But now when I see a movie in the theater, and the Paramount logo comes up, I am disappointed. It probably means the HD-DVD will only have a lossy track.

And I pray to God that I don't see the Warner logo. It could mean we will get the worst of both worlds: no lossless, plus a half lossy track (640K DD).

I was happier when I watched American Gangster last week and saw the Universal log. They have been releasing more and more TrueHD titles.

And I am happy if it's Disney. When I go format neutral, I will likely be enjoying that disc in lossless. Same for Sony/Columbia, except there may be multiple lossless tracks.

Prior to the arrival of HDM, I never cared (or even noticed) what studio a movie is from.

Same here, I take notice a lot more now what studios are putting movies out :(

I think this thread can be closed before it erupts.

But now when I see a movie in the theater, and the Paramount logo comes up, I am disappointed. It probably means the HD-DVD will only have a lossy track.

And I pray to God that I don't see the Warner logo. It could mean we will get the worst of both worlds: no lossless, plus a half lossy track (640K DD).

I was happier when I watched American Gangster last week and saw the Universal log. They have been releasing more and more TrueHD titles.

And I am happy if it's Disney. When I go format neutral, I will likely be enjoying that disc in lossless. Same for Sony/Columbia, except there may be multiple lossless tracks.

Prior to the arrival of HDM, I never cared (or even noticed) what studio a movie is from.

Oh, but the studios have always been very different with regard to the films they actually release. I have always followed that. :)
It is true that such differences were much more visible 50 or 70 years ago. But throughout the years some trends and styles kept each studio with certain profiles.

Disney logo... yay, lossless and high bitrate avc!

Columbia/Sony logo... yay again.

Warner logo... aww crap.

Paramount... argh. Why can't they include lossless sound?!

Fox... they better not screw it up!

Universal... thank god this isn't a catalog title!

If you're a family person, the Disney logo (and the movies themselves) do tend to stick out. But I think for the most part the average movie viewer doesn't really care about the studio, just as they don't care about about lossless audio, bandwidth, and all that other stuff.

The average movie viewer buys a movie based on the actors and the story line.... nothing else really matters.

If you're a family person, the Disney logo (and the movies themselves) do tend to stick out. But I think for the most part the average movie viewer doesn't really care about the studio, just as they don't care about about lossless audio, bandwidth, and all that other stuff.

The average movie viewer buys a movie based on the actors and the story line.... nothing else really matters.

This is one of the main reasons (unfortunately there are a few others to add to it) that the 2 format system we have is likely to fail. When J6P is told he would need 2 different HD players to watch Spiderman and The Hulk he becomes confused and defaults the the old reliable DVD player.

But now when I see a movie in the theater, and the Paramount logo comes up, I am disappointed. It probably means the HD-DVD will only have a lossy track.

Wow, I feel so sorry for you. You, obviously, can only listen to music portably using FLAC. That must really limit your playback options, huh?

I do think it's sad that people will have to know which studio made a certain movie to be sure their high def player will be able to play it. Studio format exclusivity is one of the worst things for consumers I've ever seen, right up their with DRM.

I do hope the CEs realize that both formats aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and join LG and Samsung in the dual format arena.

What a jaded bunch !;) I never cared before but of course the format war changed all that. I'm not as much into the differing audio codecs as you guys it appears since level matched DBT on the differences haven't been done.

Art

Disney logo... yay, lossless and high bitrate avc!

Columbia/Sony logo... yay again.

Warner logo... aww crap.

Paramount... argh. Why can't they include lossless sound?!

Fox... they better not screw it up!

Universal... thank god this isn't a catalog title!
You may not be aware that lossy 1.5Mbps DD+ (as used by Paramount and Universal) from 24 bit masters is superior to 16bit LPCM as used commonly by BD or TruHD from 16bit masters as used by Warner and others.

Just as in PQ, the master you start out with is one of the most important factors. Lossless matters when you know what you are taking out from. Lossy from 16bit or using 448 kbps DD as used by BD is the bigger problem. IMO.

Disney logo... yay, lossless and high bitrate avc!

Columbia/Sony logo... yay again.

Warner logo... aww crap.

Paramount... argh. Why can't they include lossless sound?!

Fox... they better not screw it up!

Universal... thank god this isn't a catalog title!

