AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › U-571 comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

U-571 comparison *PIX*

post #1 of 184
8/23/08 at 6:14am
Thread Starter 
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 184
8/23/08 at 6:14am
Thread Starter 
This is the third Universal title I have seen that was originally released from HD DVD. And as far as PQ goes its getting worse going to Blu-ray. Added DNR again is the main culprit. It doesn't make sense. On a High definition format why reduce High frequency detail? Isn't that the purpose of the format? Why reduce detail? The "A" titles are yet to come. I fear for the worse

The Blu-ray version is remastered. The picture is cleaned up removing the dust and dirt visible on the HD DVD and D-Theater. Here is one example:



Only if they did not turn up the DNR dial this release could have been a definite improvement in PQ and AQ because the AQ is reference. The HD DVD Dolby Digital plus is already excellent and with DTS-MA on the Blu-ray based on the specs should be an improvement. Honestly like the other two Universal titles to me its just plays louder. Maybe in the future when I can afford much better speakers than my Paradigm 7's I may truly without a shadow of a doubt can accurately discern the difference between the two. But for now I will not lose sleep over it.

The brutal honest truth is aside from the more compression artifacts visible, the D-Theater Mpeg-2 version (23 mbps) has more fine detail present and film grain than the Blu-ray VC-1 (15.70 mbps). The low bitrate on the Blu-ray is expected when you remove grain and HF details. No need for the extra bits. While the HD DVD VC-1 at only 19.44 mbps has the grain. Has the HF details.

Theoretically the bigger disc space and higher peak bitrate should in theory offer significant PQ improvement. But excessive DNR because of some *****! thinking that film grain does not belong to a movie has made all this a moot point.

The HD DVD version wins this one.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 184
8/23/08 at 6:14am
Thread Starter 
D-Theater File size: 19.72 GB

Bitrate: 23.00 mbps

Code:
Sequence Summary:

File Size Processed: 19.72 GB, Play Time: 01h:56m:50s
1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps, 45.00 Mbps (22.95 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 93.46 KB/Frame, 0.37 Bits/Pixel.
AC3 Audio: 3/2 Channels (L, C, R, SL, SR) + LFE, 48.0 kHz, 576 kbps.
Dialog Normalization: -27.0 dB, Center Mix Level: -3.0 dB, Surround Mix Level: -3.0 dB
0 of 210120 video frames found with errors.
0 of 219093 audio frames found with errors.
0 corrupted video bytes in file.
0.000000 seconds of video timestamp gaps.
0.000000 seconds of audio timestamp gaps.

End of Log

HD DVD File size: 20 GB

Bitrate: 19.44 mbps

Code:
                                                                                        Total   Video
Title                                   Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track        IME     Secondary Audio Track

U-571                                   VC-1    1:56:03 21,508,499,456* 24,908,225,928  24.71   19.44   DDPlus 5.1 1536Kbps     No      DTS-HD 5.1 1509Kbps

Blu-ray File size: 19.40 GB

Bitrate: 15.70 mbps

Code:
                                                                                                                Total   Video                                             
Title                                                           Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                           ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- ------- ------------------                        ---------------------
U-571                                                          VC-1    1:56:17 20,863,150,080  21,368,995,358  23.92   15.70   DTS-HD Master 5.1 4644Kbps (48kHz/24-bit) DTS-HD Hi-Res 2.0 192Kbps


DISC INFO:

Disc Size:      21,368,995,358 bytes
Protection:     AACS
BD-Java:        Yes

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name:           00000.mpls
Size:           20,863,150,080 bytes
Length:         1:56:17 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate:  23.92 Mbps
Description:    

FILES:

Name            Size            Length          Time In         Time Out        
----            ----            ------          -------         --------        
00034.M2TS      20,863,150,080  1:56:17.804     0:00:00.000     1:56:17.804     

VIDEO:

Codec               Bitrate         Description     
-----               -------         -----------     
VC-1 Video          15696 kbps      1080p / 23.976fps / 16:9 / Advanced Profile 3
VC-1 Video          913 kbps        480p / 23.976fps / 4:3 / Advanced Profile 2

AUDIO:

Codec                           Language        Bitrate         Description     
-----                           --------        -------         -----------     
DTS-HD Master Audio             English         4644 kbps       5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 4644kbps (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 1536kbps)
Dolby Digital Audio             French          384 kbps        5.1 / 48kHz / 384kbps
Dolby Digital Audio             Spanish         384 kbps        5.1 / 48kHz / 384kbps
Dolby Digital Audio             English         192 kbps        2.0 / 48kHz / 192kbps
DTS-HD Audio                    English         192 kbps        2.0 / 48kHz / 192kbps

