or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Mummy comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Mummy comparison *PIX* - Page 6

post #151 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Murrell View Post

the direct screenshots show it pretty well, and I agree with them based on what I see in my HT

-Gary

So you're saying that the BD has less detail? I do not agree. So we will have to agree to disagree on this Gary.
post #152 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroenen View Post

Less detail? More smearing on the BD?

It's obvious that you haven't seen the BD version nor have you done A/B comparisons in person. You're basing your less detail and more smearing opinion on a 500x500 PNG and what you think you are, or are not seeing, in a couple of direct screen grabs.

I have the HD DVD versions. The Mummy, The Mummy Returns, and The Scorpion King BD's arrived yesterday from Netflix. I'm looking at these on a 119" screen at a seating distance of 1.1 screen widths via an RS1.

It's not a night and day difference between the two versions in terms of resolvable detail IMO. As far as the BD having less detail - absolutely not.

No offense, but this is about as proper of an A/B comparison as you can get with video content. These are direct screen captures from the frame buffer, straight from the digital source with both versions.

If you look for it, you can spot the DNR in every shot posted so far.
post #153 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean_O View Post

No offense, but this is about as proper of an A/B comparison as you can get with video content. These are direct screen captures from the frame buffer, straight from the digital source with both versions.

If you look for it, you can spot the DNR in every shot posted so far.

No offense taken Sean.

Those are grabs of certain scenes. I am referring to the entire film. Yes the DNR and EE are very noticeable (and distracting IMO), but the HD DVD version does not have more detail (i.e. it is not a better looking encode IMO).
post #154 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

My iPhone camera does not cut it

So I use digital grabs direct from the movie file


Sorry I am not familiar with your set up. So many other posters keep referring to screen shots, screen grabs, screen captures, etc. I took that literally.

So I am assuming then you are going direct to the data file from the disc and exporting frames.

Thank you for the clarification.

And while I am here let me say that regardless of BLU or HD-DVD or whatever the source may be, none of them are acceptable for HiDef consumption
post #155 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahummer View Post


And while I am here let me say that regardless of BLU or HD-DVD or whatever the source may be, none of them are acceptable for HiDef consumption

Amen brother!
post #156 of 231
Thread Starter 
You add up all the plus and minuses the PQ are pretty much equal. If you already have the HD DVD there is no immediate need to repurchase it again until the next remastering.
post #157 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Moritz View Post

IMHO I still prefer lossy DTS over DD+ and the only way to get really good sound via Dolby is Dolby True HD. They say DD+ is supposed to be equal to DTS-HD HR but I do not even think it sounds better than standard DTS.


So good to know i'm not alone on this!!

I have U-571 and FACE/OFF on HD DVD and both have a choice of DD+ and DTS and for me the DTS clearly outshines the DD+ tracks.
post #158 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by davcole View Post

So good to know i'm not alone on this!!

I have U-571 and FACE/OFF on HD DVD and both have a choice of DD+ and DTS and for me the DTS clearly outshines the DD+ tracks.

I agree 100%

-Gary
post #159 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Murrell View Post

I agree 100%

-Gary

Well, shows what a placebo of 3 letters does to people (even with identical bitrate and a more efficient codec)
post #160 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

Well, shows what a placebo of 3 letters does to people (even with identical bitrate and a more efficient codec)

those three letters mean nothing to me, if you will do a search on me you will see that I always preferred DD to DTS, I only changed my opinion when these 2 formats hit,, DD+ just never did it for me, sounds identical to full bitrate DD on BD releases

it's not always the codec, the mixes matter as well

-Gary
post #161 of 231
I agree, it's a wash. The biggest letdown for me was getting this on HD DVD a while back and seeing the same scratches and specks that were on my old DTS DVD.

Universal needs to clean this one up and mint a new master.
post #162 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Moritz View Post

While DD+ is not DD exactly, it sound basically the same and no better. I realize that DD+ has a higher bit rate but that in itself in my book does not mean anything. IMHO I still prefer lossy DTS over DD+ and the only way to get really good sound via Dolby is Dolby True HD. They say DD+ is supposed to be equal to DTS-HD HR but I do not even think it sounds better than standard DTS. Personally there are many HD discs that have DD+ that I really want to get rid of and I hope I do not have to wait to long to do that. I have spent many hours listening to DD+ tracks and I am just not impressed.

I still plan to buy:
The Mummy
The Mummy Returns
Scorpion King

This may have something to do with your preference.