LOL

+1

hmmm... i still don't care... i guess i'm bright enough to figure out if it comes in a blue box to put it in the s1 and if it comes in a red box to put it in the a20... :p

hmmm... i still don't care... i guess i'm bright enough to figure out if it comes in a blue box to put it in the s1 and if it comes in a red box to put it in the a20... :pWell said! :D

You may not be aware that lossy 1.5Mbps DD+ (as used by Paramount and Universal) from 24 bit masters is superior to 16bit LPCM as used commonly by BD or TruHD from 16bit masters as used by Warner and others...

This is an subjective opinion at best and is technically wrong at worst. It seems to be is passed of as fact when it is not. Please provide any factual data to backup up your opinion. A lossy track made from a 24 bit master throws away so much info and uses large amounts of noise shaping to simulate the large dynamic range that it actually lacks. It also uses large amount of perceptual coding to make up the deference further diminishing it's technical SQ, especially at very high and low frequencies. A 16 bit lossless track offers a true 96dB dynamic range with little nose shaping needed and no perceptual coding added. The only time 24 bit lossy track might have a technical SQ advantage would be during a low level and non complex midrange sound passage (-50dB or so) when it could have theoretically a smaller amount of distortion.

Also Sony and Disney use a 24bit lossless track when the original master is 24bit. Most big budget films made before 2000 or so (and many still made) only have a 16bit master to start with.

I'm not nearly so fussy, because I enjoy watching films for entertainment and improving the PQ on my theater as a hobby.
Sure I see things watching HDM because I've seen other films with better transfers, but I don't gripe about it because I have no control of it. I'm not even sure my ear could tell the difference between lossless audio.
Somebody mentioned the other day he remembers progressive scan dvd players was a big deal when it came out. Well that players been moved to another TV and my kids enjoy it. Move on, the technology today will be long forgotten in two years.

A lossy track made from a 24 bit master throws away so much info and uses large amounts of noise shaping to simulate the large dynamic range that it actually lacks. It also uses large amount of perceptual coding to make up the deference further diminishing it's technical SQ, especially at very high and low frequencies.I wonder just how much of what you so emphatically state is affected by the encoding bitrate used by DD+ (448 kbps to 1.5 Mbps)? With the higher bits per second available less of that perceptual coding and throwing things out that are masked is done.

Do you have any facts with results from properly run DBT’s? What we have seen is FilmMixer’s statements that with very good playback environment capabilities and access to the original masters, that he can not reliably pick out the difference between a DD+ 1.5 Mbps lossy encoded track and the master.

I never used to notice what studio a movie is from

It was never really important before HDM hit the streets

But now when I see a movie in the theater, and the Paramount logo comes up, I am disappointed. It probably means the HD-DVD will only have a lossy track.You'd better walk out of the theater immediately. :p They typically use much lower bitrates than lossy HD-DVD or BD tracks do, often 320 kbps Dolby Digital ...

Do you have any facts with results from properly run DBT’s? What we have seen is FilmMixer’s statements that with very good playback environment capabilities and access to the original masters, that he can not reliably pick out the difference between a DD+ 1.5 Mbps lossy encoded track and the master.

Good point. I often wonder if things are matched if there is an audible difference.

Art

Do you have any facts with results from properly run DBT’s? What we have seen is FilmMixer’s statements that with very good playback environment capabilities and access to the original masters, that he can not reliably pick out the difference between a DD+ 1.5 Mbps lossy encoded track and the master.
And no one can. I'm 42 years old do recording, mixing and mastering, can hear my kids adult proof ringtones and I can't hear any difference between a CD track and a 320kbps Mp3 that I would be willing to fight over and DD+ is more efficient.

I wonder just how much of what you so emphatically state is affected by the encoding bitrate used by DD+ (448 kbps to 1.5 Mbps)? With the higher bits per second available less of that perceptual coding and throwing things out that are masked is done.

Do you have any facts with results from properly run DBT’s? What we have seen is FilmMixer’s statements that with very good playback environment capabilities and access to the original masters, that he can not reliably pick out the difference between a DD+ 1.5 Mbps lossy encoded track and the master.

I did not say that you would always (or ever) hear the difference. I said a lossless track was technically better than a lossy track all other things being equal.

Take a 24bit master track and make 2 tracks from it. 1: Dithered 16bit lossless. 2: 1.5 Mbps lossy DD+.

