While browsing er...certain corners...of the series of tubes, I came across evidence of the size of the HD DVD versions of Harry Potter 2 and 4 and Blu-ray versions of Harry Potter 3 and 5. Apart from the weird numbering/even-odd versions, there's a pretty big discrepancy in size:

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets HD DVD (2h41m): 25.16 GB
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Blu-Ray (2h22m): 39.46 GB
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire HD DVD (2h37m): 28.09 GB
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Blu-Ray (2h18m): 47.79 GB

I'd love to believe that Warner has suddenly seen the light and started using encodes specific to the bandwidths of each format on these titles, but I'm still doubtful. Could I be missing something? I know that on Blu-ray, all five films are using PCM and that OOTP has some extras in 1080p (as opposed to 480p on HD DVD), but would that really account for a 15-20GB difference, especially considering the longer length of the HD DVDs?

Dual encodes on the BDs to get PiP? That is my only guess

While browsing er...certain corners...of the series of tubes, I came across evidence of the size of the HD DVD versions of Harry Potter 2 and 4 and Blu-ray versions of Harry Potter 3 and 5. Apart from the weird numbering/even-odd versions, there's a pretty big discrepancy in size:

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets HD DVD (2h41m): 25.16 GB
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Blu-Ray (2h22m): 39.46 GB
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire HD DVD (2h37m): 28.09 GB
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Blu-Ray (2h18m): 47.79 GB

I'd love to believe that Warner has suddenly seen the light and started using encodes specific to the bandwidths of each format on these titles, but I'm still doubtful. Could I be missing something? I know that on Blu-ray, all five films are using PCM and that OOTP has some extras in 1080p (as opposed to 480p on HD DVD), but would that really account for a 15-20GB difference, especially considering the longer length of the HD DVDs?

What sense does it make to compare 4 different movies with different picture and sound information on 2 different formats?

Hopefully, so they could start using 1.5 Mbps DD+ on HD DVD (for titles lacking TrueHD). The picture encodes really won't look any different.

No, Warner and their 'in-house' team continue to do single video encodes in their workflow. Audio, as always, will vary depending on the project.

What sense does it make to compare 4 different movies with different picture and sound information on 2 different formats?Did you not read the last sentence? Whatever, here's some quick calculations for you (thanks, Frode!):
161 minutes at 25.16 GB = 20.8Mbps
142 minutes at 39.46 GB = 37.0Mbps
157 minutes at 28.09 GB = 23.9Mbps
138 minutes at 47.79 GB = 46.2Mbps

Keep in mind that the extras will reduce that somewhat, and also that those numbers still include audio. 3 hours of 5.1 LPCM would be around 5.8 gigs. The runtime isn't 3 hours though, and the size difference much larger.

If I remember correctly, the HP BD will have lossless PCM which will account for several gigs and the extras at least on HP5 are all in 1080p for the BD. I don't know if thats the case on the early films.

Here's hoping that WHV is at least considering taking advantage of BD's extra raw horsepower.

Did you not read the last sentence? Whatever, here's some quick calculations for you (thanks, Frode!):

Yes I did, but still you have different picture information in each movie. I am not that familar with compression and stuff but I´m pretty sure that a 3 hours FBI Warning does not need the same space as the Order of Phoenix. That example might be extreme but maybe you get my point, that different picture information creates different need for space even if its the same encode.
Throw in some PCM audio and HD extras and you might have your difference in disk space.

This comparsion would be way more significant if it would compare the same movies on both formats.

Dual encodes on the BDs to get PiP? That is my only guessThat's possible, and also, they may have included a PCM track on the Bluray versions, which would inflate the size dramatically.

However, I agree with the other poster, in that it is tough to make any comparison when the movies compared are different... ie 1 vs 2 or 3 vs 4...

In all likelihood the video encode for the main features are identical, with just PCM audio adding a few gigs, and possibly a difference in extras.

