or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Matrix hits HD DVD May 22. BD release "later"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Matrix hits HD DVD May 22. BD release "later" - Page 8

post #211 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

In most cases where the HD DVD release has lossless audio and the BD release does not, it is simply because the BD release (at 25 gigs) has 5 Gigs less than the HD DVD release and the audio could not fit.

Perfect example of this is Happy Feet. Would you rather they encode the cideo at a lower bitrate for the BD version, so that the lossless audio could fit too?

Why didn't Warners just use a BD-50 and include a PCM or TrueHD for the BD release of Happy Feet?
post #212 of 358
A lot of off-topic, argumentative and otherwise unnecessary posts have been removed.
post #213 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema View Post

Why didn't Warners just use a BD-50 and include a PCM or TrueHD for the BD release of Happy Feet?

It's very possible that the 50gb replicators were bogged down with Sony 50b titles - espcially the 500K+ Casino Royale.
post #214 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by joekun View Post

Vassili, it's cool that you enjoy these features, and I agree that having it is better than not having it. Of course, having the movies is better than not having the movies regardless of extras.

Honestly though, if I were format neutral and there was an HD-DVD version with IME and flipper discs next to a BD version with no IME and all content on one side for the same price I would go with the BD every time.

I assume you have HD-DVD since you've seen these IME features before, and I have yet to see any BD only owners state that the lack of this feature would be a deal breaker or even a disappointment to them. On the other hand many are disappointed that we have to wait longer for the release.

BDA's fault? Sure, but Warner has to share in the blame as well, holding back films for one feature that people aren't really beating down the doors for.

That's the equivalent of saying we should blame Fox and Disney for not releasing on HD DVD because they think it's the superior format. It's absurd to blame Warner when they want HDi and BD-J implemention for their releases. BD must wholly accept the blame for the piss poor impementation of interactivity.
post #215 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema View Post

Why didn't Warners just use a BD-50 and include a PCM or TrueHD for the BD release of Happy Feet?

Most likely a combination of cost and/or availability of production slots.
post #216 of 358
What is the deal hating flippers? as long as the movie is on one side and extras on the other and you do not have to flip the disc to watch the entire movie who cares?
post #217 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

In most cases where the HD DVD release has lossless audio and the BD release does not, it is simply because the BD release (at 25 gigs) has 5 Gigs less than the HD DVD release and the audio could not fit.

Perfect example of this is Happy Feet. Would you rather they encode the cideo at a lower bitrate for the BD version, so that the lossless audio could fit too?

Maybe you didn't understand the question, because it doesn't look like you even tried to answer it. I'll repeat it and add a clarification:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Do you believe that Warner should hold back 24/48 lossless from Blu-ray because of issues on HD DVD with fitting that in either their bandwidth or space? In short, should they limit the quality of the Blu-ray for HD DVD, or should they make the Blu-ray version the best it can be within Blu-ray's limitations (not HD DVD's)?

In case it wasn't clear, I was asking about 16/48 lossless (which isn't really lossless from a 24/48 original) vs 24/48 lossless. Audio masters are mostly 24/48 from what I've heard, yet Warner has been limiting the audio to 16/48 for lossless tracks for releases like "The Departed". In your opinion, should Warner do that when there is plenty of space and bandwidth on the Blu-ray disc to use the original bit depth of the audio, instead of cutting it down from the original, like on the HD DVD version?

You complain about how unfair it is for Blu-ray to hold HD DVD back, so I'm wondering if you are going to be consistent or if you feel that the Blu-ray releases should be degraded for HD DVD's limitations.

--Darin
post #218 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanlee View Post

What is the deal hating flippers? as long as the movie is on one side and extras on the other and you do not have to flip the disc to watch the entire movie who cares?


I don't have a problem with flippers but I do like having single sided disc with artwork on the other side. If that means the Matrix would come in at twelve or so disc than I would rather have flippers though.
post #219 of 358
"I don't have a problem with flippers but I do like having single sided disc with artwork on the other side"

To me that artwork is looked at for the 5 seconds the disc goes from the case to the player so it's not a big deal. If the movie side is a DL/30GB hd-dvd it should not be a concern to anyone.
post #220 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanlee View Post

"I don't have a problem with flippers but I do like having single sided disc with artwork on the other side"

To me that artwork is looked at for the 5 seconds the disc goes from the case to the player so it's not a big deal. If the movie side is a DL/30GB hd-dvd it should not be a concern to anyone.

