Since they will be releasing movies only on BR? I think most WB movies already had DD True HD soundtracks, and I don't think there are any BRs that look any better than some of the best looking HD-DVDs... so what will they do with the extra space?

They can increase the bitrate far past what HD DVD supports.

It's possible, but do they even max the bitrate for titles currently to what HD DVD is capable of (granted that HD DVD's limitations is the excuse for current quality)? If they weren't doing it before, why would they do it now? That's the way I see it.

If they weren't doing it before, why would they do it now? That's the way I see it.

Now they don't have to worry about catering to the lowest common denominator. Now with HD DVD out of the picture, they can make an encode and not worry about it staying withing the HD DVD specs.

Now they don't have to worry about catering to the lowest common denominator. Now with HD DVD out of the picture, they can make an encode and not worry about it staying withing the HD DVD specs.

Who is to say that they are 'catering to the lowest common denominator' and lowering the quality for HD DVD in the first place? Has Warner specifically stated this to be true? If not, I think it's hogwash. I hear this viewpoint constantly, and I see it as just 'HD DVD haters' speaking out of their you-know-what. Other companies (like Fox, Lionsgate, etc) that have never had to 'compensate' for HD DVD becuase they do not release on the format (!) still put out low bitrate releases. Look at that Predator import thread - it's MPEG2 at 25Mbps. Edward Scissorhands - MPEG2 18 MBps. Yes, BD is capable of more, but does anyone think the studios and people doing these discs really care about squeezing in as much as they possible can? Warner will probably continue doing what they are doing, and whenever Universal jumps ship, they'll probably still use old masters or whatever.

Who is to say that they are 'catering to the lowest common denominator' and lowering the quality for HD DVD in the first place?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12830564#post12830564

Paul,

Warner will continue to do VC-1 encodes, but they are upping the bitrate to the max for BD encodes and according to a very good source at GDMX, this will speed up the encoding process considerably because of not having to hand tweak hard to encode scenes as much. This is one of the benefits of Blu-ray with the higher peak bitrate and will allow cost savings on the encoding side.

David

Dave Vaughn is an insider.

Warner may continue to follow current bit rate trend and may try to squeeze in as many language tracks as possible geography wise. This will ensure that they do not create separate pressings country wise. They can use one big copy and use it to cater to a big region.

Who is to say that they are 'catering to the lowest common denominator' and lowering the quality for HD DVD in the first place? Has Warner specifically stated this to be true? If not, I think it's hogwash. I hear this viewpoint constantly, and I see it as just 'HD DVD haters' speaking out of their you-know-what. Other companies (like Fox, Lionsgate, etc) that have never had to 'compensate' for HD DVD becuase they do not release on the format (!) still put out low bitrate releases. Look at that Predator import thread - it's MPEG2 at 25Mbps. Edward Scissorhands - MPEG2 18 MBps. Yes, BD is capable of more, but does anyone think the studios and people doing these discs really care about squeezing in as much as they possible can? Warner will probably continue doing what they are doing, and whenever Universal jumps ship, they'll probably still use old masters or whatever.

New Line (which is a part of Warner) has done it so far with Shoot 'Em Up. Making a Blu-ray specific encode that has bitrate exceeding the HD DVD spec.

Besides, it has always been known that Warner just dumps over the HD DVD encode onto Blu-ray. Rather then re-encoding another version. If anything, now they have the option to make a Blu-ray specific encode.

Oh and btw, I support both formats.

I don't expect much from a studio that drops a 640kbps track then runs off, or drops audio levels by -12dB just for kicks.

I don't expect much from a studio that drops a 640kbps track then runs off, or drops audio levels by -12dB just for kicks.

These sour gapes are yum yum yum. :p

I can't wait :)

I will hope for the best but expect the worst.

That way I have a higher probability of being pleasantly surprised.:)


I do have huge expectations for The Dark Knight though.

Yes I cant wait.

