I was fortunate enough to get the disc, but when I watched it on my Spyder calibrated Samsung LNT-4066F last night, I noticed macroblocking in the backgrounds of a few scenes.

Most notably was the introduction of Helen and Paris during the Spartan festival near the start of the movie. When Paris comes from behind her and touches her neck, you can see green/red macroblocking in the backgrounds. It looks pretty disgusting. There are more scenes like this in the movie as well.

Considering the length of the movie, it's only a handful of scenes, but it still is ugly nontheless. I will report back with timestamps and pics.

This is not a fault of the disc, but most likely a HDMI handshake issue in your equipment.

Hmmm, I have not noticed any macroblocking issues with this release. How big are the blocks you are witnessing?

OK. So here's some pics...

Is it any coincidence that the artifacts show up when the bitrate is dropped to 7.9 mbps?!?!

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8161/troy1ni9.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4396/troy2si9.jpg

This is not a fault of the disc, but most likely a HDMI handshake issue in your equipment.

Impossible since the artifacts are there using component, HDMI RGB, and HDMI YCrCb. I pass BTB and WTW absolutely fine and greyscale checks out great on my TV, so it's not my equipment.

Is it possible you are having a panasonic plasma ?

It might the reknown magenta-bug .)

but when I watched it on my Spyder calibrated Samsung LNT-4066F last night,

Is it possible you are having a panasonic plasma ?

It might the reknown magenta-bug .)

...

Impossible since the artifacts are there using component, HDMI RGB, and HDMI YCrCb. I pass BTB and WTW absolutely fine and greyscale checks out great on my TV, so it's not my equipment.

Could it be that HD-DVD compatible encode...again?

Could it be that HD-DVD compatible encode...again?

I believe that to be the case, as I don't think it's a coincidence that there's artifacting when the bitrate drops to a pathetic 7.9 mbps. And of course, with a disc encoded to Blu Ray's storage capacity, there should never be a reason for the bitrate to drop that low.

Unfortunately, since Warner doesn't provide an encode with a higher bitrate, there's no way to be 100% certain.

I believe that to be the case, as I don't think it's a coincidence that there's artifacting when the bitrate drops to a pathetic 7.9 mbps. And of course, with a disc encoded to Blu Ray's storage capacity, there should never be a reason for the bitrate to drop that low.

Unfortunately, since Warner doesn't provide an encode with a higher bitrate, there's no way to be 100% certain.

Well they cant, because the space of HD DVD cant handle it, they have to lower the birate for such a long movie. Remeber there is only 30GB not 50GB since wb use the same tranfser.

Well they cant, because the space of HD DVD cant handle it, they have to lower the birate for such a long movie. Remeber there is only 30GB not 50GB since wb use the same tranfser.

Sure they could, they could do like Paramount did, and offer different encodes for each format.

Sure they could, they could do like Paramount did, and offer different encodes for each format.

They're just to lazy for that ;)

STOP ! ! !

The only sure way to accurately know if its the disc's fault is to take digital capture from the m2ts file.

We have to take the equipments use out of the equation.

Why am i not suprised....

STOP ! ! !

The only sure way to accurately know if its the disc's fault is to take digital capture from the m2ts file.

We have to take the equipments use out of the equation.

actually if we get a separate encode and the artifacts dont exist when maximzing bd's capacity/bandwidth, that'd be a pretty accurate way to know it is the disc's fault doesnt it?

STOP ! ! !

The only sure way to accurately know if its the disc's fault is to take digital capture from the m2ts file.

We have to take the equipments use out of the equation.

I don't have any way to do that.

I have the timestamp on the screenshot though, so if you or anyone else has the means for an accurate analysis, please help! :)

Anybody willing to grab direct screencaps to make sure. 7.9mbps is really low bitrate...

Xylon to the rescue!

;)

Anybody willing to grab direct screencaps to make sure. 7.9mbps is really low bitrate...

Which is what raised the red flag in my mind... Every time I'd see artifacting in this title, I'd hit up the PS3 bitrate meter and sure enough, the bitrate would be in the single digits.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that this release is a mess, because it's not, and is extremely impressive, but it's not the perfection I've been accustomed to with recent BD-50 AVC encodes.

its apparently that its the fault of hd dvds space issue..
if wb would have made another transfer for bluray , a transfer wich is like 40gb big, i bet you wouldnt see low bitrates like 7 mbps!! and no microblocking at this scene.

but it's not the perfection I've been accustomed to with recent BD-50 AVC encodes.

you will NEVER find these from wb or any other hd dvd exlusive studios with movies with a runtime over 200min. 30GB aint enough to creata a videocodec with high bitrates and no microblocking ect. in a 200min + movie.

sad hd dvd ppl still cant see this , but you cant blame them, they dont know better.

you will NEVER find these from wb or any other hd dvd exlusive studios with movies with a runtime over 200min. 30GB aint enough to creata a videocodec with high bitrates and no microblocking ect. in a 200min + movie.

sad hd dvd ppl still cant see this , but you cant blame them, they dont know better.