I'm not that worked up that I won't buy flippers but I do like single sided better. I remember the first regular dvd of the Matrix with Neo on the front of it- very cool!
post #221 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Maybe you didn't understand the question, because it doesn't look like you even tried to answer it. I'll repeat it and add a clarification:
In case it wasn't clear, I was asking about 16/48 lossless (which isn't really lossless from a 24/48 original) vs 24/48 lossless. Audio masters are mostly 24/48 from what I've heard, yet Warner has been limiting the audio to 16/48 for lossless tracks for releases like "The Departed". In your opinion, should Warner do that when there is plenty of space and bandwidth on the Blu-ray disc to use the original bit depth of the audio, instead of cutting it down from the original, like on the HD DVD version?

You complain about how unfair it is for Blu-ray to hold HD DVD back, so I'm wondering if you are going to be consistent or if you feel that the Blu-ray releases should be degraded for HD DVD's limitations.

--Darin

Excuse my ignorance. But maybe you can explain how 16 bits at 48 kHz cannot reflect the full fidelity of the original 24/48 sampling assuming that all tracks are mixed/mastered at that rate? Indeed, having more bits in the original recording is mostly (not only) to allow more headroom above noise to play around with. I'm wondering whether the actual "headroom" of 24 bits when it's actually replayed at 16 bits is actually missing any of the actual useable bits (i.e., those which are actually replicadable with audio equipment). Hence when DD says bit for bit identical are they actually saying you can be assured that the 16 bit representation of the compressed 24 bit track, has, from the standpoint of the compression algorithms taken into account non "useable" bits?

And I wonder if someone has looked at the bit level of a non-Warner blu ray disk the Legends of Jazz done in TrueHD - which received a 5 star rating for audio from Hi-Def Digest.http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/lege...zshowcase.html
post #222 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

Excuse my ignorance. But maybe you can explain how 16 bits at 48 kHz cannot reflect the full fidelity of the original 24/48 sampling assuming that all tracks are mixed/mastered at that rate?

I'm not really an expert in this part, but I believe that Filmmixer (who posts here and works in the sound field) is. I think the general consesus is they should at least be using 20/48 from 24/48 masters (which I am fine with). Filmmixer has posted stuff about the audible differences between 16/48 and 20/48, but I don't have a link at the moment.

As far as I know, Universal is doing their DD+ tracks at 24/48. They don't dither or cut those down to 16/48 before compression.

Also, there are other sounds getting mixed in. Toshiba seems to be knowledgeable enough about propagating errors that I believe they do their mixing in the player at 24/96. There the rates of the original also affect the errors that propagate through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

And I wonder if someone has looked at the bit level of a non-Warner blu ray disk the Legends of Jazz done in TrueHD - which received a 5 star rating for audio from Hi-Def Digest.http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/lege...zshowcase.html

If I had it and it would play in the PS3 I could check the rate, but I don't have it. I'm pretty sure the NIN disc with TrueHD was 24/48 on both formats.

--Darin
post #223 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

In case it wasn't clear, I was asking about 16/48 lossless (which isn't really lossless from a 24/48 original) vs 24/48 lossless. Audio masters are mostly 24/48 from what I've heard, yet Warner has been limiting the audio to 16/48 for lossless tracks for releases like "The Departed". In your opinion, should Warner do that when there is plenty of space and bandwidth on the Blu-ray disc to use the original bit depth of the audio, instead of cutting it down from the original, like on the HD DVD version?

Well first of all, I've been very satisfied by the sound of CDs for many years, and they are 16/44.

But secondly, your question is a bit of a moot point, since there was not enough space left on the Bluray disc for the TruHD track, let alone 24/48 L-PCM. Dual-layer 30 Gig HD DVD discs are the standard format for most HD DVD releases, whereas single-layer 25 Gig discs are the standard for the majority of Bluray releases.

I am not going to debate the reasons why this is the current situation today, only that it IS the current situation. If you want the studios to make 50 Gigs that norm for all Bluray releases, then I suggest you take that up with the studios - perhaps a petition?
post #224 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

There is absolutely no evidence at all to back this up. In fact all the evidence shows that Warner has access to plenty of BD50s and they use them all the time on titles like Superman Returns, The Searchers, Unforgiven. All of which had 20GB of extra space and none of which had PCM. I think its time to stop using the 'shortage of BD50' excuse.

BTW since Happy Feet only uses 15GB of disc space they did not need a BD50 to put a PCM track.

15 Gigs? I think if you'll take another look you'll find it was larger than that - unless you are leaving out the total content of everything on the disc and "cherry picking" just one video file...

There's plenty of evidence to back up my statement - however, your statement is just designed to throw a veil of doubt, no more, no less. I'll be happy to do a backup of Happy Feet next week when I'm at my HTPC so we can know what is on the disc. I'll report it back to this thread for you
post #225 of 358
Quote:


Do you think it would be fair for WB to hold back the HD DVD release of the movies just because BD-J is lagging behind? Do you not think that HD DVD has earned its release advantage by being prepared ahead of time?