Well, I'm assuming the OP was referring to PQ, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're QA will improve after (or before) May. No more of those mixups, okay???

Brandon

Dave Vaughn is a BD insider.You may want to reference some of the rest of the Insider thread, too. For example:

Dave Vaughn, based on whippersnapper's "excitement" about higher bitrates from Warner... which I doubt is because they will be saving money on the authoring job... :) Do your GDMX contacts have an opinion on if the additional BD bandwidth available for video will add noticeable quality to their compression work using current revision tools, or merely make it easier for them?

Ben, I guess I can ask you the same. :)

Dave's reply:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12839707&postcount=4379

It will make things easier for them. Whether most viewers will be able to see the difference, we will see. GDMX is very proud of a lot of their encodes that they have done.

For the record, they don't do EVERY Warner encode, but one of their managers/leads that I speak with is very much against DNR. I feel that a lot of what we think is DNR is inherent in the masters and there is nothing that can be done about it.

BTW, this particular contact was not happy about Pans Labrynth either...so that says something.

and from a codec insider:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12840076&postcount=4383

Sure. No, it won't make a difference. The quality issues people complain about in discs are almost always in the master.

Thanks for the correction, and in my previous post - if it came off as standoff-ish, I apologize in advance! I guess I am a pessimist when it comes to things like this. Well, the only thing I guess we can say is to wait and see what actually happens. I will say that I highly doubt Warner would revisit and re-encode what they've already released. Maybe the more high profile titles some years down the road, but I don't see them completely redoing a smaller title like "The Christmas Story" or any of their recent ones like the Kubrick's over again right after they've done them. These are all pretty much anniversary/special editions in themselves.

I do have huge expectations for The Dark Knight though.

I am a huge Batman fan. But my most wanted BD release is definently Speed Racer. That's what deep color was made for. It's what HD was made for. Crazy 'pop' and knowing the Wachowskis, completely encompassing surround.

They need to start using all of that 50gigs and start doing 2 disc releases.

Damn it. Deep color isnt speced for anything. Then what the hell is it for?
Either way the colors that HD media hit are going to be maxed when Speed Racer hits.

I am a huge Batman fan. But my most wanted BD release is definently Speed Racer. That's what deep color was made for. It's what HD was made for. Crazy 'pop' and knowing the Wachowskis, completely encompassing surround.

They need to start using all of that 50gigs and start doing 2 disc releases.

I don't Deep Color is in the "Spec" for BD (or HD DVD, for that matter).

It stands to reason that, with extra bandwidth and capacity to work with, in time we will see the benefits. Things always work this way.

If one of the benefits is making the encoding process easier, that is good as well. There are a lot of catalog titles out there that will not sell well enough to pay for a very expensive process.

I am a huge Batman fan. But my most wanted BD release is definently Speed Racer. That's what deep color was made for. It's what HD was made for. Crazy 'pop' and knowing the Wachowskis, completely encompassing surround.

They need to start using all of that 50gigs and start doing 2 disc releases.

Damn it. Deep color isnt speced for anything. Then what the hell is it for?
Either way the colors that HD media hit are going to be maxed when Speed Racer hits.

Video games and PCs? That's my guess.

You may want to reference some of the rest of the Insider thread, too. For example:



Dave's reply:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12839707&postcount=4379



and from a codec insider:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12840076&postcount=4383

I never said it would make a difference, just that the bitrate is confirmed to be going up on warner titles. That said, ben is paid to say blu ray is inferior (and he's good at what he's paid to do.)

I hope they improve the quality, because there is macroblocking in HP5 and the Matrix Trilogy which is at times very noticeable. And Batman Begins is almost as soft as the SD DVD.

I hope they improve the quality, because there is macroblocking in HP5 and the Matrix Trilogy which is at times very noticeable. And Batman Begins is almost as soft as the SD DVD.

Are you sure you're not buying DVDs by accident!?!?

I hope they improve the quality, because there is macroblocking in HP5 and the Matrix Trilogy which is at times very noticeable. And Batman Begins is almost as soft as the SD DVD.