Yes I did, but still you have different picture information in each movie. I am not that familar with compression and stuff but I´m pretty sure that a 3 hours FBI Warning does not need the same space as the Order of Phoenix. That example might be extreme but maybe you get my point, that different picture information creates different need for space even if compression and bandwith are the same.Your examples would apply if we were talking about movies with completely separate subject matter, say a documentary with a lot of relatively static images versus a wham-bam action flick. But we're not. We're talking films with roughly the same subject, with the added bonus that the smaller versions are actually longer than the larger ones.
Throw in some PCM audio and HD extras and you might have your difference in disk space.As I posted above, the audio may account for a couple extra gigabytes, seeing as how both versions have lossless soundtracks (the LPCM space above is total, not amount above TrueHD). The real x-factor here seems to be the extras. While most of the extras on OOTP seem to be 1080i/p, a quick glance at the back cover art for films 2-4 shows only 480p. So again, we come back to the fact that despite being shorter and sharing the same SD extras, the BD releases would be much larger. The PCM track on POA would only be an extra couple of GB (let's be extremely generous and say 4GB) over the TrueHD. Yet the film is almost 10GB larger than a completely full HD DVD, and judging by the other HD DVDs it won't be full, so it would be even more!

So, here we are. After "throwing in some PCM audio and HD extras", we can maybe explain OOTP. But it doesn't explain the other movies.
This comparsion would be way more significant if it would compare the same movie on both formats.I do agree, but you'd have to ask the rippers why they did it the way they did. Anyhoo, given all the calculations above, I'd be interested to hear what theory you have that can explain the previous films.
In all likelihood the video encode for the main features are identical, with just PCM audio adding a few gigs, and possibly a difference in extras.Only if we're talking about multiple PCM soundtracks and all HD extras, but we're not. Same DD/DD+ for all non-English tracks and for all but OOTP, the same 480p extras.

Worth noting that the UK HD DVD of Order of the Pheonix is a 2 disc affair compared to the BD which is one disc.

There are some exclusive extras on each, but I would presume that the main film is the same on both versions.

Cheers

Or maybe the OP's implicit point is that seeing some of the BD's in the 40's and knowing the theoretical maximum storage of a HD-DVD combined with the actual BD sizes would make it impossible for them to be using identical encodes? However the discrepencies could be attributed to audio, extras, useless padding with 0's or garbage, etc, fake PiP encodes on the BD, .....

95% chance it is the fake PiP???

Anyone got early copies of all movies on both formats?

95% chance it is the fake PiP???There is no PiP on the BD versions, at least according to the official specs.

"...138 minutes at 47.79 GB = 46.2Mbps..."

That is hard to believe. 46Mbps average. That would be pretty much full throttle for BD. Is it possible to keep up that kind of data stream the whole time? Even with 24bit LPCM (would Warner use 24bit for the first time?) and several DD tracks you are still talking way over 35Mbps for just the video.

"...138 minutes at 47.79 GB = 46.2Mbps..."

That is hard to believe. 46Mbps average. That would be pretty much full throttle for BD. Is it possible to keep up that kind of data stream the whole time? Even with 24bit LPCM (would Warner use 24bit for the first time?) and several DD tracks you are still talking way over 35Mbps for just the video.You should subtract some for extras (especially the 1080i/p ones exclusive to Blu-ray), but yes, it is surprising. That's why I'm wondering if Warner has finally started to encode different files that can take advantage of the higher bandwidth allowed on Blu-ray.

... but yes, it is surprising. That's why I'm wondering if Warner has finally started to encode different files that can take advantage of the higher bandwidth allowed on Blu-ray.

It would be surprising since Warner has always played the lowest denominator card. For instance they always used 384Mbps DD on DVD, while just about everyone else used 448Mbps.

Dual encodes on the BDs to get PiP? That is my only guess
That would be my guess also.
There is no PiP on the BD versions, at least according to the official specs.

There is also no net connectivity on the BD versions ;)

WB... the lowest common denominator studio. Not something I would be exactly proud about.

Perhaps they could get Panasonic Labs or Sony to do Blu-ray specific AVC encodes. However, I doubt we'd start seeing Blu-ray level bitrate encodes and/or 24 bit audio unless WB does go Blu-ray exclusive. Then I doubt WB would necessarily stick with Microsoft on their VC-1 encoding services which lower the bitrates to extreme levels with sometimes iffy results.

