their bad practices started. In my opinion.
I haven't really kept up with the Warner threads so I just wanted to ask you if you have had a chance to give your concerns to Warner's directly or through this forum?

Casablanca and Robin Hood also.

The Patriot went through remastering...they did a superbit transfer of the EE.

Both are doing good work and Sony is really the only one with a lemon on its hands (of what ive seen so far). Luckily, they are re-releasing it. I applaud them for that. ;)

Searchers is far ahead of either of those though... Many would not even know that it's an extremely old movie without prior knowledge, if viewing the BD or HD DVD. I think The Searchers is so special in that it provides a good example of what many older releases that are handled with care might look like in HD, and it's damn good.

Are you referring to The Fifth Element when talking about Sony's lemon, or a classic Columbia pictures flick? If you're referring to TFE Remastered, I must be honest in saying I'm still not too impressed with it. It's better, certainly, but not what I was hoping. Perhaps it's the best that can be done with it.

I haven't really kept up with the Warner threads so I just wanted to ask you if you have had a chance to give your concerns to Warner's directly or through this forum?

It has been my feeling that expressing my views here is the most effective way of airing my concerns. If Warner doesn't pay attention to what is said here, they really don't care about consumer attitudes.

Lossless audio is a big deal. It lowers overall maximum average bitrate in addition to peak video bitrate.Your point? A TrueHD track doesn't take much more room than a 1.5 Mbps DD+ track. They could have easily put that on Kong by tweaking the video encode a little or leaving off one of the DD+ tracks. Not to mention that Kong has IME as well. Maybe even your "extra .5 GB" would have been enough already.
95% of the movie may be just fine with those lowered caps, but what about the other 5% that might need that little extra nudge of a few more bits to keep it looking sharp? This is what I believe happened to Blood Diamond. 95% of it looks fine, but there are a few places that just needed a little extra bump to get it up to the perfect level. 95% is not "The Look and Sound of Perfect". 100% is.You "believe" a lot, but do you have any facts to support that believe? We know that Blood Diamond doesn't even come close to filling HD-DVD's space. Can you tell us what maximum bandwidth it uses?

Are you referring to The Fifth Element when talking about Sony's lemon, or a classic Columbia pictures flick? If you're referring to TFE Remastered, I must be honest in saying I'm still not too impressed with it. It's better, certainly, but not what I was hoping. Perhaps it's the best that can be done with it.
Yep....TFE.....I havent seen the new remastered one yet, but have it on pre-order. I look forward to seeing it. The Superbit DVD was awesome.

It has been my feeling that expressing my views here is the most effective way of airing my concerns. If Warner doesn't pay attention to what is said here, they really don't care about consumer attitudes.

I was just curious about how you were communicating your displeasure. I would think it would be good if you expressed your concerns directly to them but it is your dime.

Your point? A TrueHD track doesn't take much more room than a 1.5 Mbps DD+ track. They could have easily put that on Kong by tweaking the video encode a little or leaving off one of the DD+ tracks. Not to mention that Kong has IME as well. Maybe even your "extra .5 GB" would have been enough already.
You "believe" a lot, but do you have any facts to support that believe? We know that Blood Diamond doesn't even come close to filling HD-DVD's space. Can you tell us what maximum bandwidth it uses?

Blood Diamond may not come close to filling HD-DVD's space, but it pushes it as far as bandwidth is concerned, which is just as important as raw space.

TrueHD, IME, 1080p video - It's pushing the limits.

Blood Diamond may not come close to filling HD-DVD's space, but it pushes it as far as bandwidth is concerned, which is just as important as raw space.Ok. So what is it's peak bandwidth and how did you determine it?

Ok. So what is it's peak bandwidth and how did you determine it?

You take the max bandwidth HD DVD has, 36 mbps, subtract the bandwidth required for TrueHD and IME, and you have your peak bandwidth.

You take the max bandwidth HD DVD has, 36 mbps, subtract the bandwidth required for TrueHD and IME, and you have your peak bandwidth.You wrote above that Blood Diamond pushes HD-DVD's bandwidth limit. If you know that, you must know the peak bandwidth that Blood Diamond uses. Please tell us what it is and how you determined it.