While I agree that no one would hear the difference all the time and almost no one would hear any deference sometimes, the lossless (1) would be a more accurate representation and technically superior to the (2) lossy track. plazman stated that the lossy would be superior to the lossless which is not correct and I was responding to.

Do you have any facts with results from properly run DBT’s? What we have seen is FilmMixer’s statements that with very good playback environment capabilities and access to the original masters, that he can not reliably pick out the difference between a DD+ 1.5 Mbps lossy encoded track and the master.

But your missing Plaz's point. Not only is lossy "good enough"....its now better than lossless!:o

Is this the I never used to notice what studio a movie is from thread? Or is this the lossy versus lossless thread?

Same here, I take notice a lot more now what studios are putting movies out :(

+1

Me too.

the first thing I do if I see a movie trailer that I want to see I check which studio it is from since I only have HD DVD

But your missing Plaz's point. Not only is lossy "good enough"....its now better than lossless!:o

That wasn't his point at all. His point was that a DD+ 1.5 MG lossy encode of a better source is better than a lossless encode of a poorer source.

[/defunct equine]

While I notice more now I definitely noticed back in the Divx days when certain studios didn't release on DVD. And I always noticed the interminable trailers and crap Disney put before the movie on their DVDs, too bad they continued that with BD. And that a ton of my favorite movies I got on DVD were New Line and not released yet on HDM.

Take a 24bit master track and make 2 tracks from it. 1: Dithered 16bit lossless. 2: 1.5 Mbps lossy DD+.

While I agree that no one would hear the difference all the time and almost no one would hear any deference sometimes, the lossless (1) would be a more accurate representation and technically superior to the (2) lossy track. plazman stated that the lossy would be superior to the lossless which is not correct and I was responding to.

How do you conclude that (1) is technically superior to (2)? If you take a 32bit photo in BMP mode, dither down to 16bit and save as BMP, is that superior to maximum quality lossy JPG of the original 32bit photo? I'm not sure that anyone can conclusively say which is superior reproduction of the original. However, I know that I could not tell the difference between the original BMP and maximum quality JPG copy even though the file size difference may be many folds.

hmmm... i still don't care... i guess i'm bright enough to figure out if it comes in a blue box to put it in the s1 and if it comes in a red box to put it in the a20... :p

Not only do we share the same views, we share the same HD equipment. :)

I said a lossless track was technically better than a lossy track all other things being equal.

Granted, that's an opinion, too. Yours, not everyone's.

Some experts I've heard on the subject speak in terms of "virtually indistinguishable" being the benchmark -- that is, an uncompressed HD Master from the studio compared, side-by-side, in real time, to their encode work. The uncompressed HD Master takes up huge storage space; the VC-1 encode fits comfily on a consumer distributed piece of plastic encased aluminum. Yet the "is it successful" gold ring is: if you can't tell the difference, in spite of the encode, there is no difference.

I see no reason to believe that this video standard being used today can't also apply to audio (never mind that most people use their TV speakers for playback having not yet figured out where to put the 5 speakers without tripping over them or having the dog chase the cat over the cords and pull the entire entertainment centre crashing to disaster). Technically better is a nonsensical metric if there is no way to measure the difference subjectively. Big deal if this meter is different than that meter.

You know, Claude Rains was the best Invisible Man in the 1933 James Whale classic ... even 75 years on he's never been seen in better light. :rolleyes: Same with "technically better" as a measure of whether the picture looks better or the sound is "inferior" when the difference itself remains invisible.

It was never really important before HDM hit the streets

except in 1997, 1998, and 1999.

When Fox, Disney, and Paramount wouldn't release DVD's.

except in 1997, 1998, and 1999.

When Fox, Disney, and Paramount wouldn't release DVD's.

True - forgot about the DIVX fiascio.:o

But they didn't release any movies until DIVX hit in 12/98 - THEN it became an issue - until 6/99 - so it was really only 7 months.

If a movie is just not available at all - do you count that?

I do notice much more these days. But I have this reaction....

Dreamworks... If I like this movie, I'll buy the disc when it comes out

Paramount... If I like this movie, I'll buy the disc when it comes out

Universal... If I like this movie, I'll buy the disc when it comes out

Warner logo... If I like this movie, I'll buy the disc when it comes out

Disney... I'll have to wait longer on this one

Sony... Maybe when I set up a universal HTPC that covers both formats

Fox... I wonder if this one would have problems playing on my universal HTPC

Granted, that's an opinion, too. Yours, not everyone's.