So how do you explain macroblocking artifacts in PoTC, a shorter movie encoded in higher bitrate AVC on BD-50? All codecs will produce some artifacts if left to some automaton. All this shows is that the compressionist fell asleep at the console or overlooked this scene. I am sure that if this was manually tweaked, you would not have seen the artifacts even at 5Mbps.

Funny never saw any macroblock in POTC.. but there's quite a few in The Island (UK Warner) at the start and several time in the movie were it's really really 'In you're face' if you're sensible to this, and i am...

So how do you explain macroblocking artifacts in PoTC, a shorter movie encoded in higher bitrate AVC on BD-50? All codecs will produce some artifacts if left to some automaton. All this shows is that the compressionist fell asleep at the console or overlooked this scene. I am sure that if this was manually tweaked, you would not have seen the artifacts even at 5Mbps.

wasn't aware of any macroblocking artifacts in potc, only that there is a framing error for a scene lasting about 8 minutes. got any pictures?

wasn't aware of any macroblocking artifacts in potc, only that there is a framing error for a scene lasting about 8 minutes. got any pictures?

See Xylon's screenshots thread. They're in there.

See Xylon's screenshots thread. They're in there.+1

Checked out my copy of Troy last night on my PS3, saw nothing like what the OP is reporting.

why can't studios just use the tsb superbit method? ;)

Watched it on a calibrated 1140HD 50". Looks quite good, didn't see any noise. Soft in some night shots, but an impressive looking disc.

Which is what raised the red flag in my mind... Every time I'd see artifacting in this title, I'd hit up the PS3 bitrate meter and sure enough, the bitrate would be in the single digits.

The PS3's bit rate meter is not in proper sync with the video, FYI. That single-digit rate you saw may have actually happened well before that artifact appeared on your screen.

The screen shot you posted looks to me more like a hardware problem than something on the disc.

That cap reminds me of the dancing walls on the Signs DVD, perhaps scarier than anything else in the movie. Compression artifacting at its finest! Ever notice it's always that color (or browns in the same vein) that are so susceptible? I'm sure Troy won't be that bad, but it won't surprise me at all to see some macroblocking on a WB title (yes, Sings was Disney). It's not uncommon to catch a glimpse of it here and there on select titles.

I'll see for myself whenever WB decides to ship my copy, but this film is a lot grainer and grittier than something like The Matrix. At its length AND packed with extras on one disc it had to be a challenge to compress. I wish they'd gone with 2 discs for the HD DVD version so they could have done a larger encode (usable for both HD DVD and Blu-ray).

I wish they'd gone with 2 discs for the HD DVD version so they could have done a larger encode (usable for both HD DVD and Blu-ray).

They did that with Alexander and the Blu-ray version still got 2x BD25s.

Checked out my copy of Troy last night on my PS3, saw nothing like what the OP is reporting.

I also looked at this same spot and did not notice an issue.

The PS3's bit rate meter is not in proper sync with the video, FYI. That single-digit rate you saw may have actually happened well before that artifact appeared on your screen.

The screen shot you posted looks to me more like a hardware problem than something on the disc.

But upon my random checks...this point doesn't really matter as I never saw anytime that it went above single digits. But...again I din't see this particular issue on my set.

why can't studios just use the tsb superbit method? ;)

Because studios and directors don't care about quality when there mass producing some thing. Look at the Music industry, we are now being forced to listen to crappy MP3s verses quality CDs.. My one iPod I strickly just use Apple Lossless which is pretty good, but it eats up space..

please stop using cell phone camera pictures to say that there is macroblocking

that is one of the worst screenshots i have ever seen. most of those artifacts are most likely coming from the camera itself.

My copy is completely fine displayed at 1080p/24. No banding or macroblocking.

I noticed noise/grain in some of the sky scenes, slight banding in a few spots, and some soft looking scenes.
I never used a bit rate meter though, and probably never will.

I didn't notice what the OP mentioned, but I did notice a transparent line (more like a fold in the scene) from the top of the screen to bottom in at least two scenes. I'm not sure if it was the disc or my PS3, but I paused it and backtracked it and it was still in the scene.

One scene was a head shot and the line went through the middle of the right eye of Achilles. I beleive it was right when he was told Patroclus was killed.

I'll have to take pictures of it.

I thought the transfer and movie is one the best I've seen next to POTC(never seen macoblocking on neither I or II) and The Transporter.

I seen no macroblocking and only seen grain during some night scenes but overall, the PQ was great and this was viewed on a BD-P1200 on 1080i.

please stop using cell phone camera pictures to say that there is macroblocking

that is one of the worst screenshots i have ever seen. most of those artifacts are most likely coming from the camera itself.

thats what I was thinking. Who cares about 20' behind the focus of the shot when the shot itself is pretty poor looking. I havent seen the bluray but you'd have a stronger argument if the foreground was completely detailed and perfect, the screen you have is ugly all over.

