Unofficial HD DVD Audio and Video Specifications Thread - Page 2

Don't know if this is the place to ask, but are there, or will there be any 6.1 surround movies on HD-DVD? If so, any titles?

thanks

bump

I really like this thread!

So do I. Is Benes still updating it? Not to be pushy, just wondering.

Thanks, you've got a great thread here. Wish they'd sticky it.

Can someone please sticky this and update it?

I am curious as to what bitrate the DTS track is in Tomb Raider...though I am sure it must have been 1.5mbps, since it sounded so good.

I am still wondering in We Were Soldiers as well. I have been planning the buy an Add on but haven't gotten around to it.

I agree.. please make this thread sticky. It's very useful.

Triple agreed, this thread should be stickied

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does "movie size" includes video and audio? Or just video?

Damn, I don't know what the hell to do with these numbers, but I sure like having them...

It is interesting how HD DVD is always bashed for its "lack" of bandwidth, however there isn't a single movie on the list which hits 30 mbps. The Best looking HD DVDs have PLENTY of room for more bandwidth King Kong Audio + Video + IME only uses 20 mbps!!! Seabiscuit is 19 mbps A + V. MI:III uses 24 mbps A + V. So there is clearly bandwidth for the TrueHD all the the titles of use TrueHD.

The Matrix Trio used 22, 19 and 19 mbps respectively for each movie. Those have 5.1 True HD, 5.1 DD+ English, 5.1 DD+ French, 2.0 DD Espanol, 4 audio commentaries, and IME on top of all that!

Sorry, but this is pretty much a lack of comprehension of how these formats work on your part. They are VBR (Variable Bit Rate), not forced CBR (Constant Bit Rate). I'm not sure if any of the movies avoid hitting 30Mbps at some point. The vast majority are going to hit it or very close to it on HD DVD. Especially with video being limited to 19-20Mbps peaks for some of these that have PiP and TrueHD.

A general rule of thumb is that for VBR video, the peaks should be about 50% higher than the average. If you see a title with a video average of 20Mbps and it has the normal amount of audio and other things, that tells you that the video peaks could not have been 50% higher than the average (other than the buffer that each format has for short spikes and spreading things out between the different kinds of frames).

I also find it interesting that you seem to lean toward using 2.35:1 movies (where they get free black area guaranteed on every frame to make reducing bitrates easier) as if those prove how much the format should have, despite needing to support 1.85:1 and 1.78:1.

When you look at the average bitrates in this list they don't tell you what you think they tell you and it would be nice if you would quit making claims about bandwidth until you have more comprehension of the subject.

--Darin

I am not sure what you mean here but I have always wondered how difficult it would be for them to make the 2.35:1 version available and one made for 16x9 displays on the same disc without having two separate video files.

Basically, different frames within movies have different difficulties as far as compressing them within a certain amount of space. The easiest frames would be all one color. Like a blackout or a full white screen. If you want the bitrates for credits that are white letters on a black background with something that can show bitrates, you should see that in general the bitrates for these are very low. Because there is so much uniform stuff, so they are easy to compress to lower bitrates.

It might be best to think of compressing a picture on your PC. I haven't tried it, but take any bitmap of a normal picture and compress it. Now go in and cover part of the original bitmap with black pixels. Now when it is compressed it should give a smaller file (depending on the compression method).

HD we are discussing here is 1920x1080. A 2.35:1 movie only has real information in around 1920x815 out of that. The rest of it should just be video black (encoding level 16). So, that portion shouldn't use many bits and more of the bits can be used in the real picture area, which may have difficult things to compress.

I hope that makes sense.

As far as supporting both, I would prefer that they just had zoom or crop and zoom features in the players for people who want 16:9 output, while leaving the encode at the Original Aspect Ratio (other than doing 1.85:1 movies as 1.78:1 that I am okay with since there isn't much lost information).

--Darin

I just used 2.35:1 movies because those are always the ones in question. All the HD DVD haters bring up King Kong and say "wahh wahh TrueHD couldn't fit" then when simplye mathematics proves it can then the HD DVD haters say "wah wah not enough bandwidth" I also bring up The Matrix because it is a movie with TrueHD, IME, two extra 5.1 tracks, a 2.0 track, and 4 commentaries on top of that (although the commentaries are most likely no more than 160 kbps). A favorite talking point of the Pro-DRM crowd is that HD DVD doesn't have the bandwidth for IME and TrueHD so The Matrix Trilogy smacks down that ridiculous asseration. If a favorite talking point of the "I hate HD DVD" crowd was a 1.85:1 title like Children of Men or Hollywoodland then I would of discussed that.

Of course I know about VBR and CBR, so it would be nice if you quit your whacko personal attacks until learn more about me. At least you are no longer going after minor spelling mistakes so you have learned something here, but apparently not enough.


Just answer this one question.
How do you explain Full Metal Jackets horrible PQ despite the extraordinarily high bitrate?

Well since we don't have it on the current players or at least not on mine couldn't they add a zoom and crop option on the disc to perfectly crop it on a 16x9 tv with the least amount of screen lost as possible. There are a few discs with a zoom feature but they zoom WAY in and it chops a lot of picture off the top and bottom.