Dan

However, I doubt we'd start seeing Blu-ray level bitrate encodes and/or 24 bit audio unless WB does go Blu-ray exclusive. Then I doubt WB would necessarily stick with Microsoft on their VC-1 encoding services which lower the bitrates to extreme levels with sometimes iffy results.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Why anyone thinks Warner would not be just as inclined to use BD25 if they were to start doing format-specific encodes really isn't paying attention.

While I'm not sure if Warner are using dual encodes, I feel they will soon. Paidgeek use to say to encode in AVC it took a long time for Sony. They switched to AVC in the end probably due to an increased investment in their computing power.

Warner will do the same. Dual encodes take almost 2x the time for the whole authoring side of the project. If they've got a queue of movies to do, it can hold things back. Now that HDM is getting more popular they can pump more money and therefore power into their computer farms.

Paramount did dual encodes simply because they didn't have as many projects to do compared to Warner so probably had plenty of time when their farms were sitting around doing nothing.

DVD_sanchez,

Paramount did dual encodes because they didn't do it 'in-house' like the Warners... they sent off the projects to two different compression/authoring groups -- one BD, one HD DVD -- in parallel.

Video compression for HDM authoring isn't really limited by 'computer farm' horsepower... we're not talking rendering 3D animation here. It's significantly less intensive than that. A compressionist does far more than just pressing a button and waiting for some sort of sea of computers to chug away. :)

As mentioned before, Warner doesn't have a standard main feature dual compression work-flow.... and I doubt they ever will. I guess there might be some specific scenarios they would do it... but as a rule, I can't see why if the compressionist is doing their job correctly.

:)While browsing er...certain corners...of the series of tubes, I came across evidence of the size of the HD DVD versions of Harry Potter 2 and 4 and Blu-ray versions of Harry Potter 3 and 5. Apart from the weird numbering/even-odd versions, there's a pretty big discrepancy in size:

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets HD DVD (2h41m): 25.16 GB
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Blu-Ray (2h22m): 39.46 GB
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire HD DVD (2h37m): 28.09 GB
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Blu-Ray (2h18m): 47.79 GB

I'd love to believe that Warner has suddenly seen the light and started using encodes specific to the bandwidths of each format on these titles, but I'm still doubtful. Could I be missing something? I know that on Blu-ray, all five films are using PCM and that OOTP has some extras in 1080p (as opposed to 480p on HD DVD), but would that really account for a 15-20GB difference, especially considering the longer length of the HD DVDs?

I doubt they are doing 2 different encodes, but we can dream can't we?

A 1hr 22min movie with a LPCM track at 24/48 would require ~7.5GB (thats' just for raw data, does not include headers, resync, etc.). Do the titles have an alternate language LPCM. If so, multply by the number of alternate languages. Plus you still have to have a DD track. My guess is video encode is the same.

Note that 7.5GB alone accounts for most of the size diff.

Get off the format politics already. Most of us are over this by now. My "swipe" as you call it, was aimed at a patently ridiculous statement about the policies of the most prolific supporter of HD media, and the only studio willing to give consumers a choice.You still don't get it, do you?

We are talking about Time-Warner the conglomerate, not the subsidiary Warner Home Video.

And that is why your swipe was unnecessary.
But, since you want to bring format into this discussion, where do you think YOUR format of choice would be without Warner right now? You might want to give that some thought when you are out here ripping on them.To repeat:

We are talking about Time-Warner the conglomerate, not the subsidiary Warner Home Video.

I didn't say anything that "ripped" WHV. If anything, I'd be congratulating them if they're using separate encodes. Of course, they did receive an "F" from the Better Business Bureau... (http://www.labbb.org/BBBWeb/Forms/Business/CompanyReportPage_Expository.aspx?CompanyID=32601)
Yeah, it is well documented that Ted Turner's management style did not fit with the structured, corporate environment of Time-Warner. He should have thought about that before selling them his company. And that has nothing to do with this.A) Actually, it's "well-documented" that Ted Turner was upset with the merger with AOL, not the standing corporate structure. As it turns out, he was right.
B) It has everything to do with your unwarranted attack because you couldn't tell the difference between a parent company and it's subsidary.

