1. For a two hour movie using the superbit approach.
2. Using CBR LPCM 5.1 24/48 for easier calculations. DTS-MA/TruHD can improve HD DVD video rates.
3. BD video rates are maxed regardless. HD DVD video rates cannot be maxed regardless.

LPCM ~ CBR ＠6.9 Mbps = 6.21GB
ACV/VC-1 ~ CBR @40Mbps = 35.16 GB (BD) / CBR @23.34Mbps = 20.52GB (HD DVD)
HD DVD w/ TruHD ~ ABR @3.4 Mbps = 3.06GB / Video ~ CBR @26.84 = 23.59GB

BD50 = 41.37GB ~ 8.63GB available for extras
HD DVD30 = 26.73GB ~ 3.27GB available for extras
HD DVD30 (w/TruHD) = 26.65GB ~ 3.35GB available for extras

Even with the superbit approach there seems to be quite a bit left for extras. Please check my math for errors.

Given these stats and assuming my calculations are correct, which approach would you prefer? A follow-up poll will be posted in a week's time.

I voted for option one. It gives us a great encode and gives the studios a chance to double dip with a two disk special edition in the future. Studios make more money, we can choose the first superbit release or wait for the special edition, and we always get a great encode assuming whoever doing the encoding is properly skilled. Everyone wins.

Anyone else surprised at how big of an advantage BD's max bitrates equate to on disk? There's a whopping difference between a 40Mbps video encode and a 26.86Mbps video encode. I knew BD had an advantage, but I never knew it was so dramatic, especially considering I'm giving HD DVD an advantage. Although a TruHD track is VBR, I still only subtracted the average rate from the combined audio/video max bitrate when calculating the resulting video bitrate.

I can't wait to see some CBR superbit releases on BD from a skilled encoder. It's gonna be something special.

DVD had different space options available. Only Terminator-2 Special collector's edition with 3 different versions of the same movie is the sole DVD that utilized the maximum space that DVD offered.

The remaining movies by studios never utilized the space.


Having space is good but it counts for jack if it is not utilized. As far as the poll goes, I prefer the DVD style option of having the movie on Disk 1 [Irrespective of the size available on the disk] with the maximum picture quality and maximum audio quality available and using Disk 2 for extra features etc.

DVD had different space options available. Only Terminator-2 Special collector's edition with 3 different versions of the same movie is the sole DVD that utilized the maximum space that DVD offered.

The remaining movies by studios never utilized the space.


Having space is good but it counts for jack if it is not utilized. As far as the poll goes, I prefer the DVD style option of having the movie on Disk 1 [Irrespective of the size available on the disk] with the maximum picture quality and maximum audio quality available and using Disk 2 for extra features etc.

Available combined bitrates have more influence than space on HD DVD, but I'm not sure about DVD. For instance, a superbit HD DVD can never achieve its max video rate despite having extra space on the disk after the encode. After subtracting the bitrate for lossless audio from the total available bitrate the remaining bitrate available falls well short of the maximun possible video bitrate. Perhaps it was similar with DVD.

Regardless, we need to push the studios to use this superbit approach as you stated. Hopefully at least one will listen and the others will follow.

Based on what I saw with both POTC films, option 3

Nothing but barebone releases will kill BD, once J6P sees that they can get the same movie in most cases on HD-DVd with tons of extras for roughly the same price, they will be leery of buy BD so option 3 is the definite way to go.

Yes, the bitrate difference is huge and the difference will be even more obvious on very long movies.

As for T:2, what I assume you are referring to is the Terminator 2 Ultimate edition, which was one of few DVDs using the DVD-18 format (meaning one dual layer, dual sided disc), which for all intents and purposes is identical to using two DVD-9 discs (dual layer, single side), only much cheaper to produce and without the compatibility issues that some dvd-players had with DVD-18 discs.

Choice #3 seems to cover all the bases and would make most everyone happy.

I'd definitely prefer that Blu-ray goes the Superbit route, extras only if space permits.

I almost chose the 3rd choice but don't want the extra cost.

I like extras on a second disc.

That way we can still get high bitrate encodes and lossless audio and lots of extras for those who want them.

Important note, the pirates movies have great encodes, lossless audio, and tons of extras on a second disc, and I only paid 23.99 a piece from Amazon for each of them.

I was torn between option 1 and 3, and it looks like I was not alone. I think we all want the highest bitrate encode first. The extras are really a bonus to get me to buy the movie if I am on the fence with it. If studios want to draw Joe keg belly into HD they need to keep the extras. POTC was an example of how it should be done. $23.99 was a fair price for this 2 disk movie.

I voted Option 3. However, I think you should remove the 'Prices Increase" phrase. After all, suppliments on separate discs on SD-DVD's don't neccessarily cause the price to increase.

I had real trouble voting here. I would like the two disk option if costs were close or maybe make the extras an option. Fact is I would love lots of some extra stuff but mostly don't like what comes on current disks at all. So everthing depends on what the extras are. However I never want the picture quality degraded.