I had zero macroblocking in those movies. They look amazing.

HP5 is among the best films I've seen in HD, and the Matrix Trilogy is certainly up there.

I never said it would make a difference, just that the bitrate is confirmed to be going up on warner titles.Well, target bitrates are going up at least for GDMX. We can assume the other Warner compression groups will follow.

That said, ben is paid to say blu ray is inferior (and he's good at what he's paid to do.)He didn't say anything stating Blu-Ray is inferior in that reply; stop the spin. He's a compression expert (even before Microsoft), and obviously understands VC-1 encoding technology, because... well, it's his job.

Faceless Rebel, an insider (Dave?) confirmed with someone that worked on the compression for Batman Begins: the movie master looks like that. So, it's never going to look like Crank or a video game. :)

Dave Vaughn is a BD insider.

DV is NOT an insider. He's a reviewer. Let's not overdo it please!

DV is NOT an insider. He's a reviewer. Let's not overdo it please!

His sources have been verified. That's inside enough for me. Back to the topic at hand. Warner is upping the bitrate on future BD only releases. Whether a Microsoft employee thinks it'll make a difference is irrelevent.

I hope they improve the quality, because there is macroblocking in HP5 and the Matrix Trilogy which is at times very noticeable. And Batman Begins is almost as soft as the SD DVD.

Sspears, who seems to have some insider info on VC-1, indicated in the Shoot 'Em Up thread that these flagship titles had encodes that were painstakingly hand-tweaked. So I would not expect WB's marquis titles to look markedly different. As DV says, upping the bit rate is all about saving time and $$.

I hope they improve the quality, because there is macroblocking in HP5 and the Matrix Trilogy which is at times very noticeable. And Batman Begins is almost as soft as the SD DVD.

Wrong,wrong,and........wrong.

I will say that I highly doubt Warner would revisit and re-encode what they've already released. Maybe the more high profile titles some years down the road, but I don't see them completely redoing a smaller title like "The Christmas Story" or any of their recent ones like the Kubrick's over again right after they've done them. These are all pretty much anniversary/special editions in themselves.

i think we can be sure some of the higher profile titles will see a re-encode because now that BD is 1.1, they can implement IME features and use that as an excuse to double dip the customers. Titles like 300 comes to mind, if it gets a new encode w/ or w/o IME i will prob buy another copy. here's to hoping Batman Begins gets a new encode as well.

i do wish they'd use avc tho. isn't it well known that past a certain bitrate vc-1 yields no quality difference?

i do wish they'd use avc tho. isn't it well known that past a certain bitrate vc-1 yields no quality difference?Uh, that's true for both advanced codecs. The thing is... You don't just keep throwing bitrate at it, and the picture improves magically as it gets higher and higher without stopping. :) In other words, you can't make something that is basically "visually transparent to the source" any better at a certain point. Encodes are variable bitrate for a reason.

From a BD insider:

I wouldn't say either is preferable at any given bitrate; as Amir has said, they can look "different", but "better" is highly subjective.

I take it some here have never viewed an HD-DVD. I have both and simply cannot see the difference in quality. I choose the format based on extras, price and availability as they both look identical.

In other words, you can't make something that is basically "visually transparent to the source" any better at a certain point.

From a BD insider:

It's a big leap to just assume things are "visually transparent to the source." And when that's what the entire premise hinges on, I take it with a grain of salt. So should you.

Brandon

It's a big leap to just assume things are "visually transparent to the source." And when that's what the entire premise hinges on, I take it with a grain of salt. So should you.

Brandon

Totally agree. It is not hard to accept that there is some point beyond which more bits don't make a difference, but the question is where that point is. Based on my viewing experience, it is definitely not in the mid twenties, but somewhere notably higher than that.