Now, can we get back to the subject at hand?

A 1hr 22min movie with a LPCM track at 24/48 would require ~7.5GB (thats' just for raw data, does not include headers, resync, etc.). Do the titles have an alternate language LPCM. If so, multply by the number of alternate languages. Plus you still have to have a DD track. My guess is video encode is the same.

Note that 7.5GB alone accounts for most of the size diff.AFAIK, Warner has only used 16/48 LPCM so far and all the HP releases only have 1 lossless track, the other tracks are DD.

J,

If your claim is true, I think this release would be viewed with interest by many here. It would be a nice boost to the BD version if the video bitrate was higher, but I'm skeptical, since that alone would place the red version at a steep disadvantage, not to mention the extra cost for Warner. (Why can't Panasonic volunteer their services for free for this and the next 9 disks?).

Hopefully they will if they haven't already.

I kinda doubt its two dif encodes.

Most likey the PCM track is responsible for more space taken up.

Would be nice though.

Nope, the video encodes are identical. The Blu-ray has PCM audio, which is much bigger, and a few other language tracks, namely Italian and German dubs which are not included on the HD-DVD release.

Just got confirmation of the "Chamber of Secrets" BD size, so now we actually have an apples-to-apples comparison.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets HD DVD (2h41m): 25.16 GB
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Blu-ray (2h41m): 40.35 GB

We've established that both versions of this have one (1) lossless audio track each plus several DD/DD+ tracks, as well as the fact that both have the exact same 480p extras. So how can a PCM soundtrack take up more than 15GB of space over a TrueHD track?

Just got confirmation of the "Chamber of Secrets" BD size, so now we actually have an apples-to-apples comparison.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets HD DVD (2h41m): 25.16 GB
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Blu-ray (2h41m): 40.35 GB

We've established that both versions of this have one (1) lossless audio track each plus several DD/DD+ tracks, as well as the fact that both have the exact same 480p extras. So how can a PCM soundtrack take up more than 15GB of space over a TrueHD track?


Wow, that seals the deal for me. I'm definitely buying the Blu-ray versions of all these films. :)

Well, what's the runtime on the bonus content? Perhaps they used LPCM there too :D Though I'm guessing the bonus content would need to be in the ballpark of 200 minutes duration for it's audio being LPCM to be the issue (assuming stereo audio - 7.1 seems overkill).. I guess if it was equivalent to a full movie of 480p IME, plus some non IME extras, you could have around 200 minutes of "bonus audio"...

Depending on specs (assuming 24bit 48khz 7.1) could be as much as ~10GB of LPCM for the movie itself, leaving a ~5 GB difference.. the other languages for the movie could be another ~1.5GB (assuming 640kbit) ? Assuming stereo 24bit 48khz LPCM that gives ~200 minutes of audio time left to fill the remaining 3.5GB.

Depending on specs (assuming 24bit 48khz 7.1) could be as much as ~10GB of LPCM for the movie itselfWarner has only been using 16/48 5.1 PCM so far, which accounts for something closer to 5-6 GB. And remember, we're comparing to the HD DVD's TrueHD track, which takes up a couple GB, so it's more like 2-3 GB extra.
the other languages for the movie could be another ~1.5GB (assuming 640kbit) ?Again, the other languages are the same as the HD DVD version, so it doesn't count towards the discrepancy. If anything, the HD DVD would have higher bitrate for the secondary audio tracks.
Assuming stereo 24bit 48khz LPCM that gives ~200 minutes of audio time left to fill the remaining 3.5GB.Not only does Warner not use 24/48 audio, they don't use PCM (or TrueHD AFAIK) on supplements. Most of the extras on my Warner BDs are just DD at either 2.0/192kbps or 5.1/448kbps. And these are the same 480p supplements that are on the HD DVD, so again, they don't towards the discrepancy.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets HD DVD (2h41m): 25.16 GB
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Blu-ray (2h41m): 40.35 GB

Where are you getting your data from, and how was it checked?