I didn't see any obvious artifacts either. What I did object to was the dramatic shifts in PQ between scenes varying from a pristine, very sharp picture to much "softer" presentations. I made the mistake of trying to blame this on the use of lower video bitrates for some scenes and got savaged for it. The movie while providing some stunning footage all too often let the PQ drop which could suggest the inability to maintain decent video bitrates throughout the movie. A convenient alternate explaination/"excuse" (?) is the master itself was not consistently "pristine" with varying PQ. This actually seems semi-plausible; I'd like to see the original again for comparison's sake.

At least I'm not the only one who has seen significant shifts in PQ with "Troy" and helps explain why it didn't get a perfect score (some of the scenes were very good) with reviewers. PQ variability is present on virtually all HD media transfers. It just stood out for me with this movie.

Checked out my copy of Troy last night on my PS3, saw nothing like what the OP is reporting.
Exactly, the op is the only one reporting this problem. What the op posted is pretty obvious and I sure if it was a problem with the disc many more would be complaining about it. Since other owners of this title are not complaining, I highly doubt it is the disc's fault. People love to jump on the bandwagon around here, one person complains and without any proof that it is not an isolated incident most here are already convinced that HD DVD is to blame. Until others come forward with the same problem then this is just an isolated incident and to jump to any other conclusions is just foolish.

I just got it and watch it, and sure enough the artifacts are there for that scene, for sure it would not be there if the bitrate wasn't is in the single digit.
The movie looks good overall, but I'm sure it would look much better if the bitrate average in the 30's instead of around 15s.

Anyone else notice that the movie is soft and slightly low contrast?

I think this was intentional.The look reminded me of a lot of older movies. I kept waiting for Charlton Heston to pop up.

Anyone else notice that the movie is soft and slightly low contrast?



That's the way most of Warner's HD movies look.

That's the way most of Warner's HD movies look.

300 and TMNT are probably the best warner discs i've seen.

That's the way most of Warner's HD movies look.

So when it's soft and washed out on Dracula, it's the director's intent and when the same occurs on WB movies, it's due to low bitrate encode? How about if we attribute both to the master and leave the format war out of this.;)

I watched the movie a second time after seeing the reports in this thread. Sitting just five feet away from a Mitsubishi 57" 1080p DLP, I saw none of the problems (banding, macroblocking, low contrast, etc.) some posters have reported. Could these reported issues be display-dependent? :confused:

I watched the movie a second time after seeing the reports in this thread. Sitting just five feet away from a Mitsubishi 57" 1080p DLP, I saw none of the problems (banding, macroblocking, low contrast, etc.) some posters have reported. Could these reported issues be display-dependent? :confused:

Go to 10:48 and look at the background, you will see macroblocking doing the Tango.

This is my first attempt at some screen shots and I know these are lower rez but I think they still show the good quality of the film

http://www.tomweigel.com/Downloads/Pictures/Troy/Troy1.png

http://www.tomweigel.com/Downloads/Pictures/Troy/Troy2.png

http://www.tomweigel.com/Downloads/Pictures/Troy/Troy3.png

http://www.tomweigel.com/Downloads/Pictures/Troy/Troy4.png

http://www.tomweigel.com/Downloads/Pictures/Troy/Troy5.png

http://www.tomweigel.com/Downloads/Pictures/Troy/Troy6.png

Are those direct screen captures or from a camera?

300 and TMNT are probably the best warner discs i've seen.

The look of 300 is so stylized and distorted that I find it impossible to evaluate the PQ.

So when it's soft and washed out on Dracula, it's the director's intent and when the same occurs on WB movies, it's due to low bitrate encode? How about if we attribute both to the master and leave the format war out of this.;)

I have not yet watched Dracula, but I know based on numerous other discs that Sony is willing and able to give me outstanding PQ. Warner has yet to show me that they are willing and able to do the same. It seems very unlikely that all Warner masters are soft.

Are those direct screen captures or from a camera?

They are direct screen captures, do you see something wrong? I have just got HD up and running on a PC for the first time so I'm sure the video itself needs different software/settings and also different settings for transferring to picture files.

Nothing wrong with them. They're just not fullsize. You should ask Xylon or Gooki about how to capture. They should be pretty knowledgeable about what software to use.