Has Warner added main menus to their blu rays yet? Not having a main menu for 300 and TMNT was really annoying.

bplewis24, there is no "leap of faith." That's the whole job of the compressionist. My point was only that at some point (and the point varies depending on the content, patrick99)... it really makes no difference.

And, as time goes on, the tools for both VC-1 and AVC will improve even more... making compression even more efficient and intelligent.

Uh, that's true for both advanced codecs. The thing is... You don't just keep throwing bitrate at it, and the picture improves magically as it gets higher and higher without stopping. :) In other words, you can't make something that is basically "visually transparent to the source" any better at a certain point. Encodes are variable bitrate for a reason.

From a BD insider:

i know it goes for both codecs, had just heard that the theoretical cap for avc was higher.

I take it some here have never viewed an HD-DVD. I have both and simply cannot see the difference in quality. I choose the format based on extras, price and availability as they both look identical.

everyone knows this, but the primary reason is there has not been a single title long enough and encoded separately to the maximum specs of each format to show any visual difference. while we may not see improvement in visual quality after May, it is likely we'll see more discs with lossless audio tacked on them over the dreaded 640kbps tracks.

Has Warner added main menus to their blu rays yet? Not having a main menu for 300 and TMNT was really annoying.

i prefer having menus myself also, but quite a few ppl here have applauded Warner for not including a main menu.

i prefer having menus myself also, but quite a few ppl here have applauded Warner for not including a main menu.

I believe Paidgeek did a poll where the overwhelming preference was for an initial menu.

Warner is upping the bitrate on future BD only releases. Whether a Microsoft employee thinks it'll make a difference is irrelevent.

Exactly!


Totally agree. It is not hard to accept that there is some point beyond which more bits don't make a difference, but the question is where that point is. Based on my viewing experience, it is definitely not in the mid twenties, but somewhere notably higher than that.

I couldn't agree more Patrick.

I couldn't agree more Patrick.

And yet we've been assured by "experts" and "insiders" that the the mid-twenties are the "sweet spot." Strange, isn't it? ;)

And yet we've been assured by "experts" and "insiders" that the the mid-twenties are the "sweet spot." Strange, isn't it? ;)

:D

I'd like a main menu but not have it pop up automatically. On insert, start playing movie, but give the option to goto main menu.

And yet we've been assured by "experts" and "insiders" that the the mid-twenties are the "sweet spot." Strange, isn't it? ;)

What's so strange about paid employees of HD DVD forum members saying that blu ray specs offer no advantage?

Everyone wants the max bit-rate they can get, no matter if it shows an improvement or not.

I've gone on and on about Lost and how great the PQ is. While it has its moments of not-so-great (the few noisy dark scenes), 90 percent of the time it's the sharpest looking PQ out there. I played with the good ol' PS3 bit-rate meter and I found that on average, it ranges from high teens to mid 20's, and rarely goes over 30. In some of the sharpest looking scenes, i've seen the bit-rate in the high teens man times, so it should be safe to assume that bit-rate isnt the only factor.

With that said, I'd still like Warner to use up most of that 50 GB. I just hope that the special attention that supposedly was needed because of HD DVD's limited bandwidth doesn't cause them to run the encoder on autio-pilot while the compressionist takes a nap.

Troy D.C, HP-OOTP VC-1 12~14 Mbps AVG Bit Rate. Currently placed in Tier-1. So what does this imply ?

It implies the Tier thread sucks. There is visible macroblocking in some places in HP5 and the image is soft.

Has Warner added main menus to their blu rays yet? Not having a main menu for 300 and TMNT was really annoying.

Umm, the Warner MO in all of their HD releases is to have no main menu, the movie just starts. This only annoys me when the movie has an LPCM or TrueHD soundtrack, because I have to wait until the movie starts, open up the menu to choose the soundtrack, and then restart the movie. I wish Warner would at least pop up a quick "choose your soundtrack" screen before the movie starts.