You missed the whole point of the post. The point was that they should release both versions on 5/22 and just leave the IME off the BD. How does this equate to holding back anything? Why would you have a problem with that? Because you want a "release advantage?" You could still buy the exact same HD-DVD that you're going to get anyway it wouldn't affect you at all.

Quote:


That's the equivalent of saying we should blame Fox and Disney for not releasing on HD DVD because they think it's the superior format.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Fox and Disney think HD-DVD is the superior format? If they do then they SHOULD be releasing discs on HD-DVD.

Quote:


It's absurd to blame Warner when they want HDi and BD-J implemention for their releases. BD must wholly accept the blame for the piss poor impementation of interactivity.

Well you're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I blame WB for holding up a release that I want for a feature that I don't care about in additon to BDA for not having their act together to implement said useless feature. But again I'm talking to someone who owns 2 HD-DVD players, why do you care? You can buy the HD-DVD version.

There are certainly a lot of HD-DVD owners here wanting to rub in the fact that they're getting the Matrix first. That's fine, I do want to get it soon and am just irritated at the reasons it is being held up.
post #226 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by joekun View Post

...I blame WB for holding up a release that I want for a feature that I don't care about in additon to BDA for not having their act together to implement said useless feature...

There are certainly a lot of HD-DVD owners here wanting to rub in the fact that they're getting the Matrix first. That's fine, I do want to get it soon and am just irritated at the reasons it is being held up.

I feel your pain, joekun. I did make a point in the letter to Warner that even the majority of Bluray owners would rather have the films without the BDJ IME content than wait until the BDJ problems are sorted.

I think Warner is in a tough spot - they don't want to be accused of favouritism by the BDA if they release a better product in one format than the other. They've done the right thing by not holding back the HD DVD version of the Matrix, but I think they may still be open to opinions on releasing a non-IME BD version. It's probably worth a try.
post #227 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

But secondly, your question is a bit of a moot point, since there was not enough space left on the Bluray disc for the TruHD track, let alone 24/48 L-PCM.

Are you just making stuff up tonight? There was plenty of both bandwidth and space on "The Departed" disc. Same with "Superman Returns". How many ways are you going to find to avoid the question? If you aren't going to answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Audio masters are mostly 24/48 from what I've heard, yet Warner has been limiting the audio to 16/48 for lossless tracks for releases like "The Departed". In your opinion, should Warner do that when there is plenty of space and bandwidth on the Blu-ray disc to use the original bit depth of the audio, instead of cutting it down from the original, like on the HD DVD version?

please just say so, and don't make things up to avoid a real answer.

--Darin
post #228 of 358
Warner wants both format to survive so that they can cash in with their stupid THD.
post #229 of 358
Quote:


This doesn't make any sense to me. Fox and Disney think HD-DVD is the superior format? If they do then they SHOULD be releasing discs on HD-DVD.

No. I was saying Fox and Disney think Blu Ray is the superior format.
post #230 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

I'm not really an expert in this part, but I believe that Filmmixer (who posts here and works in the sound field) is. I think the general consesus is they should at least be using 20/48 from 24/48 masters (which I am fine with). Filmmixer has posted stuff about the audible differences between 16/48 and 20/48, but I don't have a link at the moment.

As far as I know, Universal is doing their DD+ tracks at 24/48. They don't dither or cut those down to 16/48 before compression.

Also, there are other sounds getting mixed in. Toshiba seems to be knowledgeable enough about propagating errors that I believe they do their mixing in the player at 24/96. There the rates of the original also affect the errors that propagate through.
If I had it and it would play in the PS3 I could check the rate, but I don't have it. I'm pretty sure the NIN disc with TrueHD was 24/48 on both formats.

--Darin


Well I guess you didn't answer the question. That's fine I'll need to go somewhere else for an answer to that one since dithering and noise shaping can be a very efficient process depending upon the techniques used, algorithms, etc. You're assuming Warner is compromising this process and I'm not satisfied they are. So your argument (or point) regarding Warner compromising Blu ray quality I can't accept at this time: well except insofar as they could incur (and pass it on to the consumer) a slightly higher cost by producing or using more 50 gb disks and using PCM. But an 8 bit difference is not a space issue is it? That's only related to the dynamic range. It's the sample freq which determines bandwidth size not the bit depth. At least I think that's the case.