All I know about Troy is it's "in process." :)

I can't imagine if there are any slight issues, that they would be THAT noticeable. Every review I've read says it's a superlative transfer. I, myself, just play the movies and kick back and enjoy. I don't sit 3 feet from the screen and TRY and find flaws. Are there any real movie lovers left on here? hehe

I can't imagine if there are any slight issues, that they would be THAT noticeable. Every review I've read says it's a superlative transfer. I, myself, just play the movies and kick back and enjoy. I don't sit 3 feet from the screen and TRY and find flaws. Are there any real movie lovers left on here? hehe

then every review youve read is wrong. always remember, whether its the users fault or not, the safe bet is to blame hd dvd. like the framing problems on potc was due to the fact disney helped develope HDi for hd dvd, causing the movie to get screwed.

see how fun that was

This is my first attempt at some screen shots and I know these are lower rez but I think they still show the good quality of the film

hope the actual movie is sharper than those screenshots.

hope the actual movie is sharper than those screenshots.

It's not.

Why do some people keep trying to make excuses that bitrates doesn't matter? Either it's a bad master, or someone's equipment is faulty, or something else. Just face it already: Bitrates are just as important for High-def movies, as they always were on DVD.

Why did we never see people crow about Single Layer DVD's being perfectly enough, and that no movies should need more than 4.7gb anyway - Because there was no format war back then, that's why. :rolleyes:

Why do some people keep trying to make excuses that bitrates doesn't matter? Either it's a bad master, or someone's equipment is faulty, or something else. Just face it already: Bitrates are just as important for High-def movies, as they always were on DVD.

Why did we never see people crow about Single Layer DVD's being perfectly enough, and that no movies should need more than 4.7gb anyway - Because there was no format war back then, that's why. :rolleyes:

Great point. There is no question that a higher bit rate provides pq with less distortion from the master. Neither format can do lossless video - not even close. Troy's PQ transfer was good, but I doubt it was as good as it could have been with a higher bit rate. We need the same movie from the same master - one with a higher bit rate, but Warner won't do it.

Go to 10:48 and look at the background, you will see macroblocking doing the Tango.Sorry, I saw no macroblocking at 10:48. Are you sure that's the right time?

I say all you BD fans complaining about Warner either just stop buying Warner BD movies or call/write to Warner and ask them to just stop making BD versions of their movies.

That will show them. :D

I say all you BD fans complaining about Warner either just stop buying Warner BD movies or call/write to Warner and ask them to just stop making BD versions of their movies.

That will show them. :D

Actually what we want is for them to drop HD DVD and take advantage of BD's higher bandwidth and higher disc capacity.

Actually what we want is for them to drop HD DVD and take advantage of BD's higher bandwidth and higher disc capacity.

Since 70% of all BR discs are actually on 25g discs, which higher disc capacity are you referring too?

On average HD already has the larger disc capacity with more content, superior menus, PIP, more extras, all players are web enabled and at half the cost of Blu-ray

Sorry, I saw no macroblocking at 10:48. Are you sure that's the right time?

Yes there, from the time when he got his hands on her shoulder, look at the back wall of the left of the screen, you should see macroblock dancing, depend on how far you sit, I can barely see it at 10 feet with a 61 inch, but if I move closer to about 6 feet you can see it clearly.

Yes there, from the time when he got his hands on her shoulder, look at the back wall of the left of the screen, you should see macroblock dancing, depend on how far you sit, I can barely see it at 10 feet with a 61 inch, but if I move closer to about 6 feet you can see it clearly.

I will have to check this out.

Since 70% of all BR discs are actually on 25g discs, which higher disc capacity are you referring too?

On average HD already has the larger disc capacity with more content, superior menus, PIP, more extras, all players are web enabled and at half the cost of Blu-ray

riiiiggghhht :rolleyes: because almost all of the new releases i have purchased the last several months have been on BD50's. granted, most of the older releases on BD25's, but as time goes by more and more will be on the BD50. Warner is really the only one that uses the BD25 more then the BD50 right now from what i have seen.

thanks
anthony

riiiiggghhht :rolleyes: because almost all of the new releases i have purchased the last several months have been on BD50's. granted, most of the older releases on BD25's, but as time goes by more and more will be on the BD50. Warner is really the only one that uses the BD25 more then the BD50 right now from what i have seen.

thanks
anthony

The fact remains that 70% of all BR discs are on 25g discs.

Now that Fox and MGM are releasing again I fully expect to see more 25g discs then we did while they were in hiding and Sony & Disney were the only two keeping up with releases

The fact remains that 70% of all BR discs are on 25g discs.

Now that Fox and MGM are releasing again I fully expect to see more 25g discs then we did while they were in hiding and Sony & Disney were the only two keeping up with releases

Well TomsHT, the FACT remains that percentages of single layer vs dual layer discs has nothing to do with format capacity, and even if your 70% figure is correct, that still leaves another 30% that ARE on 50gb Blu-ray discs, with that figure sure to rise.

The POINT here Tom, is that Movie Studios can CHOOSE to put long movies that NEED the extra capacity on a 50gb Blu-ray disc, while HD DVD will always be capped at 30gb. That's the only FACT that matters here. ;)

Well TomsHT, the FACT remains that percentages of single layer vs dual layer discs has nothing to do with format capacity,


Actually it does, your facts seem to be incorrect.

and even if your 70% figure is correct, that still leaves another 30% that ARE on 50gb Blu-ray discs, with that figure sure to rise.