I have the UK version of all the HP movies. The Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban discs are imprinted with "NA-UK-JPN/Z1". This means these discs are for North America, United Kingdom, and Japan. Chamber of Secrets HD DVD is actually 25,979,518,976 bytes for 24.1 GB. This calls into question your source for the BD file size as well. All audio tracks on the HD DVD except TrueHD are 448 kb/s. Has anyone confirmed exactly what audio is on the BD?

BTW, on Warner's two versions of Blood Diamond, which are the same video encode, and the HD DVD has additional content, the BD is 7 GB larger file size.

I wouldn't be jumping to any conclusions until more information is available.

Where are you getting your data from, and how was it checked?

We have PCs with optical drives that can read HD-DVDs and Blu-rays. I can also verify these numbers.

We have PCs with optical drives that can read HD-DVDs and Blu-rays. I can also verify these numbers.

Are you saying you have checked these discs and you are verifying what JBlacklow posted, or that you have the capability to verify when you have the discs?

Are you saying you have checked these discs and you are verifying what JBlacklow posted, or that you have the capability to verify when you have the discs?
In a previous post he said-
Nope, the video encodes are identical. The Blu-ray has PCM audio, which is much bigger, and a few other language tracks, namely Italian and German dubs which are not included on the HD-DVD release.

In this case, the biggest factors seem to be in the audio like most believe. The PCM is a larger file than TrueHD, this is certainly true, and some of the extras are now going to be in HD. What people seem to be underplaying, though, is that each of these movies are coming with 9 more Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks in addition to the 3 present on the HD-DVDs. There are 13 audio tracks as opposed to HD-DVD's 4. Adjust your math accordingly

^^^^^^^

What he said. It the extra audio tracks.

Where are you getting your data from, and how was it checked?Since it would enter into a discussion of illegal copies, saying so would get the thread closed and/or deleted, unless I can say a technology (i.e. IRC or telnet, although that's obviously not it).
I have the UK version of all the HP movies. The Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban discs are imprinted with "NA-UK-JPN/Z1". This means these discs are for North America, United Kingdom, and Japan. Chamber of Secrets HD DVD is actually 25,979,518,976 bytes for 24.1 GB. This calls into question your source for the BD file size as well.It may be the method the files are packed. In this case, the files are RARed, so maybe they contain wierd file headers, additional software or an sample video. I haven't downloaded the files, let alone unpacked them, so I don't know what all is there. Of course, the BD version is packed the same way, plus that's all of 1GB of information, so it doesn't "call into question" anything. Please remember to question the facts, not attempt to smear the poster.
All audio tracks on the HD DVD except TrueHD are 448 kb/s. Has anyone confirmed exactly what audio is on the BD?Judging by previous Warner releases, identical to the HD DVD.
BTW, on Warner's two versions of Blood Diamond, which are the same video encode, and the HD DVD has additional content, the BD is 7 GB larger file size.The BD has PCM, for whatever it's worth. Still doesn't explain 15GB on a title that's only 20m longer
I wouldn't be jumping to any conclusions until more information is available.Well, duh. That's why I started this thread in the first place.
In this case, the biggest factors seem to be in the audio like most believe. The PCM is a larger file than TrueHD, this is certainly true, and some of the extras are now going to be in HD.This is not true for the movie in question (HP2), nor for the other titles in the series excluding HP5.
What people seem to be underplaying, though, is that each of these movies are coming with 9 more Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks in addition to the 3 present on the HD-DVDs. There are 13 audio tracks as opposed to HD-DVD's 4. Adjust your math accordinglyI doubt it. DD tracks on a movie this length are roughly 400mb each. That would account for ~4gb, not 15+.

<Rubbing goatee curiously>

With HP2, over the 161 minute film

a 640 kbps DD track requires 772.8 Mb
a 4.6 Mbps PCM 16/48 track requires 5.55 Gb
a 6.9 Mpbs PCM 24/48 track requires 8.33 Gb
a 1.4 Mpbs Abr TrueHD track requires 1.69 Gb

So assuming the extras take up about the same space, if the blu-ray HP2 has a 16/48 PCM track, the size difference should be ~10.82 Gb, with a 24/48 PCM track ~13.6 Gb.