SUBTITLES:

Codec                           Language        Bitrate         Description     
-----                           --------        -------         -----------     
Presentation Graphics           English         25 kbps                         
Presentation Graphics           French          22 kbps                         
Presentation Graphics           French          3 kbps                          
Presentation Graphics           Spanish         24 kbps                         
Presentation Graphics           Spanish         2 kbps                          

CHAPTERS:

Number          Time            Length          Avg Video Rate  Max 1-Sec Rate  Max 1-Sec Time  Max 5-Sec Rate  Max 5-Sec Time  Max 10Sec Rate  Max 10Sec Time  Avg Frame Size  Max Frame Size  Max Frame Time  
------          ----            ------          --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  
1               0:00:00.000     0:08:45.233     15,946 kbps     27,976 kbps     00:06:34.561    23,639 kbps     00:06:31.391    22,213 kbps     00:06:25.802    83,133 bytes    210,217 bytes   00:00:36.078    
2               0:08:45.233     0:04:16.590     14,738 kbps     20,447 kbps     00:08:51.906    18,988 kbps     00:08:48.361    18,629 kbps     00:08:45.859    76,839 bytes    232,389 bytes   00:09:16.723    
3               0:13:01.823     0:02:58.219     17,264 kbps     28,285 kbps     00:13:27.682    25,678 kbps     00:13:26.014    23,718 kbps     00:13:18.631    90,008 bytes    267,167 bytes   00:13:28.599    
4               0:16:00.042     0:13:48.745     16,196 kbps     36,712 kbps     00:21:13.647    33,182 kbps     00:21:12.313    26,318 kbps     00:21:12.313    84,440 bytes    352,613 bytes   00:21:12.354    
5               0:29:48.787     0:03:31.002     15,928 kbps     24,332 kbps     00:32:34.369    22,171 kbps     00:32:31.783    20,509 kbps     00:32:27.696    83,040 bytes    213,367 bytes   00:32:32.909    
6               0:33:19.789     0:02:47.960     16,502 kbps     24,956 kbps     00:33:43.188    21,452 kbps     00:33:43.188    21,066 kbps     00:33:41.811    86,035 bytes    228,384 bytes   00:33:19.831    
7               0:36:07.749     0:03:51.690     19,582 kbps     24,384 kbps     00:39:22.485    22,326 kbps     00:39:45.592    22,144 kbps     00:39:38.710    102,091 bytes   200,462 bytes   00:36:30.772    
8               0:39:59.439     0:06:54.998     18,287 kbps     26,413 kbps     00:41:02.585    23,202 kbps     00:45:42.573    22,664 kbps     00:45:38.694    95,340 bytes    250,213 bytes   00:44:26.747    
9               0:46:54.437     0:09:40.788     18,508 kbps     33,710 kbps     00:49:57.536    29,711 kbps     00:49:57.536    26,769 kbps     00:49:57.536    96,492 bytes    271,686 bytes   00:49:57.578    
10              0:56:35.225     0:02:26.104     20,961 kbps     49,775 kbps     00:57:37.037    34,817 kbps     00:57:36.870    31,835 kbps     00:57:34.117    109,279 bytes   323,712 bytes   00:57:37.454    
11              0:59:01.329     0:04:07.831     13,814 kbps     35,405 kbps     01:01:41.907    31,371 kbps     01:01:39.738    26,120 kbps     01:01:37.485    72,021 bytes    269,152 bytes   01:01:42.282    
12              1:03:09.160     0:03:32.963     11,624 kbps     25,426 kbps     01:05:28.466    18,436 kbps     01:05:28.383    16,077 kbps     01:03:26.803    60,603 bytes    242,210 bytes   01:05:28.508    
13              1:06:42.123     0:03:26.164     15,589 kbps     25,123 kbps     01:07:46.646    19,624 kbps     01:07:44.978    18,667 kbps     01:07:39.973    81,272 bytes    220,723 bytes   01:07:31.547    
14              1:10:08.287     0:06:44.821     13,617 kbps     23,156 kbps     01:13:22.732    21,218 kbps     01:14:46.982    20,072 kbps     01:15:52.673    70,994 bytes    226,967 bytes   01:12:41.524    
15              1:16:53.108     0:04:45.202     17,064 kbps     30,639 kbps     01:20:18.272    24,979 kbps     01:17:05.788    22,957 kbps     01:17:00.783    88,966 bytes    286,249 bytes   01:17:07.248    
16              1:21:38.310     0:08:07.112     16,731 kbps     43,264 kbps     01:25:35.505    27,781 kbps     01:25:32.586    24,097 kbps     01:27:17.274    87,226 bytes    313,683 bytes   01:25:36.465    
17              1:29:45.422     0:05:53.686     15,654 kbps     26,232 kbps     01:35:32.936    21,660 kbps     01:34:11.312    20,867 kbps     01:34:10.144    81,612 bytes    253,469 bytes   01:35:22.884    
18              1:35:39.108     0:06:13.582     16,424 kbps     35,309 kbps     01:37:32.764    25,423 kbps     01:37:28.843    21,809 kbps     01:38:22.730    85,627 bytes    272,742 bytes   01:37:33.598    
19              1:41:52.690     0:06:47.741     17,082 kbps     29,099 kbps     01:44:38.981    26,730 kbps     01:46:46.609    25,316 kbps     01:47:35.949    89,059 bytes    256,301 bytes   01:42:38.027    
20              1:48:40.431     0:07:37.373     5,509 kbps      17,909 kbps     01:48:57.698    17,317 kbps     01:48:57.197    16,797 kbps     01:48:54.194    28,722 bytes    248,267 bytes   01:48:58.490    

