Warner Blu-rays with LOWER BITRATES than the HD DVD version - w/ comparison PIX

Wow, talk about wax-fests....that guy with the mustache and black hat in those shots, just look at his face! It's so smeared, it practically looks like he's wearing a mask!!

Blu-ray captures 2,6,8,9 and 10 are just tragic and have no business in a modern HD encode. HD DVD cap 4 is a prime example of the Warner smoothing if I ever saw one.

And this whole re-encode deal? What the hell is wrong with Warner?

Tech A: People are complaining about our low-bitrate encodes, maybe we should redo them after all?
Tech B: I have a better idea, let's take the time and energy to re-encode but let's not actually make it any better, so that it'll all be a completely pointless waste of time. That'll show 'em!
Tech A: Genius!
Tech B: Let's run it by the boss.
Boss: Sounds like a plan boys, do it!

Monkeys deciding by throwing darts at a board would probably have a more sensible outcome.

Sigh. I guess if SE releases start cropping up in a couple of years or so their master plan will be revealed.

I think frame 11 is interesting that it looks better on BD but almost at the same size as the HD DVD.

Do anyone know what date they made the 2 encodes?

HD DVD cap 11 does look odd. If you look at the grain and all the little lights it has clearly been filtered, but for some reason only horizontally.

I'm also curious as to how cap 7 can be exactly the same on both, down to every single little compression artifact. Could this happen with two different encodes using different settings, or did they perhaps only tweak certain parts of the movie?

What is Warner thinking? They've got 50GB at their disposal, it's long been obvious that their encoding tools are not doing an adequate job at these bitrates, and they're still pulling the same crap Pathetic...

First of all, it's wrong to assume that just because the bitrate is lower, that the encode is worse, the encoding tools change and improve with time, and we do not know if the tools remained the same between these.

That being said, just going through some of these, the BD looks sharper and preserves more grain, but there is more blocking as well, see particularly #2 in the upper left the blurry bricks in the background, there are a few that are slightly brighter, on the HD-DVD they remain blurred grainy bricks in the background, on the BD they turn into blocks. Also look at her right collar (your left) and her right shoulder (your left), see how on the BD it gets blocky, and on her shoulder where there are the strands of hair it gets all flat and the hair gets blurry. This is interesting because they are both I frames, according to the caption, and the filesize for the BD frame is larger than the HDDVD frame, but look at the blocking!

But then look at image #4, that looks significantly better on the BD, all the grain isn't washed away, look at all the detail on her coat and her belt particularly, that all gets lost on the HD-DVD, but they are not comparable frame types and the BD framesize on that one is larger than the HD-DVD.

Same with #5, no comparison, different frametype, BD frame way larger, way better.

#6 they look very similar, maybe a slight and insignificant sharpness advantage to the BD, but I'd say they look more identical than anything.

#7 is completely identical, literally. In fact it makes me doubt the caption on those images, those two are the exact same image, at least to my eyes.

#8 is a mixed bag, the blurry parts look more detailed in the grain/noise with the HD-DVD, but the fine lines on the stone looks more detailed on the BD. I don't really see any blocking on either though, not much detail to see.

#9. Look to the left of his hat. Wow, blockiness to the nines on the BD, HD-DVD while less detailed on his face, doesn't have all that macroblocking, and that's an I frame on the BD even.

#10 comparing P and B, they look more similar than anything

But #11, comparing I and I frames, BD mops the floor with the HD-DVD.

So really, all I see here is that yes they did a different encode, but it's a mixed bag in terms of results.


I just want to point out that if there isn't a need to increase the average bitrate, then there's nothing to be gained by doing so. It looks like there could have been some gains on this title on both the HD-DVD and the BD encode. But just assuming that an encode that is higher bitrate is better and an encode with lower bitrate is worse is far too broad a generalization, and is not necessarily true, particularly if the encoding tools used are different, and also there is the skill of the person(s) involved actually doing the encoding.

We can make very broad statements about encodes that are significantly higher bitrate, of the same codec, using similar or the same tools, but if the difference is small, it's not a safe conclusion to jump to that the lower bitrate one must be worse.

I've always wondered, when they make a disc, can't they see in advance how much of the disc space they'll be filling with the different video and audio encodes so they can try to output the highest bitrate possible to use as much of the space available? Seems like a reasonable thing to do to be most efficient.