Other than that, I like Warner's straight-to-the-movie approach. Unlike, for example, Disney who puts 6 previews, 4 logo screens, the FBI warning, and the "OMG commentaries do not speak for us" screen before they let you watch the movie. :mad:

And for those of you who doubt me when I say there is macroblocking in HP5:

http://students.washington.edu/lzone/hp_ootp.jpg

The timecode is 00:01:01 if you want to go look for yourself.

I just wonder if anyone has thought about who is going to press all these titles? There are lots of production lines that can press HD DVD today, but a limited number that can press BD.

Anyone want to bet that the number of releases and/or copies available are going to decrease dramatically (for all studios except Sony) for a period of time till more BD priduction lines become available?

Vern (purple)

Troy D.C, HP-OOTP VC-1 12~14 Mbps AVG Bit Rate. Currently placed in Tier-1. So what does this imply ?

It implies that Troy DC is incorrectly placed.

It implies the Tier thread sucks. There is visible macroblocking in some places in HP5 and the image is soft.



Umm, the Warner MO in all of their HD releases is to have no main menu, the movie just starts. This only annoys me when the movie has an LPCM or TrueHD soundtrack, because I have to wait until the movie starts, open up the menu to choose the soundtrack, and then restart the movie. I wish Warner would at least pop up a quick "choose your soundtrack" screen before the movie starts.

Other than that, I like Warner's straight-to-the-movie approach. Unlike, for example, Disney who puts 6 previews, 4 logo screens, the FBI warning, and the "OMG commentaries do not speak for us" screen before they let you watch the movie. :mad:

Although HP5 definitely looks better than the other four, I agree that it looks slightly soft and definitely not as good as the best titles.

I think it is a little unfair to contrast the Warner straight to the movie approach with the Disney practice. There are certainly titles from studios other than Disney that go straight to the menu after the FBI warning and commentary disclaimer. And at least on some Disney titles it is possible to skip to the menu, in contrast to 3:10 to Yuma, say, where you have to skip every single preview separately.

This is a very tricky screenshot. Very slight macroblocking is there but I doubt the encode. May be with the master itself coz HP-5 is overall an excellent transfer.

You're joking, right? You're going to try and pin the visible blocking on the lossless master, as opposed to the lossy encode? You must really think we are all dumb as rocks to buy that theory. If the digital master is lossless, there cannot be any blocking because blocking is a compression artifact! It occurs when the lossless master is encoded into the lossy video that is pressed on the disc!

They can increase the bitrate far past what HD DVD supports.


i seriously dont think this will make a huge difference. From watching Movies on PS3 and seeing the bit rate go way down and way up, you dont notice that watching the movie. Watching Rattatotie The Bitrate I noticed stayed in the low 20s and the picture was amazing. So I doubt a higher bitrate will make a difference to anyone other then marketing. I dont think WB blurays will improve till the format is a finished format. On HD-DVD WB has been fantastic with there in movie experience bonus features.

I hope they improve the quality, because there is macroblocking in HP5 and the Matrix Trilogy which is at times very noticeable. And Batman Begins is almost as soft as the SD DVD.

on my 92" Batman Begins looks great on my system. I never noticed any MarcoBlocking either.

You are wrong buddy. Many insiders here have reported about compression problems in the master itself. Eg, Happy Feet (Master with inherent banding), Starship Troopers (Extremely grainy master), Oceans 13 (How it got transferred to HDM) etc.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. The master is supposed to be lossless, i.e. not compressed. So I don't understand how these insiders can claim the masters themselves have compression problems, when masters are not supposed to be compressed. Unless I am mistaken and they apply compression to the masters.

Yes.

Call me crazy, but I watch movies. I don't stare at every frame just looking for slight imperfections. I thought HP5 looked incredible. But then again, I was actually watching the movie, and enjoying it. :)

I believe Paidgeek did a poll where the overwhelming preference was for an initial menu.

I agree, I would be nice for the movie to just start, but only if it will choose the highest quality I can play first.

This is a very tricky screenshot. Very slight macroblocking is there but I doubt the encode. May be with the master itself coz HP-5 is overall an excellent transfer.