ALL OF THIS BANTER IS COMPLETELY SPECULATIVE AND ESSENTIALLY CRAP.
And this is the joke that the Hi-Def "Forum" has become.
A confederacy of dunces.

Blood Diamond may not come close to filling HD-DVD's space, but it pushes it as far as bandwidth is concerned, which is just as important as raw space.

TrueHD, IME, 1080p video - It's pushing the limits.

I think Blood Diamond is getting a bad rap. I didnt see it in the theater, but I bet alot of the problems people are seeing are issues with the master.

I think it looks good.

Wow. This thread blew up to 8 pages while I was away.

Point about King Kong's encode: It took months of hand-tuning. For a single title. Yes, of course you can get VC-1 to look good (or AVC for that matter) with a lot of hand tuning. King Kong is the proof.

Unless you'd care to opine that Warner will apply the same amount of effort for a much less visible title, let alone one that has been somewhat partially released on one format, something is probably going to give. It might not. The encoder software has certainly matured somewhat since KK was produced. But the odds are certainly stacked against this title.

All the people rushing to defend Warner don't seem to understand that most of us bringing up concerns aren't saying things will definitely be disastrous. What we're really worried about is that, given Warner's proclivity to mirror the HD DVD encoding onto Blu-ray, the necessary overhead in bitrate from IME, TrueHD, extras, etc. is going to consume enough storage and bandwidth to adversely affect the PQ - and that these shortcomings will by default be reflected into the Blu-ray version which does not have the same limitations.

The sky isn't falling. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to look up at the sky every once in a while.

Gosh,

I really don't understand everyone jumping at AlexanderG like this.

One would wonder if he was actually proposing that Warner should dumb down the titles, instead of the opposite that is what he's doing: advocating for it to have the best presentation it can on BD.

RockStrongo,

if have never seen a problem with a Warner title like you've claimmed so many times, then you obviously have no case arguing here, just take it easy and be happy, you'll have nothig to worry about.

On the other hand, this is a legit concern for people who have issues with Warner titles, I by all that I've read here on this forum, I can tell you for sure they are not few.

Superman Returns, The Departed, Happy Feet, Lady In The Water, The Blood Diamond and even Batman Begins are just some of the titles a lot of people have expressed concern about.

So again, if you can't see it, be happy about it and leave the way for the people who do. And the simple fact that you don't see the problem, doesn't mean it's not there.

According to the old CJPlay posts, even 4 hour movies are fine given a good master.

He sure have posted that, but that doesn't mean I have to believe him. Besides he works for Warner and talking against their 11mbps rule would get him in trouble, actually I believe it did get him into to trouble.

And FINE is not what I expect from cutting edge HD discs, they should be great, specially since Troy and the others I quoted on the post above are such recent movies.

You wrote above that Blood Diamond pushes HD-DVD's bandwidth limit. If you know that, you must know the peak bandwidth that Blood Diamond uses. Please tell us what it is and how you determined it.

I also wrote above how I came to figure Blood Diamond's peak bitrate. You subtract the bandwidth required for IME and TrueHD, and you get the peak video bitrate. You seriously don't think that the encode peaks at ~25 mbps? Well, I suppose you'd have to understand the definition of "peak", first.

He sure have posted that, but that doesn't mean I have to believe him. Besides he works for Warner and talking against their 11mbps rule would get him in trouble, actually I believe it did get him into to trouble.

And FINE is not what I expect from cutting edge HD discs, they should be great, specially since Troy and the others I quoted on the post above are such recent movies.

Exactly. "Fine" will usually not suffice in the HD world. "Fine" was good when DVD was around, "Fine" is good when dealing with low budget movies, "Fine" is good when dealing with older catalog movies, but "Fine" simply is not acceptable when dealing with digital age blockbusters like Troy. Most importantly, of course, is that "Fine" is not the look an sound of "perfect". :cool:

All the people rushing to defend Warner don't seem to understand that most of us bringing up concerns aren't saying things will definitely be disastrous. What we're really worried about is that, given Warner's proclivity to mirror the HD DVD encoding onto Blu-ray, the necessary overhead in bitrate from IME, TrueHD, extras, etc. is going to consume enough storage and bandwidth to adversely affect the PQ - and that these shortcomings will by default be reflected into the Blu-ray version which does not have the same limitations.