STREAM DIAGNOSTICS:

File            PID             Type            Seconds         Bytes           Packets         Bitrate         
----            ---             ----            -------         -----           -------         -------         
00034.M2TS      4113 (0x1011)   0xEA            6977.80         13,690,714,611  74,507,234      15,696          
00034.M2TS      4352 (0x1100)   0x86            6977.80         4,050,294,016   23,100,518      4,644           
00034.M2TS      4353 (0x1101)   0x81            6977.80         334,935,552     1,962,513       384             
00034.M2TS      4354 (0x1102)   0x81            6977.80         334,935,552     1,962,513       384             

00034.M2TS      4355 (0x1103)   0x81            6977.80         167,467,776     1,090,285       192             
00034.M2TS      4608 (0x1200)   0x90            6977.80         21,463,230      123,301         25              
00034.M2TS      4609 (0x1201)   0x90            6977.80         20,671,139      118,793         24              
00034.M2TS      4610 (0x1202)   0x90            6977.80         19,362,162      111,638         22              
00034.M2TS      4611 (0x1203)   0x90            6977.80         1,985,980       11,399          2               
00034.M2TS      4612 (0x1204)   0x90            6977.80         2,240,331       12,886          3               
00034.M2TS      6912 (0x1B00)   0xEA            6977.80         796,719,350     4,446,104       913             
00034.M2TS      6656 (0x1A00)   0xA2            6977.80         167,469,056     981,264         192
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 184
8/23/08 at 6:15am
Thread Starter 
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 184
8/23/08 at 6:16am
Thread Starter 
reserved for future use
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 184
8/23/08 at 7:25pm
tease
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 184
8/23/08 at 8:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmishFury View Post

tease

Trust in Xylon, he ain't no tease.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 184
8/24/08 at 5:03am
First comparison shots:
Not that I care for the movie but this is simply frightening! No blind purchases of Universal titles anymore.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 184
8/24/08 at 5:12am
I don't understand it, I just don't. Instead of taking the easy way out and just porting over the old encodes, they are actually spending time and money to make the movies look worse. Are they still bitter about HD DVD or something? Unbelievable.

Like the previous poster I do not care for this, or the vast majority of Universal's currently released catalogue titles for that matter, but I think I will go postal if they touch The Thing, and will keep a close eye on things like Casino and American Gangster.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 184
8/24/08 at 5:39am
SNAFU. Totally agree that Studios are reading forum comments.

Quote:


No blind purchases of Universal titles

+1. I already canceled the Universal titles that were part of my pre-orders. Will good looking transfers like Knocked Up, The Thing and Dawn of the Dead follow suit ?

Quote:


instead of taking the easy way out and just porting over the old encodes

Seconded considering Universal's shaky track record on HD DVD.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post14314580
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 184
8/24/08 at 5:54am
Oh god if they mess up The Thing I will go apesh**!

Cut it out Universal it's not funny!
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 184
8/24/08 at 6:06am
Some thoughts:

-Nice to see Universal messing up their blu-ray catalog titles. Why would a company waste time to make things worse? Pathetic and mind boggling

-I am glad I didn't decide to be irrational like some and sell off my hd dvd version of titles like this and wait for the blu-ray. I'd be a bit pissed off had I done that but the beauty is I never would

-If the blu-ray had a higher bitrate but the same dnr I am sure that some would come to the thread and say it looked better. I kind of wish that was the case to weed out more biased people. Although, I am sure the lower bitrate will be blamed for this DNR issue.