Overall, yes, it's a decent transfer, but "slight" macroblocking? :eek: And since when are macroblocks in a studio master...?

Here, let me help you.

http://img28.picoodle.com/img/img28/4/1/21/f_hpootpmacrom_1fe7bbe.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/1/21/f_hpootpmacrom_1fe7bbe.jpg&srv=img28)

Overall, yes, it's a decent transfer, but "slight" macroblocking? :eek: And since when are macroblocks in a studio master...?

Here, let me help you.

http://img28.picoodle.com/img/img28/4/1/21/f_hpootpmacrom_1fe7bbe.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/1/21/f_hpootpmacrom_1fe7bbe.jpg&srv=img28)

Maybe I am blind or uninformed, but what exactly am I looking for in the highlighted sections? :confused:

Maybe I am blind or uninformed, but what exactly am I looking for in the highlighted sections? :confused:

It's called macroblocking, and it usually happens when not enough bitrate is supplied in the video encoding process.

Macroblocking appears as distinct "square" patterns that don't match what the actual image "should" look like. You can identify them because the borders of the "squares" don't match the borders of neighboring squares - hence the name.

Here's a 2x blowup of one section from the above image. Do you see the square patterns I outlined? It should look like there's a faint checkerboard pattern all through the areas outlined in red.

That's what macroblocking is. In fact, if you look carefully, almost the entire image is full of macroblocks - some of them are just more subtle than others.

http://img26.picoodle.com/img/img26/4/1/21/f_hpootpmacrom_bfa50a9.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/1/21/f_hpootpmacrom_bfa50a9.jpg&srv=img26)

http://img26.picoodle.com/img/img26/4/1/21/f_hpootpmacrom_f211ad5.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/1/21/f_hpootpmacrom_f211ad5.jpg&srv=img26)

If you look carefully you will see faint squares in there. That is where there isn't enough information coming in to render all of the details. Instead of individual pixels being drawn a section is declared this color instead. With that busy of a picture it isn't really a surprise. If the wind is blowing look out.

I envy people who can't see macroblocking. I'm dead serious and am not being sarcastic at all.

I envy people who can't see macroblocking. I'm dead serious and am not being sarcastic at all.

same here, it is running rampant and bothering the hell out of me on hd broadcasts via cable. i know others in the family dont notice it but it bugs me, and until we get some fiber optics tv in the neighborhood there really arent any other options but to put up with it.

If there are compression artifacts (like blocking) obviously visible while the video is in motion, the compressionist didn't do their job. No compressed movie is perfect, but they can get very, very close. Thankfully, the newer tools available make their job significantly easier than the early days.

Anyway, even a half-baked compression job for high-def media has far less artifacts than a live-encoded broadcast MPEG-2 stream.

You are wrong buddy. Many insiders here have reported about compression problems in the master itself. Eg, Happy Feet (Master with inherent banding), Starship Troopers (Extremely grainy master), Oceans 13 (How it got transferred to HDM) etc.I think you are confusing compression problems (artifacts) and so-called "flaws" in the original source master. They are two different things. By the way, Ocean's 13 looks like it did in the theater and there is no problem with 'how it got transferred to HDM.' If you hate it, blame the director. :)

Do You THink WB Releases Will Improve In Quality After May?

Not sure but that wont stop fanboys from saying they see an improvement.

You are wrong buddy. Many insiders here have reported about compression problems in the master itself. Eg, Happy Feet (Master with inherent banding), Starship Troopers (Extremely grainy master), Oceans 13 (How it got transferred to HDM) etc.

Banding is one thing but macro blocking is an entirely different matter. Grainy? If it was there on the film, I want it on the Blu-ray. There is no excuse for macro blocking at the bitrates on high def optical. Kill off the extras, minimize the languages, cut the bit depth and/or bitrate of the audio, if necessary...

Obviously Blu-ray has much more overhead to avoid the issue.