Doing the same thing with the 143 minute Blood Diamond shows that the difference should be ~ 3.43 Gb.

So if the size difference of Blood Diamond is actually ~ 7 Gb, then it would be likely that whatever these unaccounted Gbs are doing in Blood Diamond, accounts for the size difference in the HP disks.

It does seem odd though cos it is a hell of a lot of space unaccounted for.

Please remember to question the facts, not attempt to smear the poster.

I'm doing exactly that. I have one of the discs in question and I posted data I obtained firsthand that calls into question data you obtained in a less direct manner. This isn't blu-ray.com. You will have to tolerate questioning and disagreement here.

Judging by previous Warner releases, identical to the HD DVD.

I see.

How about we stick to posting facts about the actual discs instead of making assumptions based on completely unrelated material. If you don't KNOW what, exactly, is on the Blu-ray versions of these movies, then say you don't know or say nothing.

So, anyway, back to the real world...

If anyone has the Blu-ray version of any of the HP movies, please post the specifics of the content.

I've heard that the BR version has HD extras and uncompressed audio, whereas HD DVD has SD extras and TrueHD.

The only thing I can add (and I have no confirmation this is the case on THESE discs), a buddy of mine works for a DVD/BD/HD DVD testing place (For Quality COntrol stuff) and mentioned that one thing Warner was liking about BD50 is that they can do one release for all territories because of the extra space allowing them to put several different language tracks on one disc. I suppose it is possible that the US HD DVD versions only have English TrueHD and Spanish DD+ and French DD+, where as the BD versions have English Uncompressed PCM, English DD, Spanish DD, French DD, German DD, Italian DD. Look at "A Clockwork Orange" on BD and HD DVD for an example of warner doing this.

I wish and hope that they are using seperate encodes. Why not use the extra space that Blu Ray offers? Throw in the HD extras, throw in a couple of extra lossless tracks or push the bitrate meter up a little higher. Can it help, debatable, but we all know it won't hurt either....

Interesting question will be what happens when we discover that BD and HD DVD are using the same video encode? How do weaccount for difference in space. A few foreign language tracks? I am waiting for that analysis. What you get for an extra 15GB on BD!

Interesting question will be what happens when we discover that BD and HD DVD are using the same video encode? How do weaccount for difference in space. A few foreign language tracks? I am waiting for that analysis. What you get for an extra 15GB on BD!

While I wish Warner would use more video bandwidth on BD (up to 40Mbps for video), I doubt they will make 2 video encodes. It may be that the BD will get 24bit lossless audio. The difference between TrueHD 16bit and LPCM 24bit could be close to 15GB.

While I wish Warner would use more video bandwidth on BD (up to 40Mbps for video), I doubt they will make 2 video encodes. It may be that the BD will get 24bit lossless audio. The difference between TrueHD 16bit and LPCM 24bit could be close to 15GB.

the blu ray version has the extras in HD and more audio tracks so I would think it would be something other than 24 bit PCM.

the blu ray version has the extras in HD and more audio tracks so I would think it would be something other than 24 bit PCM.

I'm sure you are correct but it is such a wast that Warner puts 24bit on the European BD but won't port it over to the US version.

Are we sure that the BD version simply has HD version of extras which are in SD on the HD DVD version, or does the HD version have IME and other extras not available in the BD version. With PiP for instance, HD version is not possible on HD DVD.

HD pip is not possible on either format. Besides I would hate to hear all the bluray low bitrate screaming as HD pip would take away bandwidth from the main presentation.

Are we sure that the BD version simply has HD version of extras which are in SD on the HD DVD version, or does the HD version have IME and other extras not available in the BD version. With PiP for instance, HD version is not possible on HD DVD.Since the specific title we have direct comparisons for (Chamber of Secrets) has neither PiP nor HD extras on either format, this is irrelevant unless a apples-to-apples comparison is made with OOTP.

Short answer; no, Warner isn't doing specific encodes. Same old same old of porting the HD DVD encode.