The sky isn't falling. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to look up at the sky every once in a while.

Thanks much for your support and summary of what's going on. I agree 100% with what you are saying, but man, it is simply remarkable how some people either just don't "get it", or refuse to "get it".

Gosh,

I really don't understand everyone jumping at AlexanderG like this.

For the same reason some jumped on Richard Casey of RBFilms ? ;)

Alexander, it does no good to *Cry Wolf* now because if things turn out according to your concerns, people will just blame it on the master........and have total recall of the theatrical presentation. ;)

Honestly, I wish WB would give Richard the video master and have him supervise the production over at Technicolor to optimize the picture quality for Blu-ray advocates.

For the same reason some jumped on Richard Casey of RBFilms ? ;)

Alexander, it does no good to *Cry Wolf* now because if things turn out according to your concerns, people will just blame it on the master........and have total recall of the theatrical presentation. ;)

Honestly, I wish WB would give Richard the video master and have him supervise the production over at Technicolor to optimize the picture quality for Blu-ray advocates.

Heh. Yeah, I can see it already...

"Troy was soft in its theatrical run too, in fact, I could even make out compression artifacts in a couple of scenes so I know these macroblocks are not a problem with the encode."

I say give me they should just give me master, I'll run it through x264 overnight according to BD specs, and knock the socks off of Warner's "professional" encoding job.... ;)

I say they should just give me master
But.............but how LONG will it take to digitally download your version several years from now ????

This thread is out of control. All other things being equal, a higher bit rate encode will have less distortion from the master than a lower bit rate encode. That is the point here.

Point about King Kong's encode: It took months of hand-tuning. For a single title.

Months? Really? Wow, how much did you get paid for that job?

I really don't understand everyone jumping at AlexanderG like this.

Of course you don't. Peas, meet carrots.

For the same reason some jumped on Richard Casey of RBFilms ?

No, not exactly. People are "jumping on" AlexanderG because has no idea what he is talking about yet continues to talk. Some people "jumped on" Richard Casey because he is totally unprofessional, like you.

But.............but how LONG will it take to digitally download your version several years from now ????

I dunno. Ask your buddies at Sony. They'll be the first in line to try to sell us the 17th version of The Fifth Element by download.

Months? Really? Wow, how much did you get paid for that job?



Of course you don't. Peas, meet carrots.



No, not exactly. People are "jumping on" AlexanderG because has no idea what he is talking about yet continues to talk. Some people "jumped on" Richard Casey because he is totally unprofessional, like you.



I dunno. Ask your buddies at Sony. They'll be the first in line to try to sell us the 17th version of The Fifth Element by download.

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!

Robert, am I correct in thinking that you are THE Robert George, otherwise known as "Obi"?Yeah, among other things...

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...
No one knows...it has been going on since the start of BD forums.
Apparently, the BD format isn't his cup of tea....

Troy was officially announced on highdefdigest this morning.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Disc_Announcements/Warner_Announces_Troy:_Directors_Cut_for_Blu-ray,_HD_DVD/754

While we all knew for a while this was coming, I don't recall seeing the length of the film being discussed.

According to imdb, the director's cut is a whopping 201 minutes...

That's about 3 and a half hours...

If Warner is going to use the same encodes for both HD DVD and Blu Ray versions, then this is seriously going to push the limits of what can be acheived in 30 GB of space.

I'm not sure, but I believe this may be the longest movie attempted to be stored in 30 GB of space... In addition to the movie to fit in 30 GB of space are a slew of new bonus features as well... I can't help but get paranoid in thinking that this is going to be a complete mess... If 2 and a half hour movies fitting into 30 GB of space was "arguable" on whether the quality could be benefited by using more disc space and higher bitrates, I must be honest, this is seriously pushing it.

It would be quite a shame if Warner treated Blu Ray owners to their first taste of Troy with a low bitrate, compressed mess... Are they already getting ready for a triple dip? :confused:


I will not buy this if Warner doesn't do a seperate encode for Blu-Ray... It's as simple as that...At the very least use two HD-DVD 30GB's and one 50GB Blu-Ray for the audio and video... However knowing Warner they don't want to make Blu-Ray look like the better option...

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!


