The Descent - 2 different Blu-ray versions CONFIRMED (MPEG-2 vs AVC encoding) - Page 3

Yeah, the AVC does say that (Just checked my disc).

The version with the burned in PIP window looks BETTER than the one without (on the MPEG 2 only disc). That's just sick!

Crikey. How do you know which version you'll get?
Are there different sku numbers?

This is the reason why people have preferences over codecs. It's very clear that the AVC beats MPEG-2 and it's a shame on Lionsgate to switch the versions.

That is exactly what my disc says and I feel the PQ is amazing. I do not have the ability to check the codec though. Anyone with the MPEG 2 version care to look at what number is on their disc?

The AVC disc I have here reads:

Cat No. 20593 Widescreen 20593.1.A Region 1 US Unrated ...

Flip the disc over and the text on the inner rings reads:

BVDL-004320A1 1 (outer ring) and
BVDL-004320B1 2 (inner ring)

When I flip my disc over it says:
BVDL-004320A1 3
BVDL-004320B1 5

++

I'm really hoping that there are different UPC codes for the two versions as I don't have the movie yet and I REALLY want the AVC version now. Maybe some sort of change in the packaging? UPC code from anyone who has the AVC release, please!

I have the AVC version and bought it on release day. I'll sell it for the modest price of $400.

Here is a pic of the disc and packaging.....I used macro mode to try and get the disc numbers...Worked relatively ok and i used paint Shop Pro to darken and sharpen slightly so it's clearer. File sizes of all three pics is approaching 2 megabytes so i decided against posting directly the images in this thread so as to avoid slowdown for dial up members but they are easily clickable.

Along from the numbers is A04 which is not so visible on my camera taken picture of jpg1. Pictures can be clicked to zoom in....Unfortunately camera doesn't have anti shake technology and i took these very quickly as i was reading the thread.

http://www.darkrealmfox.com/descent1.jpg
http://www.darkrealmfox.com/descent2.jpg
http://www.darkrealmfox.com/descent3.jpg

My inner and outer ring BVDL numbers appear to match Lyris even though his is the AVC edition.

I have asked Movietyme for a replacement....I got my copy with the Playstation 3 in June with their ten free movie offer....Clearly this edition is inferior and the AVC edition is the one which should be in the shops.

It's interesting in the other Descent thread there are several people complaining about the "noise" ( grain ) ....The consumer needs educated and people need to realize grain is good....Films shot on 35mm film with low lighting conditions will have more grain such as this film.

Interestingly one person says they liked the 1.78:1 composition better than the 2.35:1 version - I believe it was shot Super 35 so a 1.78:1 version may have more image top and bottom as on many Super 35mm films which don't have CGI effects you won't lose image by opening it up to 1.78:1....To me i think that might ruin the composition of many shots but it's not as barbaric as butchering a proper scope movie to 1.78:1 which i absolutely hate them doing. ( still for me it's OAR all the way )

It's BVDL-004320A1 10/BVDL-004320B1 7 that i have. Only difference to Lyris is the very last numbers on each...The 10 and 7.

Maybe if Lyris could examine the disc in the computer and show the date it was created it may help matters but the big question i have is why are these MPEG2 versions being sold....Were the AVC editions taken off the marketplace or is the AVC edition supposed to be the one being sold in which case why is Lionsgate not recalling the MPEG2 editions from the shops and online retailers they sold them to.

Yeah, I suspect that's the case. I use the CoreAVC codec to decode AVC content, and I wonder if that's where the BT.601 conversion is being applied. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be an option to change this in the codec's configuration menu.

By the way, I've updated my original post to include captures of the PiP encode (both my version and yours). Barring the slight colour differences, they look identical (I flipped back and forth between them in Photoshop), so I think we can reasonably assume that they're the same encode.

Why would a company knowingly sell an inferior product when they had already produced a better version ?

This stinks if the MPEG2 edition is going to be the only version on sale....Hmmm what is going on here ? Why would they think the smoother inferior version is the one to sell ?

So many questions so little answers.

I remembered I have a Blu-ray drive in my HP laptop and tried to pop it in and see what codec is being used. Unfortunately the QuickPlay (Cyberlink) software that is included does not seem to offer a way to do this.

Happy to help. 00022.m2ts is MPEG-2 for me. 00030.m2ts appears to be unreferenced (no corresponding .mpls file) and I can't see any way to get it to load in BDInfo. In fact, I get an unspecified error when I try to open it in VirtualDubMod, Windows Media Player or Graphedit. Am I doing something wrong?

The UPC is 031398205937, with "80" on the right.

Thank you msgohan!

Now I was not able to do a full scan but it did do a basic scan. It appears mine is AVC. The first file said MPEG-2 with DD 2.0 audio and that had me worried but the next file was AVC with many audio tracks including LPCM 5.1 so that must be the main movie.

Edit: My 00022.MPLS is MPEG-2 and I cannot find 00030 either. I have the 80 as well.

00002.m2ts = created at 8th November 2006 at 17:53:09

The rest of the files on the disc all have the 8th November 2006 date stamp, but differing times.

Well thats insane who makes these ignorant decisions. As frankly they wasted cash and time redoing a great transfer. Very Very odd indeed.

Good to see that it now has been established that the MPEG-2 version has been butchered and is indeed missing a good deal of detail.

Yesterday evening I took the trouble of watching this movie again after 1 year, and I found my gripes with grain were mainly from the outdoor scenes. The filtering seemes to have enhanced the grain there.

My guess is that the director wanted to make the outdoor shots grainy on purpose to match (in this case: exceed) the indoor scenes.

Went to Best Buy, price matched to Wal-Mart at $20 and looked at two copies of the film on Blu. One had two stickers on it, the other had three price stickers and looked a little beat up. Grabbed the older one, popped it in and I got lucky. AVC all the way.

Outer ring: BVDL-004320A1 3
Inner ring: BVDL-004320B1 04

See this is where i fail to understand where you are coming from....On the one hand you talk about detail and then on the other hand you gripe about grain....I'm confused by your post.

The MPEG2 edition has smoothed over the grain thus robbing the film of the best possible image quality....The AVC edition retains the grain and the detail.

So what are you saying ? Are you saying you dislike the grain in the image or not ?

I think what he's saying is that the DVNR job on the MPEG-2 version made what grain there is more distracting by making it a shifting mass of blobs among a smoothed over image instead of a fine grain that doesn't distract.

I have the MPEG2 version. All three versions on the disc are MPEG2, Unrated, Rated and PiP Track.