-no doubt some will say that the hd dvd version is just full of artifacts and that it isn't grain/more detail.

-I wonder if the people who were saying the DNR issue was being blown out of proportion because of Patton, Dark City, etc are now changing their tune. How many titles now have been released in the last few months that have suffered from this issue? It seems like it is almost every catalog release. Scary

-Like others, no way I would I blind buy a Universal catalog title in the future based on their rocky start with these things. Thankfully, it seems they are making an effort to release all the hd dvd catalog titles first and aside from American Gangster (which I guess really isn't a catalog like these others) I have all the titles released thus far that I would want already on hd dvd. I do hope they don't screw over American Gangster though.

-this comparo pretty much confirms Peter Bracke's reviews are worthless.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 184
8/24/08 at 6:28am
Well said loregnum.

Quote:


If the blu-ray had a higher bitrate but the same dnr I am sure that some would come to the thread and say it looked better. I kind of wish that was the case to weed out more biased people. Although, I am sure the lower bitrate will be blamed for this DNR issue.

I understand your frustrations. Expected Universal to re-encode with higher bit rate for making things better and not to make things look worse.

Btw, the Blu-ray bit rate is 15.70 mbps which is actually less than the HD DVD bit rate 19.90 Mbps.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 184
8/24/08 at 6:40am
lgans, I believe what loregnum was saying that some people watch the bitrate meter more than the actual image quality. And that some would insist that the Blu-ray would look better if it had a higher bitrate (and looked exactly as above), instead of it obviously being part of master pre-filtering.

Not to single anyone out, but I have noticed you in particular have often made comments that focused solely on bitrate and ignored other more likely factors. I am frustrated when I read such comments, as encoding & bitrate is the least likely source of artifacts on most HD releases we see. The most likely, of course, is the master and what is done to it pre-encoding.

As for this release, it is a pity. Once again we see Universal release an Blu-ray worse than the HD DVD. First The Mummy & Mummy Returns which had overblown contrast and increased EE/DNR, now once again we have increased DNR. I will be skipping this one. Heaven help The Thing.

On a more positive note, at least the DNR here is mild enough so major details are not wiped out (a la Patton).
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 184
8/24/08 at 6:50am
Quote:


Not to single anyone out, but I have noticed you in particular have often made comments that focused solely on bitrate and ignored other more likely factors. I am frustrated when I read such comments, as encoding & bitrate is the least likely source of artifacts on most HD releases we see. The most likely, of course, is the master and what is done to it pre-encoding.

No buddy. You have misunderstood me. I own several low bit rate encoded titles that looks worse to reference and have recommended many for top tier placements in the eye candy tier thread. However I do stress upon higher bit rates which I feel is important to mitigate unknown compression related artefacts. It's ironic that many ignore the good portion of my comments and only see the bit rate related phrases.

Anyways I will be extremely cautious while purchasing catalog titles from Universal titles as I have seen enough with their HD DVDs.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 184
8/24/08 at 7:02am
I remember Universal saying that they would like to revisit some of their HD efforts. There was once a thread about it in the HDTV software area of AVS if anyone wants to do a search. I sincerely hope that this wasn't the goal they had in mind.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 184
8/24/08 at 7:08am
I did have The Thing pre-ordered and it would have arrived in time for my birthday next month but i cancelled...I'm going to wait for some reviews before i order as i dislike the smoothing effect applied to films by the use of DNR.

Universal seem to be touching up a lot of their HD DVD releases and not for the better.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 184
8/24/08 at 7:55am
Dam it. I wanted to rebuy this title on BR. I guess I have to pass on buying it now. I still have my HD-DVD but I find it near unwatchable because my player is the xbox360 and it's loud as an jet engine. It's really hilarious that even if it's not a quiet scene you can still hear the "Wooo" sound from the 360.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 184
8/24/08 at 8:08am
Well ****. I ordered the action 3-pack since I wanted to replace my Miami Vice combo and I didn't have this is on HD DVD - don't really care about End Of Days.

Now it sounds like I should just buy Miami Vice separate and track down the import of U-571. Ugh.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 184
8/24/08 at 8:17am
HD DVD-30 disc size: 24,908,225,928 bytes
BD-25 disc size: 20,863,150,080 bytes

That alone is kind of pathetic. They've already proven with their other releases that they will DNR and increase bitrates, now they're DNRing and decreasing bitrates. So in these cases the two aren't related. At least they aren't tying up BD-50 lines for this trash.