I would love to hear Robert George's "Obi" response to your very well thought out post :)

I also wrote above how I came to figure Blood Diamond's peak bitrate. You subtract the bandwidth required for IME and TrueHD, and you get the peak video bitrate. You seriously don't think that the encode peaks at ~25 mbps? Well, I suppose you'd have to understand the definition of "peak", first.In other words, you have no idea. This is "AV Science", not "AV Wild Speculation".

One would wonder if he was actually proposing that Warner should dumb down the titles, instead of the opposite that is what he's doing: advocating for it to have the best presentation it can on BD.That's quite obviously not what he's doing. He's bashing HD-DVD and Warner based on wild speculation that somehow certain movies would magically look better by just upping their bitrate. In fact, there are very few movies that even fully use HD-DVDs capacity, so most of the issues that some people are complaining about are simply in the master and will not go away by just blowing up the encode.
Superman Returns, The Departed, Happy Feet, Lady In The Water, The Blood Diamond and even Batman Begins are just some of the titles a lot of people have expressed concern about.All fine examples of what I just said.

That's quite obviously not what he's doing. He's bashing HD-DVD and Warner based on wild speculation that somehow certain movies would magically look better by just upping their bitrate. In fact, there are very few movies that even fully use HD-DVDs capacity, so most of the issues that some people are complaining about are simply in the master and will not go away by just blowing up the encode.
Sure, Happy Feet is a 15GB encode on Blu-ray and HD DVD because it has banding in the master despite being 100% CGI.

Oh, wait...

Before too many people worry about WB's ability to do high-quality encodes of long movies with relatively low bit rates, go and watch Grand Prix, which is a three-hour movie. That one was released nine months ago, and compression skills and quality have certainly gone up since then.

For the same reason some jumped on Richard Casey of RBFilms ? ;)

Alexander, it does no good to *Cry Wolf* now because if things turn out according to your concerns, people will just blame it on the master........and have total recall of the theatrical presentation. ;)

Honestly, I wish WB would give Richard the video master and have him supervise the production over at Technicolor to optimize the picture quality for Blu-ray advocates.

Why is it that Warner alone among all the major studios has all these recent high-profile releases with inferior masters? Amazing coincidence.

Why is it that Warner alone among all the major studios has all these recent high-profile releases with inferior masters? Amazing coincidence.

what are of these high-profile releases you speak of with inferior masters people have been complaining about. i can think of 3 all of which i saw in the theaters might i add, superman returns which looks terrible on everything including cable, blood diamond which i thought looked better than people make a fuss over, and lady in the water which looked soft in the theater but i thought fit the flow. considering the movie and the director i was not surprised

what are of these high-profile releases you speak of with inferior masters people have been complaining about. i can think of 3 all of which i saw in the theaters might i add, superman returns which looks terrible on everything including cable, blood diamond which i thought looked better than people make a fuss over, and lady in the water which looked soft in the theater but i thought fit the flow. considering the movie and the director i was not surprised

See post #217 for a partial list. I would add Poseidon to that list.

the best presentation it can on BD.

RockStrongo,

if have never seen a problem with a Warner title like you've claimmed so many times, then you obviously have no case arguing here, just take it easy and be happy, you'll have nothig to worry about.


So, only people who think WB's encodes suck can actually argue about whether or not Troy's encode is gonna suck??

That makes no sense.

you guys are still going at it???

(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
If memory serves, I believe paidgeek has also made the same observation in the past-- either on this forum or forum.blu-ray.com.

He sure have posted that, but that doesn't mean I have to believe him. Besides he works for Warner and talking against their 11mbps rule would get him in trouble, actually I believe it did get him into to trouble.

And FINE is not what I expect from cutting edge HD discs, they should be great, specially since Troy and the others I quoted on the post above are such recent movies.

He works for a different company (not sure which one) that Warner sometimes contracts to do the work. Im sure he has to be tight lipped about processes though and thats why he doesnt post anymore (plus I think your right and he got in some hot water).

As to the word "fine", none of us know exactly what he meant. But, after reading most of his posts, he most likely meant that it would not lower the quality of the encode.

Before too many people worry about WB's ability to do high-quality encodes of long movies with relatively low bit rates, go and watch Grand Prix, which is a three-hour movie. That one was released nine months ago, and compression skills and quality have certainly gone up since then.

I havent watched it, but I heard it looks stellar.