For a quick glance, here is a comparison of the LFE channel of TrueHD, DD+ and DTS-ES on Top Gun HD DVD


and the close ups
1

2

3


As you can see the TrueHD and DD+ tracks are almost identical in waveform.
The DTS-ES track on the other hand has major differences, not only in amplitude(up to 10.2db higher) but also in phase timing, so either they used a different master or they have severely modified it.

cheers
post #163 of 231
I think you need to apply 4db to the DD and THD tracks because of dialnorm.
post #164 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

I think you need to apply 4db to the DD and THD tracks because of dialnorm.

If you read the link provided I mentioned that in the tests.........even with that taken into account there is still over 6db increase in the LFE of the DTS-ES track, not to mention the vast difference in waveform.

cheers
post #165 of 231
I was wondering why no one ever used waveforms to see what the difference really is between the audio formats. Though I figured it would be with direct PC decoding.
post #166 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

I was wondering why no one ever used waveforms to see what the difference really is between the audio formats. Though I figured it would be with direct PC decoding.

That is how I would perform a comparison of the encodes themselves(that's how I did the DVE and AVIA tests as that was the intention)

This testings was not particularly for that kind of a comparison, it was originally to find out why there are audible differences between lossless tracks when played through connected equipment. In other words, is it Dialog norm offsets, mastering levels, different masters, modifications, etc. Some of this can be tested straight from the disc, but I am looking at the end result.

I am yet to use a disc that contains both TrueHD and DTS-HDMA for this comparison........Top Gun BD is on the list to test though.

cheers
post #167 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by MACCA350 View Post


I am yet to use a disc that contains both TrueHD and DTS-HDMA for this comparison........Top Gun BD is on the list to test though.

cheers

Close Encounters has both as well

-Gary
post #168 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Murrell View Post

Close Encounters has both as well

-Gary

That is also on the list

Are there any others that people have heard a difference between lossless tracks

cheers
post #169 of 231
Hah! I knew I wasn't going nuts when I could push the HD DVD's TrueHD track a full 10db louder than the (lossy) DTS and it still didn't pack as much of a wallop.

It might be overcooked like a sonofabitch but the DTS suits the movie perfectly.

I'm talking 'bout Top Gun by the way.
post #170 of 231
Hmm the contrast/color looks wrong on the Blu-ray. Oh well
post #171 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by MACCA350 View Post

That is how I would perform a comparison of the encodes themselves(that's how I did the DVE and AVIA tests as that was the intention)

This testings was not particularly for that kind of a comparison, it was originally to find out why there are audible differences between lossless tracks when played through connected equipment. In other words, is it Dialog norm offsets, mastering levels, different masters, modifications, etc. Some of this can be tested straight from the disc, but I am looking at the end result.

I am yet to use a disc that contains both TrueHD and DTS-HDMA for this comparison........Top Gun BD is on the list to test though.

cheers

LFE has always been handled differently between DTS and Dolby... it is why you usually have seperate gain settings for each format on most processors/receivers... granted it's usually -10db for DTS Music sources, but I don't honestly know how they are dealing with gain on DTS-HD decoders.

Also, and I need to confirm this from a conversation that I had with about lossless encoding on both formats, but Dolby filters the LFE while DTS doesn't, hence the different looking waveforms.... and the proper way to do it is to filter the LFE.

The DTS waveform seems to support this, as it looks like it contains frequencies twice that of the Dolby encode... it's almost impossible to tell with a certainty with the Cubase waveform display, but it's easy to hear if you play the LFE through a main channel without crossover or rolloff.

As a side note, this is one of the main differnces in the theatrical presentations of Dolby and DTS (Dolby filters at 120; DTS filters the LFE at 80, and anything in the surrounds below 80 goes to the sub (DTS theatrical is actually 5.0, with the sub matrixed in with the surrounds on the encode.))

I will be doing the same thing as you in a couple of weeks.. except I will have the original masters and the ability to level match using meters designed for the task.
post #172 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Hah! I knew I wasn't going nuts when I could push the HD DVD's TrueHD track a full 10db louder than the (lossy) DTS and it still didn't pack as much of a wallop.

It might be overcooked like a sonofabitch but the DTS suits the movie perfectly.

I'm talking 'bout Top Gun by the way.

That brings up a good point, the DTS version may actually provide a more pleasing soundtrack, it is becoming obvious that this is not due to the encoding format itself but to modifications either during encoding(as part of the processing) or pre-encoding.
But which version is the best representation to the original? One would assume it would be the Lossless version, so did they use a different master for the DTS version or was it modified by user input on purpose or by the DTS encoder without the knowledge of the user?


The question is are the producers aware their original soundtrack is being modified in this way, if infact they did use the same master.