Where does it show its going to rise?

With the high expense of 50g discs and yields as low as 40-50% as reported by neutral insiders as recently as within the month, the only studios that consistently release on 50g titles are Sony & Disney.

Over 90% of all Fox & MGM releases have been on 25g discs. The only reason the overall percentages have improved to 30% this year is because Fox and MGM released zero titles in the last half year. If Fox & MGM dont run and hide again I'm sure you will see an increase of 25g releases.

The POINT here Tom, is that Movie Studios can CHOOSE to put long movies that NEED the extra capacity on a 50gb Blu-ray disc, while HD DVD will always be capped at 30gb. That's the only FACT that matters here. ;

The actually FACT is that on the majority of all releases there is more storage capacity, content, PIP, extras, interactivity and web enabled features on HD DVD. ;)

^^ These are the people who champion themselves as "format neutral."

:rolleyes:

I think that it's your set up, took a look last night and on my JVC HD1 ( in the us JVC RS1 ) there is no problem of that sort, will try to take a photo of my screen, but it will not be hard proof.

As Xylon says only digital capture from the m2ts file are really good enough for drawing conclusions about the quality of HD encodes.

Actually it does, your facts seem to be incorrect.

Well then Tom, why don't you explain to us what percentages of single layer vs dual layer discs has to do with FORMAT capacity. It's very simple: Either the format has 50gb capacity, or it doesn't. Which one is it? I know one thing: HD DVD sure doesn't.

Where does it show its going to rise?

Very simple, mostly EARLY Blu-ray releases use 25gb discs, while a vast majority of new movie titles, INCLUDING the new Fox/MGM titles I might add - use 50gb dual layer Blu-ray discs.


With the high expense of 50g discs and yields as low as 40-50% as reported by neutral insiders as recently as within the month, the only studios that consistently release on 50g titles are Sony & Disney.

Well, right there you just proved to me that you are only out to spread more FUD and lies. VERY recent official numbers released just days ago at http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=551 show that BD-50 yields are "consistently between 75% and 79%", and that "Sony DADC has announced that they have produced their 10 millionth BD-50 disc". So 50gb discs are HARDLY going to be uncommon in future movie releases.

If you have any SOLID PROOF to the contrary, I would love to see it.

The actually FACT is that on the majority of all releases there is more storage capacity, content, PIP, extras, interactivity and web enabled features on HD DVD. ;)

No my friend, those are not facts in any way, shape or form. Those are HD DVD fanboy delusions. :)

...I guess size DOES matter. After a couple more viewings of this film on my tiny 57" DLP, I'm still unable to see any of the problems posters have alluded to in this thread. Having owned several Faroudja-based upconverting DVD players, I'm quite familiar with macroblocking...so I know what to look for. I guess I won't be getting a larger display anytime soon. :)

...I guess size DOES matter. After a couple more viewings of this film on my tiny 57" DLP, I'm still unable to see any of the problems posters have alluded to in this thread. Having owned several Faroudja-based upconverting DVD players, I'm quite familiar with macroblocking...so I know what to look for. I guess I won't be getting a larger display anytime soon. :)

You don't notice any softness, in comparison, for example, to FF:ROTSS?

MPEG4, when bit starving does this : Start to look soft, blend fine details so that it's easier to encode, then it start to macroblock if the deblocking filter fails. While the deblocking filter is at work, the soften the picture even more.

I rarely see macroblocks from VC1 or AVC encode but did saw them on Happy Feet and Coming to America (HD DVD version)

Well then Tom, why don't you explain to us what percentages of single layer vs dual layer discs has to do with FORMAT capacity. It's very simple: Either the format has 50gb capacity, or it doesn't. Which one is it? I know one thing: HD DVD sure doesn't.

Its very simple the majority of all releases are not on 50g and have lower quality, missing features, interactivity and extras because of it. Constantly pointing to BR as having superior disc capacity means little when most of the releases consumer buy are on discs that have even less disc capacity.

Take a look and some of the released titles and there reviews. On average the titles with better quality are ones that had more space available to them either through the disc size or compression codec and compare that to some of the 25g disc titles that are over 90 minutes using MPEG-2 and/or PCM.

Even with the 50g discs many of the titles you get are still starved for space. About 50% of all BR titles use MPEG-2 which doubles the amount of space needed compared to VC-1 or AVC. With outdated codecs like this Blu-ray needs 50g of space in order accomplish the same level of quality as HD DVD can do in 25g's. Combined that with the wasted space use by PCM because advanced audio tracks are optional and you wind up negating any perceived space advantage anyway.