No one knows...it has been going on since the start of BD forums.
Apparently, the BD format isn't his cup of tea....

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.

What are you on now Robert, your 5th Blu-ray player?

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

I find it really disturbing that people can be so caught up on a format that they have no ties to at all aside from buying some titles for their ENJOYMENT that they can't get past that and admit that EVERY format has flaws. It will always be that way. This forum (and every other forum on the web) has a problem with people going into complete denial about the drawbacks or limitations of any and every piece of electronics or software they buy. It isn't like you built the stuff, but lying to yourselves to justify your investment is pretty sad.

HD DVD has some serious drawbacks from a technical standpoint, the biggest IMHO is its max bitrate. Storage isn't nearly as big a deal in my opinion, though I would always like to see more.

Blu-ray has some drawbacks too. Their biggest one in my opinion is the lack of HDi like features and their constant stance of "it's coming, it's coming".

I would have liked more mandatory support for high resolution audio on both fronts and a bit more upfront information on the players as to what they actually CAN do and info on the software cases as to what they actually have (true audio resolution, video compression format).

In the end it is really too bad that the powers that be couldn't come together and create a unified format. I think it could have REALLY been something if you took the best of both formats and came together to make one.

Sorry Kris,

you can say Robert is the greatest BD supporter of all time, but still, that doesn't make up for his extremely rude post.

Of course you don't. Peas, meet carrots.

I say what? Who the heck does this guy think he is to refer to me or AlexanderG like that. Specially since I didn't even address him on any of my posts.

He could be the sole inventor of BD for all I care and he would not have the right to mistreat people like that, it was totally uncalled for

No, not exactly. People are "jumping on" AlexanderG because has no idea what he is talking about yet continues to talk. Some people "jumped on" Richard Casey because he is totally unprofessional, like you.

I believe I have a very good idea of what he's talking about and I also believe it is a legit concern. Even though it may not materialize itself once the disc is released.

And for what's worth, and for what I know of Richard Casey, he's an excellent professional. Which I cannot say the same about this Robert George, whom I've never even heard of prior to this discussion.

So, only people who think WB's encodes suck can actually argue about whether or not Troy's encode is gonna suck??

That makes no sense.

It makes sense, I think Alexander is proposing we discuss it not argue about it.

I said if you think all Warner encodes are good, you have no case arguing here. You had made your point, and it was also a valid point, after that you should take it a little easier. No need to argue or jump on AG like he was advocating something evil.

I wasn't talking about Robert's specific comments, Robert is a big boy and is more than capable of talking for himself. I was referring to people making claims about loyalty to one format or another as if they know him. Why is it that if you say even one negative thing about a format your a loyalist for the other one? People can't really be that blind can they?

Robert George was the staff DVD reviewer for HT Forum (and a few other publications if I remember correctly) for many years and has been a respected A/V enthuasist for A VERY long time. Probably longer than the majority of this forum has been into HT.

Thanks for the explanation Kris, and indeed you make a nice point.


As for info on George, thanks. It does ring a bell now. I've been reading HTF for years, but probably didn't get a hold of the name.

respected A/V enthuasist for A VERY long time

Hum, I wish he would learn a bit from he's own long experience and apparently didn't judge a persons knowledge by his admission date.

I've also been a great AV enthusiast and have been reading the big boards (boards such as this and HTF), specialized publications and playing with the equipment and AV media I was able to get a hold of for longer than I can remember (and that is way before DVD even came along).

So I think I'm not way off base when I make a comment on a related AV issue.

It makes sense, I think Alexander is proposing we discuss it not argue about it.

I said if you think all Warner encodes are good, you have no case arguing here. You had made your point, and it was also a valid point, after that you should take it a little easier. No need to argue or jump on AG like he was advocating something evil.

I 'jumped' ( if you want to call it that ) on AlexnaderG because he was rude to Kris and told him he had no business posting in the BD forum. My general complaint about this thread is that there have been posters blaming poor Warner transfers
as 'low-bitarte crap' without any real supporting evidence. I don't think every Warner title is perfect but I wouldn't be able to prove the cause of the imperfection. I have no problems with the discussion as long as it isn't mean spirited.

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

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the original hddvd of Troy had a 24.3gb disc size with a 162 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.