Long answer will be given in more detail soon with direct file and size comparisons between the HD and BD version of Chamber of Secrets.

Hey,

just for fun I've just compared our German Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets releases:

Blu-Ray m2ts file size (only movie, without extras) = 34632 MB
HD DVD evo file size (only movie, without extras) = 21422 MB

Here's what the Blu-Ray m2ts file contains:

4 AC3 tracks with 448kbps each = 4 * 515 MB = 2060 MB
9 AC3 tracks with 640kbps each = 9 * 736 MB = 6624 MB
1 16-bit PCM track = 1 * 5304 MB = 5304 MB
1 VC-1 video track = 1 * 17731 MB = 17731 MB
summed up 31719 MB

Here's what the HD DVD evo files contain:

3 E-AC3 tracks with 448kbps each = 3 * 515 MB = 1545 MB
1 16-bit TrueHD track = 1 * 1704 MB = 1704 MB
1 VC-1 video track = 1 * 17731 MB = 17731 MB
summed up 20980 MB
As you can see, the only technical advantage the Blu-Ray has is that there are more dubbed tracks and some of them have a slightly higher bitrate than on the HD DVD (640kbps AC3 vs. 448kbps E-AC3). For people watching the English audio track the Blu-Ray disc has no advantage whatsoever.

The extras are all SD on both discs. And the lossless track is only 16-bit on both discs.

Yup, thanks for that madshi.

Since the specific title we have direct comparisons for (Chamber of Secrets) has neither PiP nor HD extras on either format, this is irrelevant unless a apples-to-apples comparison is made with OOTP.
So that clears the air then about different video encodes :)

I'm sure you are correct but it is such a wast that Warner puts 24bit on the European BD but won't port it over to the US version.
Is this a known fact or rumor?

Is this a known fact or rumor?
Looks like it is a rumor (since I only read it on a thread). Since Warner has traditionally been a weenie on audio it's probably wrong.

Excellent analysis, Madshi.Hey,

just for fun I've just compared our German Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets releases:

Blu-Ray m2ts file size (only movie, without extras) = 34632 MB
HD DVD evo file size (only movie, without extras) = 21422 MB

Here's what the Blu-Ray m2ts file contains:

4 AC3 tracks with 448kbps each = 4 * 515 MB = 2060 MB
9 AC3 tracks with 640kbps each = 9 * 736 MB = 6624 MB
1 16-bit PCM track = 1 * 5304 MB = 5304 MB
1 VC-1 video track = 1 * 17731 MB = 17731 MB
summed up 31719 MB

Here's what the HD DVD evo files contain:

3 E-AC3 tracks with 448kbps each = 3 * 515 MB = 1545 MB
1 16-bit TrueHD track = 1 * 1704 MB = 1704 MB
1 VC-1 video track = 1 * 17731 MB = 17731 MB
summed up 20980 MB
As you can see, the only technical advantage the Blu-Ray has is that there are more dubbed tracks and some of them have a slightly higher bitrate than on the HD DVD (640kbps AC3 vs. 448kbps E-AC3). For people watching the English audio track the Blu-Ray disc has no advantage whatsoever.

The extras are all SD on both discs. And the lossless track is only 16-bit on both discs.

>>...and some of them have a slightly higher bitrate than on the HD DVD (640kbps AC3 vs. 448kbps E-AC3)<<

Which, I'm sure for some it means that the 640k AC-3 track must sound MUCH better since it has a 'higher' bitrate, nevermind the fact that E-AC3 has better sound quality than AC-3 even at lower bitrates.

All of this video encoding stuff 'reminds' me of CED vs LD: While LD was clearly a higher quality format, CED often times had better picture quality on identical titles because RCA used negatives for their transfers as opposed to prints... example, the original (mono!) CED VideoDisc release of GREASE looked much better than the LaserDisc because RCA used a negative in excellent condition for the transfer while the LaserDisc was from a worn print transfered quickly by MCA DiscoVision for Paramount. It was announced for release on the DiscoVision label but Paramount started their own LD label and used the MCA transfer.

So, while the formats are clearly different, the same kind of nitpicking arguments for HD and BD remind me of CED and LD.