Using Crank as an example, here is an 87 minute movie that fills a 50g disc just because the movie needed to be encoded twice in order to replicate HD DVD's PIP features. Or POTC that cant fit everything on a 50 gig disc and need to include a second disc in order to give extras even though the movie was only 2.5 hrs long

Very simple, mostly EARLY Blu-ray releases use 25gb discs, while a vast majority of new movie titles, INCLUDING the new Fox/MGM titles I might add - use 50gb dual layer Blu-ray discs.

Fox, MGM & Disney didnt release any movies at all the first 5 months after Blu-ray was on the market. 50g discs were available before Fox and MGM had ever released a single disc on Blu-ray.

(my personal opinion is Disney refused to release anything without the 50g discs and some type of agreement must of been maded to have more access now to 50g discs compared to other studios)

As stated previously this was not early on but near a half year after Blu-ray was on the market and after 50g discs were available, 90% of what Fox & MGM has released has been on 25g discs and that includes currently available titles.

Previously the use of 50g discs was between 15-20% up untill March when Fox & MGM stopped releasing for another half a year for the format. Definitely Sony & carried the format during this time with there numerous releases with 43 releases compared to 14 by Disney.

If Fox & MGM had delivered the 3-4 dozen titles announced to consumers during this time frame the overall perentage would not be as high as it is currently.

Well, right there you just proved to me that you are only out to spread more FUD and lies. VERY recent official numbers released just days ago at http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=551 show that BD-50 yields are "consistently between 75% and 79%", and that "Sony DADC has announced that they have produced their 10 millionth BD-50 disc". So 50gb discs are HARDLY going to be uncommon in future movie releases.

Yep and the BDA has been claiming that yields have been at 80% since before launch but independent neutral insiders state differently citing multiple sources and recently posted that yields were as low as 40%.

When Sony's insider was questioned about these yield rates the same day his only reply was to say he would no longer post here and then left.

If you have any SOLID PROOF to the contrary, I would love to see it.

Look it up for yourself in the insiders threade. I will not bother because I know this fanboyism is blind to the truth, like showing how little is actually on 50g discs, it wont matter what I show.

No my friend, those are not facts in any way, shape or form. Those are HD DVD fanboy delusions. :)

Quite the opposite, you disproved not a single thing that I said.

I do own both formats and have invested thousands in each. I do compare them and do not blindly over look faults of either formats. I have offered spreadsheets and statistics in the past and always welcome anyone pointing out anything that may be incorrect.

You don't notice any softness, in comparison, for example, to FF:ROTSS?

What sort of meaningful data would you expect to derive from a comparison of two completely different films? How would comparing The Director's Cut of Troy to the Fantastic Four: ROTSS tell you anything about either films' encode or overall quality?

You don't notice any softness, in comparison, for example, to FF:ROTSS?

I haven't received my copy of "FF:ROTSS" as yet, so I can't do a direct comparison. However, I didn't find "Troy" to be soft at all; in fact, I was amazed at the details, especially in the closeups of the actors. I could see every out-of-place strand in Helen's hair...the faint outline of her nipples under her gown.

Of course, based on the subject matter, I do expect "FF:ROTSS" to be much sharper. ;)

I haven't received my copy of "FF:ROTSS" as yet, so I can't do a direct comparison. However, I didn't find "Troy" to be soft at all; in fact, I was amazed at the details, especially in the closeups of the actors. I could see every out-of-place strand in Helen's hair...the faint outline of her nipples under her gown.

Of course, based on the subject matter, I do expect "FF:ROTSS" to be much sharper. ;)

I generally look at the faces themselves in evaluating sharpness. To my eyes, the closeups of the faces of the principal actors in FF:ROTSS look much sharper than any facial closeups in Troy. Let us know what you think once you've seen it.

The actually FACT is that on the majority of all releases there is more storage capacity, content, PIP, extras, interactivity and web enabled features on HD DVD. ;)

Toms, I can see you are a real HD-DVD fan. But are you really sure that the MAJORITY of all HD-DVD releases have PIP?

Because if this is your definition of a FACT, then you need to get a new one.

...the faint outline of her nipples under her gown.

Heh, heh-heh. He said nipples.

:D

You don't notice any softness, in comparison, for example, to FF:ROTSS?

I know that I do, don't know about Rudy.

On my system if I compare Troy to FF:RotSS, Troy has a much softer picture than FF:RotSS, where all I have is a bright red warning screen telling me that I need new firmware. To it's credit however, the red was very vivid and pleasing to the eye and I don't remember seeing any artifacts in the static image. However, I didn't try to pause the error message to look for issues with the image, nor did I get really close to the screen to look for minute flaws. I might give it a try while I'm on hold with Samsung asking "where's the firmware?" this weekend.

Tom, stop living in the past, fact is most of the current and upcoming releases have been on BD50s, with lossless audio and extras ported from DVD. stop using it as a talking point.

I know that I do, don't know about Rudy.