Universal DNR'd some of their HD DVDs too, didn't they? So it's not like they suddenly bought the software to do it and are throwing it at every release just because they couldn't before.

Again glad I got this LG combo drive. I feel sorry for the people who never had an HD DVD player or who foolishly sold it, not having access to the better release. How long till bootlegs featuring the HD DVD encodes ported onto Blu-ray show up on eBay? Some guy on his home PC putting out a better (and cheaper) disc than the giant studio.

I still like my oversharpening test for showing what's compression artifacts and what's not.

D-Theater | HD DVD | Blu-ray
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 184
8/24/08 at 8:26am
Time to buy the HD-DVD. No way I buy such Blu Ray discs.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 184
8/24/08 at 8:41am
Ashame what these studios are doing. Universal seems to really be screwing up their BD catalog titles. I mean at least The Mummy it seemed "okay" but this is clearly bad.

I'm very worried about The Thing and Casino now.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 184
8/24/08 at 8:53am
People bitching on reviews about things being too grainy are the problem.. If they get their scores knocked down because of grain, then if they eliminate on the next release they figure they will get better reviews. Better reviews = more sales. Blame uninformed reviewers like IGN on this..
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 184
8/24/08 at 9:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patsfan123 View Post

People bitching on reviews about things being too grainy are the problem.. If they get their scores knocked down because of grain, then if they eliminate on the next release they figure they will get better reviews. Better reviews = more sales. Blame uninformed reviewers like IGN on this..

+1 they're also the a-holes who say DD sounds the same as TrueHD.

If they applied DNR on this title(which after seeing the HD-DVD, didn't need to be touched at all). They will most certainly apply processing to Casino and the Thing(I would put money on it).
American Gangster will be untouched, Dawn of Dead will be too(If they DNR that there won't be anything left to watch.

This sucks for JP and Schindler's List(please just try and apply DNR on that one UNi), but I think Spielberg has the final say so on his films.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 184
8/24/08 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patsfan123 View Post

People bitching on reviews about things being too grainy are the problem.. If they get their scores knocked down because of grain, then if they eliminate on the next release they figure they will get better reviews. Better reviews = more sales. Blame uninformed reviewers like IGN on this..

Over at HDD, Bracke said the master was the same, gave it 4.5 stars for PQ, and used many superlatives to describe how amazing the PQ is.

Although, I really can't imagine these online reviews really driving sales THAT much. They might inform those of us that frequent forums such as these, but we are such a small minority...

And I just must not have the "eyes" to notice this stuff, because I can't see the loss of detail between those screenshots. Zoomed in, I can see it, but otherwise, I can't see it. I'm not sure how much most people are going to notice...

And, so far, it's EVERY reviewer that is apparently wrong. Besides HDD, there's...

DVD Authority claims it's the same transfer as what was used on the HD-DVD, but "cleaner".

Sam Posten at HTF gives it 4.5 out of 5.

The Cinema Laser praises the video and says "The image is sharp, highly defined and dimensional, not to mention that it maintains a film-like appearance".

Robert Harris said "it's right up there with the best of them when it comes to transfer".

And I don't recall there being any "bitching" about grain in the HD-DVD release, which seems to have received the same glowing praise. And, although the reasons aren't exactly clear beyond having seen more HD-content, the DVD Authority reviewer did lower the score on the Blu-Ray version by a star.

Which review sites have bitched about grain in their reviews? I can't recall ever reading a review that slammed grain, although I don't typically read IGN reviews (if they are the guilty party).
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 184
8/24/08 at 10:10am
I think it's pretty obvious what Universal is doing now, no way I am replacing HD-DVD's with this

-Gary
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 184
8/24/08 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

I'm very worried about The Thing...

Agreed. I never got that one on DVD, and it would really suck if they screwed up the Blu-ray.

You think this is some kind of screwed up attempt to make the Blu-rays "better"?
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 184
8/24/08 at 10:34am
pretty obvious the hd dvd looks better in this instance. i was going to get this on release day just for instant access to the depth charge scenes. i will now wait to add this as a buy 2 get 1 free deal.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 184
8/24/08 at 10:39am
I thought the Mummy's got mucked with because they were the "Deluxe Editions" or some non-sense. But now I am worried for ALL Universal titles. I guess I really shouldn't have sold the Bourne Trilogy, 12 Monkeys and Children of Men.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 184
8/24/08 at 11:22am
it's interesting how some experts are not picking up on the issues with this title...even ones like Robert Harris.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...1-blu-ray.html
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › U-571 comparison *PIX*