I envy people who can't see macroblocking. I'm dead serious and am not being sarcastic at all.

++++++++++++ plusity ++

Seriously, I have posted this screencap to other forums now and most of the time the responses I get range from sheer denial that there is anything wrong with the screencap to actual verbal attacks for being able to see things they can't.

Of course the classic HD DVD FUD Point is to talk about how "real" movie lovers watch the movie instead of looking for flaws. As if I have a choice, I didn't purposely go through the movie frame-by-frame to look for macroblocking, I could easily see it the very first time I watched the film at normal speed!

So the 16x16 block is not completed filled because of the starved bit rate not feeding enough information to that particular block causing distortion / pixelation ? Is my understanding correct ?

I understand the frustrations of some of the SNAKE EYED people here. Only Warner has been starving the bit rates so it's better to put forth this to some WB insider or the human encoders. I was able to spot Macroblocking in Matrix Revolutions but not on HP-5. May be I need to wear my glasses while watching movies.

Let's keep the format jabs out of the thread. Do note some display environments won't make flaws as obvious. Some people notice more than others. Heck, I can't even convince some people with high-end displays that The Simpsons has subtle ringing (not due to compression) through the whole film and it should not be "Tier 0." :)

Visible artifacts in a scene have virtually nothing to do with format, and more about the folks doing the compression work. It should only get better with time; less 'mistakes' will pass.

Let's keep the format jabs out of the thread. Do note some display environments won't make flaws as obvious. Obviously, some people notice more than others. Heck, I can't even convince some people with high-end displays that The Simpsons has subtle ringing (not due to compression) through the whole film and it's "Tier 0." :)

I could see the ringing. It was a clear example of visible edge enhancement. However overall the image was absolutely superb and I had no complaints about it overall, the Simpsons Movie looked fantastic. I don't really know why Fox felt the need to add edge enhancement to a film which already is AVC with average bitrate of 36mbps, but if I were in charge of studio mastering things would be different, oh yes. ;)

Several Japanese releases of anime on Blu-ray really show how good traditional-style cel (and cel-shaded) animation can look without the need for edge enhancement. You should check out the Japanese versions of Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence on BD if you are interested, they look absolutely superb, especially GitS1 which was actually a low-budget film (surprising considering the franchise which has since grown out of it) and which is now very old.

It's called macroblocking, and it usually happens when not enough bitrate is supplied in the video encoding process.

Macroblocking appears as distinct "square" patterns that don't match what the actual image "should" look like. You can identify them because the borders of the "squares" don't match the borders of neighboring squares - hence the name.

Here's a 2x blowup of one section from the above image. Do you see the square patterns I outlined? It should look like there's a faint checkerboard pattern all through the areas outlined in red.

That's what macroblocking is. In fact, if you look carefully, almost the entire image is full of macroblocks - some of them are just more subtle than others.

http://img26.picoodle.com/img/img26/4/1/21/f_hpootpmacrom_bfa50a9.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/1/21/f_hpootpmacrom_bfa50a9.jpg&srv=img26)

http://img26.picoodle.com/img/img26/4/1/21/f_hpootpmacrom_f211ad5.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/1/21/f_hpootpmacrom_f211ad5.jpg&srv=img26)

Thanks for pointing that out to me, I never noticed it, even after looking at the above pictures. After the second picture, I looked back at the first one and saw the sqaures.

Thankfully, I don't notice macroblocking in movies, ignorance in this case is bliss :D

Thanks for pointing that out to me, I never noticed it, even after looking at the above pictures. After the second picture, I looked back at the first one and saw the sqaures.

Thankfully, I don't notice macroblocking in movies, ignorance in this case is bliss :D
Indeed, ignorance IS bliss when it comes to artifacting (not just macroblocking, but things like edge enhancement, black crush, vertical/horizontal filtering, and digital noise reduction).

If you don't know what any of those things are, be glad. :)

For what it's worth, if you're curious what macroblocking looks like to those of us who can see it, highlight the text I've hidden between the dashes below.