However, on the TrueHD tracks which Warner has released how can I confirm they're in 16/48? I'm sure this info was on this site somewhere. Maybe not. I'd like to bookmark it.
post #231 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

Well I guess you didn't answer the question. That's fine I'll need to go somewhere else for an answer to that one since dithering and noise shaping can be a very efficient process depending upon the techniques used, algorithms, etc. You're assuming Warner is compromising this process and I'm not satisfied they are. So your argument (or point) regarding Warner compromising Blu ray quality I can't accept at this time: well except insofar as they could incur (and pass it on to the consumer) a slightly higher cost by producing or using more 50 gb disks and using PCM. But an 8 bit difference is not a space issue is it? That's only related to the dynamic range. It's the sample freq which determines bandwidth size not the bit depth. At least I think that's the case.

However, on the TrueHD tracks which Warner has released how can I confirm they're in 16/48? I'm sure this info was on this site somewhere. Maybe not. I'd like to bookmark it.

The base amount of space used by an audio track is determined by both bit rate and sampling rate (they are multiplied).

Base size = Audio Bit Depth per sample x Samples per second x Number of seconds of audio playtime.

If the data is then compressed, that base size on disc is then correspondingly reduced depending on the efficiency of the compression codec.
post #232 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icemage View Post

The base amount of space used by an audio track is determined by both bit rate and sampling rate (they are multiplied).

Base size = Audio Bit Depth per sample x Samples per second x Number of seconds of audio playtime.

If the data is then compressed, that base size on disc is then correspondingly reduced depending on the efficiency of the compression codec.

Boy, you just don't know anything about this stuff, do you?
post #233 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icemage View Post

The base amount of space used by an audio track is determined by both bit rate and sampling rate (they are multiplied).

Base size = Audio Bit Depth per sample x Samples per second x Number of seconds of audio playtime.

If the data is then compressed, that base size on disc is then correspondingly reduced depending on the efficiency of the compression codec.

Ok thanks for that.
post #234 of 358
I believe that WB favors HD DVD pure and simple.

Yes they could have released the BD version without BD-Java but they didn't.

Why on earth would WB release the Matrix on the same date as POTC 1&2. That does not make sense to me.
The Matrix was ready for a while and with so many dates in between they decide to release it on May 22?
Coincidence i think not.
post #235 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbay View Post

I believe that WB favors HD DVD pure and simple.

Yes they could have released the BD version without BD-Java but they didn't.

Why on earth would WB release the Matrix on the same date as POTC 1&2. That does not make sense to me.
The Matrix was ready for a while and with so many dates in between they decide to release it on May 22?
Coincidence i think not.


You would think that they all would favor HD-DVD because of the lower cost to produce disc. We all know how low cost is king at any company these days.
post #236 of 358
Quote:


Why on earth would WB release the Matrix on the same date as POTC 1&2. That does not make sense to me.
The Matrix was ready for a while and with so many dates in between they decide to release it on May 22?
Coincidence i think not.

A little corporal and corporate punishment to the Blu ray side. Warner saying, 'you won't get your damn specs firmed up then we'll teach ya a lesson..'
post #237 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by beatboy77 View Post

I think The Matrix will sell decently on HD-DVD, but not great. I completely see PotC blowing it away in sales for a number of reasons. The main reason being popularity and price.

I support both formats, but sometimes cant resist responding to your statements. I just cant help it.

as an FYI the Matrix Ultimate Edition (the more expensive one) has been available for pre-order for less then a day and its already at #44.

*60 minutes later and its now at #42
post #238 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

Maybe you somehow overlooked the links in my sig to the 2 lists I maintain. Happy Feet is already on it btw. Oh so my statement is designed to cast doubt but yours isn't? By the way can you point to any title where TrueHD was left off because of disc space? The actual sizes would be helpful if you have them. After all we wouldn't want to draw any conclusions without evidence to back it up. What with this being the AV Science forum. Yes please report back when you find only 15GB of data on the disc.

No probs, benes. I'll report back on it. I would find it hard to believe that they used a dual-layer disc if there was only 15 Gigs on it.

I'll post a full file/size listing when I have completed the test.
post #239 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Are you just making stuff up tonight? There was plenty of both bandwidth and space on "The Departed" disc. Same with "Superman Returns". How many ways are you going to find to avoid the question? If you aren't going to answer:
please just say so, and don't make things up to avoid a real answer.

--Darin

As usual you continue to pretend I didn't answer it when I already have. Now I expect you'll clog up 5 or 6 threads running around exclaiming that I'm avoiding the question. Save yourself the trouble and everyone else the aggravation
post #240 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

As usual you continue to pretend I didn't answer it when I already have.

If you really think you have answered Darin's question, would you mind quoting yourself so the rest of us can see exactly what the answer was?
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 Matrix hits HD DVD May 22. BD release "later"