Some experts I've heard on the subject speak in terms of "virtually indistinguishable" being the benchmark -- that is, an uncompressed HD Master from the studio compared, side-by-side, in real time, to their encode work. The uncompressed HD Master takes up huge storage space; the VC-1 encode fits comfily on a consumer distributed piece of plastic encased aluminum. Yet the "is it successful" gold ring is: if you can't tell the difference, in spite of the encode, there is no difference.
.... Technically better is a nonsensical metric if there is no way to measure the difference subjectively. Big deal if this meter is different than that meter...

It is not an opinion it is a technical fact. The data is a lossy file is not the same as in a lossless file. If you look at the data stream (0110110001100) it will be different. Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean it is identical (only your perception is the same).

If I say that Coke and Pepsi are "virtually indistinguishable" to me, does that make them identical with the same ingredients? Since I "can't tell the difference, in spite of the" bottle, "there is no difference" right?

Identical: 2 things are the same in every way and detail.
Different" 2 things that are not the same even if you can only measure the difference but can't perceive or observe it.

Lossy and lossless fall in the latter and are different (even if you can't tell by hearing), plus lossless IS technically superior since lossy has to "best guess" to simulate and add the deleted (lost and gone forever) data back to make it sound as close as possible to the lossless original and "fool" your ears.

I do notice much more these days. But I have this reaction....

Dreamworks... If I like this movie, I'll buy the disc when it comes out

Paramount... If I like this movie, I'll buy the disc when it comes out

Universal... If I like this movie, I'll buy the disc when it comes out

Warner logo... If I like this movie, I'll buy the disc when it comes out

Disney... I'll have to wait longer on this one

Sony... Maybe when I set up a universal HTPC that covers both formats

Fox... I wonder if this one would have problems playing on my universal HTPC

Same for me - with one exception:

Fox... I won't buy any movies from them until they stop their DRM-crap on the discs (that goes along with the playback problems)

FIFY

Disney logo... yay, lossless and high bitrate avc!

Columbia/Sony logo... yay again.

Warner logo... 4/5 ain't bad, and what did Kubrick ever do to you?

Paramount... why can't they deliver on special features now lossless sound is there?

Fox... they better not screw it up! and I wonder how many times it will get postponed?

Universal... thank god this isn't a catalog title!

It is not an opinion it is a technical fact. The data is a lossy file is not the same as in a lossless file. If you look at the data stream (0110110001100) it will be different. Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean it is identical (only your perception is the same).

If I say that Coke and Pepsi are "virtually indistinguishable" to me, does that make them identical with the same ingredients? Since I "can't tell the difference, in spite of the" bottle, "there is no difference" right?

Identical: 2 things are the same in every way and detail.
Different" 2 things that are not the same even if you can only measure the difference but can't perceive or observe it.

Lossy and lossless fall in the latter and are different (even if you can't tell by hearing), plus lossless IS technically superior since lossy has to "best guess" to simulate and add the deleted (lost and gone forever) data back to make it sound as close as possible to the lossless original and "fool" your ears.

I follow this, but how is 16bit dithered lossless any more identical to 24bit master? 24bits of data had to be averaged into 16bits of space. The 0s and 1s are no more identical to the original than the lossy audio stream.

I do notice much more these days. But I have this reaction....

Dreamworks... If I like this movie, I'll buy the disc when it comes out

Paramount... If I like this movie, I'll buy the disc when it comes out

Universal... If I like this movie, I'll buy the disc when it comes out

Warner logo... If I like this movie, I'll buy the disc when it comes out

Disney... I'll have to wait longer on this one

Sony... Maybe when I set up a universal HTPC that covers both formats

Fox... I wonder if this one would have problems playing on my universal HTPC

:D :D :D

Yeah that about sums it up for me as well lol Especially the part about Fox.

I never payed much attention either, but now I find it interesting what types of movies each puts out.

Have you noticed any patterns?

I never used to notice what studio a movie is from


Then i watched 'Dracula' ;)

i have both formats, so i never really care which studio releases it. lossless audio means squat to me even tho i can receive it through my receiver. as long as it looks good on my pj and the movie enjoyable, ill buy it if i enjoy it.