WARNING: Highlight the below text at your own risk, as finding out how to identify macroblocking - as well as other artifacts - will heighten your sensitivity to it and make watching many sources less satisfying.

---
Macroblocking, to those that are sensitive to it, looks like shimmering squares of light across a picture, as the eye notices the not-quite-correct borders in each frame, or sometimes just a messy blur of snowy noise across what ought to be a complex pattern like fur or grass, as in the above case.
---

EDIT: Fixed to be hidden in default view

icemage - that isn't hidden for the default (light) avs view.

I never said it would make a difference, just that the bitrate is confirmed to be going up on warner titles. That said, ben is paid to say blu ray is inferior (and he's good at what he's paid to do.)


Yes you did, see post #6, nice backpeddle.

Then you throw the strawman out "Oh he's biased he's a shill"

Please stop with this silly agenda to slam a format.

Point is, it's really going to be about the master, and the care WB takes with the BD. Warner can be hit and miss, it depends, so who knows what we will get. Higher bit rate is no sure bet.

Yes you did, see post #6, nice backpeddle.

Then you throw the strawman out "Oh he's biased he's a shill"

Please stop with this silly agenda to slam a format.

Point is, it's really going to be about the master, and the care WB takes with the BD. Warner can be hit and miss, it depends, so who knows what we will get. Higher bit rate is no sure bet.


Does anyone here want to say that raising the bitrate on their releases will make the movies look worse?

Does anyone disagree that raising the bitrate may make the movie look better?

I prefer the movies to come with PCM tracks and without wasted space, hopefully Warner will start to release all of their movies that way when they stop supporting HD DVD. Does anyone not want this to happen?

icemage - that isn't hidden for the default (light) avs view.
Woops! I'm so used to using the Dark view that I didn't even think about it. Fixed the coloration to adhere to the default view.

I wish this forum had working [spoiler] tags. :(

Thanks for the heads up.

Yes you did, see post #6, nice backpeddle.

Then you throw the strawman out "Oh he's biased he's a shill"

Please stop with this silly agenda to slam a format.

Point is, it's really going to be about the master, and the care WB takes with the BD. Warner can be hit and miss, it depends, so who knows what we will get. Higher bit rate is no sure bet.

Where in post #6 did I say that upping the bitrate would make a difference?

Where in post #6 did I say that upping the bitrate would make a difference?


You respond to someone about him asking about the lowest common denominator. You then link to DV.

Funny thing is you say Dave is a BD insider. This is incorrect sir.

Does anyone here want to say that raising the bitrate on their releases will make the movies look worse?

Does anyone disagree that raising the bitrate may make the movie look better?

I prefer the movies to come with PCM tracks and without wasted space, hopefully Warner will start to release all of their movies that way when they stop supporting HD DVD. Does anyone not want this to happen?

I dont disagree bit rate is a factor, but you missed my point. A crappy master cannot be fixed by any amount of bit rate. It is a factor, not the ONLY factor.

You respond to someone about him asking about the lowest common denominator. You then link to DV.

Funny thing is you say Dave is a BD insider. This is incorrect sir.

dave is an industry insider (which was already discussed later on in the first page I think.) Oh, and that M$ shill confirmed that Warner bit rates would be going up in the insiders thread as well.

I dont disagree bit rate is a factor, but you missed my point. A crappy master cannot be fixed by any amount of bit rate. It is a factor, not the ONLY factor.

I wasn't really trying to single you out (not clear since I quoted you).

The point I was trying to make is that a higher bitrate isn't bad, and if we can get lossless and the highest bitrate for PQ then why wouldn't we?

So I am not sure that I will be able to tell a difference in the quality of the post HD DVD releases, but I do want them to maximize the releases for Blu-ray, even if I can't see the difference. (maybe on a future display/player I will be able to tell the difference?)

does anyone know why early Warner releases were so quiet?