I'm still wondering if you have been trying to deceive people with the "fit" thing on King Kong by conveniently ignoring that an encoding has to fit in both the space and the bandwidth. Not sure why we have to go over this again as Robert George made a mistake in his claim about TrueHD with KK and I know at least one person pointed it out. Please quit trying to make people believe that the current video encoding for KK would have worked with a TrueHD track when it most likely would not have.

I have asked about how they would do Saving Private Ryan with TrueHD and PiP without any video degradation multiple times and Amir likes to pretty much avoid that one (and also talk about 2.35:1 movies). Feel free to field that one.

If you understand VBR and CBR, why did you post:

Do you now understand that fallacy of using ABRs like that as if it is the peak bitrate used? I know Universal does and it is a likely reason they don't put TrueHD on many releases.

Please back up your claim and show where I have even once gone after a minor spelling mistake. You posted false information, I pointed it out, you then proceded to make two more posts where you posted false things related to the original (I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that you would prove my correction false, but I know I'll be waiting since my post was correct).

You are responsible for posting false and misleading information and your post above was way off the charts. You should be apologizing for making some of the false claims you do, but I have already seen the tactics you will take to blame others when you post false things.

I thought this one would have been obvious. There are multiple factors that can make things look bad or less good than they could. Pointing out that one thing can cause bad image quality doesn't in any way show that something else can't. From what I have heard FMJ did have a bad master. I haven't seen the master and don't know if the HD DVD maintained at least the level of image quality that was in the master, but the very high average bitrate for that one gives a pretty good idea that they were bandwidth limited. The 50% rule of thumb would have given that title a peak bitrate of 38.8Mbps for just the video, but we know that the video and everything is limited to about 30Mbps on HD DVD.

It is fine to love HD DVD as much as you do. But there is no good reason for you to twist things away reality. If you understood the bandwidth issue you wouldn't make some of the claims you do (unless your goal was to deceive). At this point you can choose to educate yourself on the issue, or you can decide not to, but that won't stop me from pointing out false or misleading things about this issue.

--Darin

Didn't even know we had this thread. It should be a sticky like the Blu-ray one is!

Since they're too lazy to sticky this thread, I'm just going to bookmark it.

I won't buy anything that is 640kbps.

Why can't these studios just list the dang things. I also wasn't aware that the 1.5 mbps DD-Plus tracks were a couple of bits higher than DTS...but hey, no dialnorm.

you will and you know it. i always get a chuckle when people make big sweeping declarations like this over some obscure performance standard. "i won't buy anything that doesn't have uncompressed audio! i won't buy anything that doesn't come from a 4K transfer! i won't buy anything with film grain in it! i won't buy anything that isn't 7.1-channel 24/96 DTS Master!!!" people do that all the time. did it ever occur to you that sometimes the encoders listen to or watch something and determine that any higher than 640 KBPS or any more than 12 MBPS or something would just be wasting bits for anyone not viewing the movie on broadcast-grade professional equipment? and then, what, are you going to not buy anything warner releases? what if lucasfilm released the original star wars trilogy tomorrow and it only had DD+ 640KBPS? would you not buy it?

You posted way to much to spin to quote

Firstly just look at my post history and you will see many threads where I mention the various peaks of Dolby TrueHD 16/48 and 24/48 when disproving the blu-speak talking points about King Kong and TrueHD. I don't know why Universal decided not to include TrueHD on King Kong but a TrueHD 16/48 track would of used the same amount of space whether you like it or not. Since <1% of Universals titles have TrueHD it is clear that they aren't interesting in releasing TrueHD tracks, hopefully that will change.

You were humiliated when I showed that neutral studios favor HD DVD audio quality so you had to retreat to typo errors in a pathetic attempt to save face. Here's a radical idea, go to highdefdigest.com, look up movies released by Paramount and Warner, then tell me which version gets the better audio
And I will still accept your apology in public or over PM, I am a very patient individual so I can wait until you recognize how ridiculous you are.

The Matrix Trilogy is a tier 0 transfer with True HD, 2x5.1 tracks, 1x2.0 track, 4xcommentaries(probably <192 kbps each), and IME to boot. We'll see what happens with Saving Private Ryan when Dreamworks decides to get their act together and decides to release more the 3 movies. Maybe some reading will help you out before you reply to me, especially since you lie by saying that I don't know the difference between ABR, CBR, VBR despite my post his completely disproving your ridiculous lies.

Have a nice day

Dude, calm down. Darin is right. You guys are equivocating on the term "bandwidth." Look, if King Kong has a VBR encode that averages 20MBPS, that means it's reasonable to assume that there are points in the movie where it maxes out at around 28 MBPS, give or take. With that in mind, you know that a 1.5MBPS DD+ track will always be accomodated in the bandwidth pipe of 30 MBPS total. On the other hand, if you introduce TrueHD, you need to accomodate the fact that it, too, is VBR. It can conceivably peak at as much as 18 MBPS and often averages around 2MBPS for a 48/16 encode. Why can't you have TrueHD and maintain the video encode? Well, what happens if, at the same point in the movie, the video needs to peak at 28-29MBPS and the True HD audio also needs to peak, even if that peak is only 6MBPS? You can't fit 36 MBPS in the pipe with HD-DVD. What's more, video and audio are likely to peak together to accomodate things like explosions, action-packed scenes, gunfights, etc. If I had to guess, I would imagine there were numerous times in the course of that particular movie where you could not have fit the existing quality video encode with the demands of a lossless audio track.