On my system if I compare Troy to FF:RotSS, Troy has a much softer picture than FF:RotSS, where all I have is a bright red warning screen telling me that I need new firmware. To it's credit however, the red was very vivid and pleasing to the eye and I don't remember seeing any artifacts in the static image. However, I didn't try to pause the error message to look for issues with the image, nor did I get really close to the screen to look for minute flaws. I might give it a try while I'm on hold with Samsung asking "where's the firmware?" this weekend.

I bought my PS3 after my Samsung BDP1200 started giving me an error message saying this disc cannot be played on every disc.

I didn't try to pause the error message to look for issues with the image, nor did I get really close to the screen to look for minute flaws. I might give it a try while I'm on hold with Samsung asking "where's the firmware?" this weekend.When you do, could you say it like that old lady in the old commercial said, "Where's the beef?" :D

Constantly pointing to BR as having superior disc capacity means little when most of the releases consumer buy are on discs that have even less disc capacity.

I know most of my Blu-ray movies are on BD-50's, and I seriously doubt that most releases consumbers by are on BD-25's.

You are still missing the point, that it's the Movie Studios CHOICE if they want to put a movie on a BD-25 or a BD-50. If they feel the movie needs the extra capacity for one reason or another, they have the option to use a 50gb Blu-ray disc, it's that simple.

You still didn't answer my question as to what percentages of single layer vs dual layer discs has to do with FORMAT CAPACITY, please answer that one for me this time, eh?

Using Crank as an example, here is an 87 minute movie that fills a 50g disc just because the movie needed to be encoded twice in order to replicate HD DVD's PIP features. Or POTC that cant fit everything on a 50 gig disc and need to include a second disc in order to give extras even though the movie was only 2.5 hrs long

Yeah, Crank and POTC, those are really good examples.... to prove MY POINT. Those are both BD-50 movies, and both on the top of the Blu-ray movie tier thread. What was that point you were trying to make again?

If Fox & MGM had delivered the 3-4 dozen titles announced to consumers during this time frame the overall perentage would not be as high as it is currently.

More guessing and opinions, but unfortunately neither you nor I know what 'could/would have happened if...' so that's hardly a credible argument.

Yep and the BDA has been claiming that yields have been at 80% since before launch but independent neutral insiders state differently citing multiple sources and recently posted that yields were as low as 40%

Really, well somehow I'm not willing to take the HD DVD insiders word for it, when they claim a low yield rate on Blu-ray. It's kind of funny really, unless they have a second job at Sony, I really don't see how they have any credibility in the matter.

I repeat, if you actually have some PROOF that the recently released OFFICIAL numbers that BD-50 yields are "consistently between 75% and 79%", and that "Sony DADC has announced that they have produced their 10 millionth BD-50 disc" are wrong, then please go ahead and show me.

When Sony's insider was questioned about these yield rates the same day his only reply was to say he would no longer post here and then left.

Can't say I blame him, with the FUD and lies constantly going on around here.

I do own both formats and have invested thousands in each. I do compare them and do not blindly over look faults of either formats. I have offered spreadsheets and statistics in the past and always welcome anyone pointing out anything that may be incorrect.

Yeah it's quite obvious that you are completely format neutral :rolleyes:

Everyone here is arguing about "FACTS". Well...is it fact that there is an artifact in that scene? :)

Is that the only artifact? And if it is, does that mean that HD DVD is no longer worthy of hold a 3+ hour movie?


Yeah, Crank and POTC, those are really good examples.... to prove MY POINT. Those are both BD-50 movies, and both on the top of the Blu-ray movie tier thread. What was that point you were trying to make again?


As far as Crank being on the PQ top tier, i think the point is that it would have only required a BD-25, but needed the BD-50 since 1) it was encoded twice because of lack of pip functionality and 2) Encoded in MPEG2.

In the end besides the case of possible artifacting in one frame, blu-ray's 50 GB were not required to make this a stellar release.

The fact remains that 70% of all BR discs are on 25g discs.

Unfortunately it's getting quite obvious that you are simply out to spread a lot of FUD & lies, which led me to take a look at http://www.blu-raystats.com/ to see if all those numbers you throw around are even remotely correct. I'm sorry to say it didn't surprise me to see that several of your claims are clearly wrong.

It took all of a couple of seconds of looking at www.blu-raystats.com to see the ratios of BD-25 vs BD-50 discs on Blu-ray.

Overall:
BD25 185 57.45 %
BD50 137 42.55 %

I'd say that's pretty far from the 70% BD25 discs that you keep claiming. Also, those are OVERALL numbers, from all studios, including one of the biggest culprits - Warner.

Interestingly, looking at Blu-ray exclusive movie studios, the numbers are far better:

Overall:
BD25 110 55.56 %
BD50 88 44.44 %

2007:
BD25 39 32.77 %
BD50 80 67.23 %

Which also shows what I was saying earlier, that it is quite clear that the number of BD-50 discs are clearly rising, and obviously even more so if/when more studios go Blu-ray exclusive, as they then no longer have to consider the capacity limitations of HD DVD.