I'm not a big bitrate/quality-analyzer but this has just been something I've always wondered about.

That joke has been recycled more times than Warner's encodes.

I think Warner is encoding for China HD or whatever their HD-DVD format is called. They are the only hollywood studio that is still making encodes for more than one format. If someone can tell me I'm wrong about my assumption please correct me.

VC-1 is crap without a healthy bitrate. I know this comparison is bad, but take a look at any high bitrate VC-1 encode from Universal, Buena Vista or New Line(Shoot em Up) that's not DNRd and notice that they don't have the same characteristics of Warner's encodes of newer movies(the "smoothed" look, or the funny looking noise).

this is really strange. comparing those instances in which one disc clearly outscores the other one, but then seeing exactly the opposite on other screens somehow can lead to the impression you mixed up the naming of images :P

but serioulsy, what conclusion to draw from this, which disc is better most of the time or in which situations?

Maybe they aimed this to a BD25, but got access to a BD50 (since the production capacity improves) and added extras that shouldnt be included with a BD25 release.

What is the peak bitrate?

Yes they can, sort of. The workflow for encoding should go something like this:

1. Prepare all assets (produce extras, acquire trailers, etc).
2. Encode all assets EXCEPT for the main features video; this includes encoding the audio of the main feature/extras (lossless or otherwise, multiple languages or otherwise) and video for extras (and trailers, etc).
3. At this point you know how much space everything else should take up, except for the primary video. Subtract the space used so far from the space available on your target media (BD25 or BD50; these days anything longer than 100 minutes should probably be on a BD50).
4. Encode the main features video to use the amount of space remaining. For TV shows you can allocate space based on the length of the episode.

Studios or production houses which want to leave a little extra space for future re-releases can shave off a specific amount, but given that AVC encoding isn't as time consuming as it once was, there's little reason to not simply re-encode every time you do another release.

The only semi-valid reason I can come up with is a fear that you'll introduce errors perhaps in future encodes (data errors) by touching it every time you want to re-release it. And running freshly minted encodes by a quality control person/group could become fairly expensive if done often enough. (But even that is a one time cost that can be spread out across all expected sales).

Nice.

A good question. Why dont they lower the impact of DNR and try to use more disc-space?! I dont see how that could negatively impact the picture, so to speak.

Because they doesnt use DNR. There are several good examples of DNR in this forum. This is not one of them.

And "healthy" bitrate = ?

Keep the sweeping generalizations coming...

Hardly a "sweeping generalization", it's the truth. Examples were given of high bitrate VC1 encodes which looked good, if you didn't see them, I suggest working on your reading comprehension.

And how much of that is related to the source?

Why is the Disney VC1 encode of There will be blood, better looking then the Disney encode of flightplan, despite both uses about the same bitrate?

Why is Hot Fuzz looking better then Serenity despite them using the same bitrate?

Why is Harry Potter 5 better looking the Harry Potter 1 despite them using the same bitrate?

Not all encoding is created equally. There's can be "good" 20mbps AVC encodes and there can be "bad" 20mbps AVC encodes (some European studios have done 28+mbps AVC encodes that look they are 10mbps VC1 Warner encodes). I don't know the reasoning behind it on the professional level. But on the amateur level, especially in the x264 encoding community, there can be huge differences in quality at the exact same bitrates. Some people can adjust the encoder settings in such a way that there is a massive difference in detail and grain preservation than someone who just used the default settings.

TWBB is Paramount, and the answer = cinematography

We don't have a BD of Hot Fuzz, and it's arguable that Serenity looks better based on opinion. But the answer is probably lighting.

$$$$

I haven't watched the HPs yet. But of all the titles you listed none have a "smoothed picture" or the funny looking noise that you see so frequently on the low bitrate Warner encodes.

Plus look at the difference in detail with the encodes for Rambo(4) and Watchmen not done by Warner. In comparison it looks like the Warner discs are encodes of different versions filmed by cameras that had bad plastic wrap on the lenses.

Warner's low bitrate VC-1 encodes suck. Ok, I'm done.

Msgohan, could you check out the scene where the guy on the big screen is talking? The part where his mouth becomes jagged with compression blocks.