What you keep talking about is not bandwidth, but disc space. Except you've said "bandwidth" more than once as if you were using it interchangably with "disc space," which is where the critical distinction in this argument is. Was there more than enough disc space on "King Kong" for the current encode of and DD True HD? Absolutely. That's not the limiting factor here. The limiting factor is bandwidth, and that in the event that you want to include True HD, you need to make sure that even when the video bitrate peaks, there's still room for whatever bit demand True HD needs in order to preserve the original data fully. If it can't do that, you can't use it. You need to use a lossy codec with a static bitrate instead. Which I'd bet the house is the reason we got DD+ (I mean outside of the fact that Universal refuses to use it pretty much across the board at all, for what seem like other reasons).

So next time you decide to be as rude and smug as you just came off, you might want to make sure you understand the argument you're participating in. You deride the Blu-Ray fanatics and "haters of HD-DVD," the implication being that they're fanboys. Yes, they're fanboys. Fanboys are annoying. And you're acting like one.

is this about right?

Dolby TrueHD 5.1 16-bit == Compact Disc Audio
Dolby TrueHD 5.1 24-bit == DVD-Audio/SACD

trent

Not quite because CD is stereo, 2.0

One of the big rationales behind SACD and DVD-A is that it is 5.1 surround sound (also supported other numbers of channels like 5.0, 4.1, etc) and both use LPCM. So the big difference between CD and SACD/DVD-A is the number of channels.

i know about the number of channels. i'm only interested in the sound quality of TrueHD from 16-bit to 24-bit.

trent

I missed this post from before.

There you go again, and I repeat what I said in the post your responded to before you ignored the bandwidth issue again:

Fitting in the disc space doesn't mean the track would have worked with the video encoding on there because of bandwidth. Not sure how many times I have to repeat that to get you to quit playing your game with just the space where it looks like you are trying to make it sound like they could have just put a TrueHD track on there and it would have worked with the current video encode.

I believe we've been over this before, but not only did Universal release 2 movies with TrueHD before King Kong even came out, but Accepted came out the same day as KK and had been announced as getting TrueHD and Miami Vice that was scheduled for after KK also had been announced as getting TrueHD, but neither of those titles actually ended up getting it.

I wasn't humiliated at all (I have mentioned multiple times that Warner has favored HD DVD for their audio and I believe I've mentioned before that Paramount tends to use 1.5Mbps for HD DVD and 640k for DD), but you really should be humiliated by what looks like dishonesty on your part. People can judge for themselves by looking at the original exchange here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&#post10642892

I was on the mark that you were claiming something that isn't true and you showed your true colors there. Now you claim that I was picking on typo errors. So, show everybody where your typo is in, "... when neither format gets lossless audio HD DVD always gets the better deal ...". That is false, as I pointed out, so I would like to see you backup your claim now and show us where the typo is. Before you claimed that I was going after minor spelling mistakes:

and since you couldn't back that up when I asked you to, you now claim that I went after "typo errors". You should be ashamed of claiming that what I went after was a minor spelling error and now that you've changed that to typo errors you should show people what the typo was in what you said, or apologize for the things you are doing to keep from admitting that you were wrong, when you and I both know that what you posted was and is wrong.

You know you were wrong, I know you were wrong, and others know you were wrong. You should be apologizing for not being a man about it and playing the games you have afterward to try to make it look like you weren't wrong and that I was just picking on a minor spelling error or typo. I addressed exactly what you said, which wasn't and isn't true. And I don't see any typo in there. A false statement, but no typo and definitely no minor spelling error that I picked on.

You haven't disproved anything I've said. You have proven what you will do when you post something that isn't true and somebody points it out.

And since you claim to know the difference between ABR, CBR, VBR, I ask again why you then posted:

when those rates were the ABRs for VBR content and so in no way tell you that those would have fit in the 30Mbps of bandwidth with TrueHD tracks and the same video. If you didn't understand that then it was just a mistake (we all make them), but if you truely understood all that and still posted what you did, that wouldn't be a good sign as far as your trustworthiness on these subjects.

--Darin

hmm I dunno then, there are alot of threads where 16 bit and 24 bit audio is discussed to death

I'm not going to get in an arguement with you again. Whether it is over the superiority of DD+ 1.5 mbps to DD 640 kbps which you admit but won't let go of for some reason. Or whether it is over Dolby TrueHD, etc rinse repeat. If you want to continue your useless rants just PM me.

I fell your pain.

I don't have the time to respond to Blu Ray troll posts anymore.

Bless you for your strong stomach.