People just need to realise, as many have said before, major differences in sound is more attributed to the mixing stage and less to the encoder, since the ultimate goal of an encoding format is to reproduce the original identically(although it would seem this is not the goal of DTS which seem to want to provide a 'better' or 'suped up' version...........if this modification is being done at the encoder stage, otherwise they simply use a different version to begin with.

Might run some other tracks and see this is the norm or not.

cheers
post #173 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

LFE has always been handled differently between DTS and Dolby... it is why you usually have seperate gain settings for each format on most processors/receivers... granted it's usually -10db for DTS Music sources, but I don't honestly know how they are dealing with gain on DTS-HD decoders.

That is why I tested post AVR processing.

Quote:


Also, and I need to confirm this from a conversation that I had with about lossless encoding on both formats, but Dolby filters the LFE while DTS doesn't, hence the different looking waveforms.... and the proper way to do it is to filter the LFE.

The DTS waveform seems to support this, as it looks like it contains frequencies twice that of the Dolby encode... it's almost impossible to tell with a certainty with the Cubase waveform display, but it's easy to hear if you play the LFE through a main channel without crossover or rolloff.

I'll run the files through Soundforge which will show what frequencies are being used.

Quote:


As a side note, this is one of the main differnces in the theatrical presentations of Dolby and DTS (Dolby filters at 120; DTS filters the LFE at 80, and anything in the surrounds below 80 goes to the sub (DTS theatrical is actually 5.0, with the sub matrixed in with the surrounds on the encode.))

I will be doing the same thing as you in a couple of weeks.. except I will have the original masters and the ability to level match using meters designed for the task.

Should be interesting, let us know what you find.

Also do you perform the audio encodes yourself or do you send the masters off to Dolby and DTS for the encoding? IIRC DTS were doing the encodes themselves, are they still doing this or have moved to simply licensing and providing tools and training for producers/studios to do this inhouse?

cheers
post #174 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by MACCA350 View Post

Also do you perform the audio encodes yourself or do you send the masters off to Dolby and DTS for the encoding? IIRC DTS were doing the encodes themselves, are they still doing this or have moved to simply licensing and providing tools and training for producers/studios to do this inhouse?

cheers

Neither Dolby or DTS do encoding... they sell tools, and either the studios or outside contractors encode the streams.

DTS, when they first brought the codec to the consumer market, were doing the encoding, but that ended pretty quickly.
post #175 of 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

Neither Dolby or DTS do encoding... they sell tools, and either the studios or outside contractors encode the streams.

DTS, when they first brought the codec to the consumer market, were doing the encoding, but that ended pretty quickly.

Thanks for the info.

I just ran them through soundforge and they all seem to have similar frequency roll off, although that could be attributed to the AVR's crossover which was set to 250Hz for the tests.

THD


DTS


One other thing I noticed is they all seem to contain some info from the main channels ie voices(even the THD track) so I'm assuming that they didn't have a discrete LFE channel in the original mix and in this case had to create one for all the mixes, but this could be due to crosstalk from the AVR.

I might have a play with some more recent movies.

cheers
post #176 of 231
BTW FilmMaker,
Does any of the encoders have some form of enhancement options that can be engaged or applied to the encoding process?

cheers
post #177 of 231
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Arnette View Post

Gary, you had the HD DVD, right? Was the HD DVD DNR'd too?

Edited to add:

I believe I found my own answer. So, if I am following all this correctly, the BD has extra DNR compared to the HD DVD, which some have characterized as 'minor'. If that's the case, then the HD DVD must've been DNR'd crap too. Or is it your opinion, Gary, that the extra DNR on these releases is not 'minor'?

Whatever the case, I'm glad I hung onto a good number of my Universal HD DVDs, as I will be looking more closely at the comparison threads before deciding to upgrade to BD and divest my HDs. I am morbidly curious how the comparison between the Miami Vice HD and BD will shake out.

Me too. With what's happening with the "A" and "B" catalog titles for Blu-ray lately its wise to keep the HD DVD versions.

Just in case
post #178 of 231
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rach View Post

At that time, he can buy the BD at some bargain price. I couldn't begin to replace all of the HD DVDs I've acquired. It would be monetarily absurd.

You Sir are not a team player
post #179 of 231
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Ballentine View Post

I panic sold all my HD-DVD's on e-bay for $11.00-12.00 apiece last Spring. Luckily most were purchased at discount or BOGO.

However now I gotta re-buy them on BD at $19.99- $27.99

Fry's has The Mummy, The Mummy Returns for $12 HD DVD and $20 for Blu-ray
post #180 of 231
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaylisJayP View Post

geez if you people are actually watching these movies this close, you're going to go blind soon anyway.

For those of us that aren't insane, they look more or less equal...as I knew they would.

That's what I said
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Mummy comparison *PIX*