About 50% of all BR titles use MPEG-2 which doubles the amount of space needed compared to VC-1 or AVC.

While you are close on the overall numbers, once again just by skipping the very first releases and looking at 2007 titles only, we get a completely different picture with only 31% being MPEG2 titles, making your point irrelevant.

Overall:
MPEG2 152 46.48 %
AVC 93 28.44 %
VC-1 82 25.08 %

2007:
MPEG2 60 30.93 %
AVC 79 40.72 %
VC-1 55 28.35 %

Oh, and just for fun, I looked at even more recent stats from the last three months, which further proves my point:

2007-07:
MPEG2 2 11.76 %
2007-06:
MPEG2 1 5.00 %
2007-05:
MPEG2 7 29.17 %

Unfortunately it's getting quite obvious that you are simply out to spread a lot of FUD & lies, which led me to take a look at http://www.blu-raystats.com/ to see if all those numbers you throw around are even remotely correct. I'm sorry to say it didn't surprise me to see that several of your claims are clearly wrong.

It took all of a couple of seconds of looking at www.blu-raystats.com to see the ratios of BD-25 vs BD-50 discs on Blu-ray.

Overall:
BD25 185 57.45 %
BD50 137 42.55 %

I'd say that's pretty far from the 70% BD25 discs that you keep claiming. Also, those are OVERALL numbers, from all studios, including one of the biggest culprits - Warner.

Interestingly, looking at Blu-ray exclusive movie studios, the numbers are far better:

Overall:
BD25 110 55.56 %
BD50 88 44.44 %

2007:
BD25 39 32.77 %
BD50 80 67.23 %

Which also shows what I was saying earlier, that it is quite clear that the number of BD-50 discs are clearly rising, and obviously even more so if/when more studios go Blu-ray exclusive, as they then no longer have to consider the capacity limitations of HD DVD.



While you are close on the overall numbers, once again just by skipping the very first releases and looking at 2007 titles only, we get a completely different picture with only 31% being MPEG2 titles, making your point irrelevant.

Overall:
MPEG2 152 46.48 %
AVC 93 28.44 %
VC-1 82 25.08 %

2007:
MPEG2 60 30.93 %
AVC 79 40.72 %
VC-1 55 28.35 %

Oh, and just for fun, I looked at even more recent stats from the last three months, which further proves my point:

2007-07:
MPEG2 2 11.76 %
2007-06:
MPEG2 1 5.00 %
2007-05:
MPEG2 7 29.17 %

I see this page lists about 30 Paramount titles yet Paramount gave Blu-ray the boot. Also seems to be many other things skewed in these statistics.

I see this page lists about 30 Paramount titles yet Paramount gave Blu-ray the boot. Also seems to be many other things skewed in these statistics.

I don't believe that those Paramount BD discs released prior to the Toshiba deal were designed to self-destruct. They exist. I own a number of them.

I don't believe that those Paramount BD discs released prior to the Toshiba deal were designed to self-destruct. They exist. I own a number of them.

Nether did original discs before being remastered but those originals were removed.

I was fortunate enough to get the disc, but when I watched it on my Spyder calibrated Samsung LNT-4066F last night, I noticed macroblocking in the backgrounds of a few scenes.

Most notably was the introduction of Helen and Paris during the Spartan festival near the start of the movie. When Paris comes from behind her and touches her neck, you can see green/red macroblocking in the backgrounds. It looks pretty disgusting. There are more scenes like this in the movie as well.

Considering the length of the movie, it's only a handful of scenes, but it still is ugly nontheless. I will report back with timestamps and pics.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Troy/33870553.png



Where is your cellphone picture?(Is that really the capture device you used? not a regular digital camera at least?) Can someone reupload it again?

So . . . what is it really ;)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/a98bca50.jpg

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/0ceaefa9.jpg

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/103050/0/Troybd2.png

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/103052/0/Troybd5.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Troy/6494850a.png

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/103053/0/Troybd7.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Troy/696476d8.png


One of the better HD releases out there. Sharp, detailed and consistent PQ. Highly recommended. But hey what do I know ;) :o




PS: Do we really need to see the DVD version :p

One of the better HD releases out there. Sharp, detailed and consistent PQ. Highly recommended. But hey what do I know ;) :o





Many of us have a very different opinion about the PQ in Troy DC. ;)

Many of us have a very different opinion about the PQ in Troy DC. ;)

lol, actually it's more like a dozen or so people who have issues with WARNER, not just the Troy DC.

Many of us have a very different opinion about the PQ in Troy DC. ;)

Yeah,but what about Batman Begins?!?!?!?! :D

The DC version is easy demo material.

details, colours and a great epic movie.