Two BD 50s. Disc one has True HD audio track, commentary tracks and AVC picture using the rest of the available space. Put all the extras on another BD 50.

What's the first rule of Blu-ray Club?

There's no such thing as Blu-ray Club....

What's the second rule of Blu-ray Club?

There are no rules....

No rules, who needs 'em...? What kind of model is Superbit anyway? Superbit wasted bits on two audio tracks instead of giving one terrific one! The promise of 50 gig Blu pastery is there is room for everything and a cherry on top... ;)

I abstained. I almost voted for extra disc. I mean we're proably only talking about long movies needing an extra disc or very ex-tree laden films that need more. Extra disc, of course, when warranted.....

Where did all the gigabytes go....they're blowin' in the wind, with puff the blu-ray dragon..... ;)

well, one rule.....no more DTS unplayable!

I voted for option one. It gives us a great encode and gives the studios a chance to double dip with a two disk special edition in the future. Studios make more money, we can choose the first superbit release or wait for the special edition, and we always get a great encode assuming whoever doing the encoding is properly skilled. Everyone wins.I'm with you here. Especially since overall most the extras and documentaries are just waste of space.

Like the documents on Casino Royale, where there were two main documentaries about the movie and they had quite a lot over lapping material. Contents were mostly patting their co-workers backs. One of the most interesting actors form the movie Mads Mikkelsen only got to say that it was nice to play poker...

Of course there are worth while extras, they are just waayy too rare.

I voted for option 1, but would have voted for option 3 if there'd been no talk of a price increase. Really, optical media is incredibly cheap, and adding a 2nd disc doesn't add a whole lot to the total cost of manufacturing the product. The only cost regarding extras is the cost in producing/authoring them, and that's a one time cost that can be spread out over all the total sales.

But back to the single disc discussion for a second: Re: technical contraints, if BD used Dolby TrueHD, it appears they'd have 11-12 GB of space for extras. Assuming the extras are encoded with AVC/VC-1, there ought to be plenty of space for all the SD extras, and probably even a large collection of HD extras (remembering that "HD" need not be full 1080p, extras could be done in 720p except for obvious stuff like trailers). Extras also don't need much in the way of audio (again, barring exceptions like a mini-documentary on the musical score or the sound effects; those could probably benefit from a TrueHD track if authored correctly).

But the main feature should get the vast majority of the space allocated to it for PQ/AQ in these single disc configurations. In fact, I'd say compression of the feature should commence first, determine how much space will be left for extras, then author them (or decide to push them off to a 2nd disc).

Blu is all about the PQ/AQ. Extras come - well - extra.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11226958#post11226958

HD DVD sister thread

The "superbit" concept seems irrelevant in the HD disc world. HD encodes can be made virtually artifact-free without simply throwing bits at them just because space is available. The last poll option is a reasonable way to express this.

Although I agree a lower bitrate can look great, a maxed bitrate can look even better, especially on huge screens. Even a 1% gain is worthy IMO.

PQ/AQ has more to do with available bandwidth and less to do with maximum capacity.

Frankly, Blu-ray has enough bandwidth to more than carry everything HD DVD offers and still offer perks too. For something like a Criterion release though, definitely give me a small price bump for an extra disc and maximize the encode for the main feature without sacrificing bandwidth for extras.

What's the first rule of Blu-ray Club?

There's no such thing as Blu-ray Club....

What's the second rule of Blu-ray Club?

There are no rules....

No rules, who needs 'em...? What kind of model is Superbit anyway? Superbit wasted bits on two audio tracks instead of giving one terrific one! The promise of 50 gig Blu pastery is there is room for everything and a cherry on top... ;)

I abstained. I almost voted for extra disc. I mean we're proably only talking about long movies needing an extra disc or very ex-tree laden films that need more. Extra disc, of course, when warranted.....

Where did all the gigabytes go....they're blowin' in the wind, with puff the blu-ray dragon..... ;)

well, one rule.....no more DTS unplayable!

In this case, as my data shows, the superbit model is different. There is room for maxed out (CBR@40Mbps) video bitrates and multiple full res audio tracks (24/48) on BD50. There is no compromise. The extra space is there, BD should use it to get even that extra 1% out of the encode. Even after all that there is still lots of room for supplements on one disk in most cases. Everyone wins.

PQ/AQ has more to do with available bandwidth and less to do with maximum capacity.

Frankly, Blu-ray has enough bandwidth to more than carry everything HD DVD offers and still offer perks too. For something like a Criterion release though, definitely give me a small price bump for an extra disc and maximize the encode for the main feature without sacrificing bandwidth for extras.

Exactly. The extra capacity usually enables the extras to be on the same disk. Studios can double dip with full bitrate supplements on two BD50s for those really into supplements. IMO both studios and consumers can win with this model.