"Official Plea to Warner to Utilize the Entire 50gb Blu-ray Disc!"
81 - 100 of 106 Posts
Three pages and nobody's brought up the specs. Alright.
Let's say Warner (or whoever) finds whatever wasteful solution they can to utilize all 8mbps possible for the audio, and also utilizes all 40mbps possible for video. On a dual-layer disc, they will have to have no less than 140 minutes (two hours, 20 minutes) of video to use up the whole disc. This is a maximized scenario, and assumes that the Blu-ray spec allows for a 40mbps VC-1/AVC stream to be decoded - I frankly don't know if it does. (We'll ignore MPEG2 since it's safe to stop pretending that it was ever a defendable codec for HD media.)
Most movies aren't this long. So unless there's oodles of bonus content waiting to fill the gaps for every movie, people had better get used to Blu-ray discs that aren't fully utilized. If the Blu-ray spec had allowed for better bitrates, there'd be reason to raise an eyebrow over underutilized media.
Let's say Warner (or whoever) finds whatever wasteful solution they can to utilize all 8mbps possible for the audio, and also utilizes all 40mbps possible for video. On a dual-layer disc, they will have to have no less than 140 minutes (two hours, 20 minutes) of video to use up the whole disc. This is a maximized scenario, and assumes that the Blu-ray spec allows for a 40mbps VC-1/AVC stream to be decoded - I frankly don't know if it does. (We'll ignore MPEG2 since it's safe to stop pretending that it was ever a defendable codec for HD media.)
Most movies aren't this long. So unless there's oodles of bonus content waiting to fill the gaps for every movie, people had better get used to Blu-ray discs that aren't fully utilized. If the Blu-ray spec had allowed for better bitrates, there'd be reason to raise an eyebrow over underutilized media.
First off...i don't appreciate your sarcasm. You would be surprised about studios looking to message boards for feedback regarding their products. For example, Sony is remastering "The Fifth Element" due to negative feedback.
Plus, your reply is flawed. Apples and Oranges. This is a Audio/Video board where we are discussing a/v quality of a certain studio. It's the complete opposite to a political debate on a sports message board.
First off...i don't appreciate your sarcasm. You would be surprised about studios looking to message boards for feedback regarding their products. For example, Sony is remastering "The Fifth Element" due to negative feedback.
Plus, your reply is flawed. Apples and Oranges. This is a Audio/Video board where we are discussing a/v quality of a certain studio. It's the complete opposite to a political debate on a sports message board.
Any studio or AV CE corporation that DIDN'T wish to monitor the responses or opinions of their products by early adopters couldn't last long IMO.
AVS is a barometer that is invaluable to these companies.
How are they to know if the products they produce have a broader future with consumers at large?
I believe many forum members would be shocked if they knew how closely AVS is scrutinized by commercial interests.
Think about it...(you marketing people know what I mean
![]()
).
AVS is a barometer that is invaluable to these companies.
How are they to know if the products they produce have a broader future with consumers at large?
I believe many forum members would be shocked if they knew how closely AVS is scrutinized by commercial interests.
Think about it...(you marketing people know what I mean
Common sense and goodwill prevails! Quite refreshing. Thank you.
![]()
Bradley
Quote:
Originally Posted by davwin /forum/post/0
Having said that though, of the different encodes between the 2 formats I've personally seen (World's Fastest Indian, Black Rain and MI: 3) none have had any noticable effect on picture/sound quality. I know that we've all probably read reviews (or seen for yourselves) different encodes that did show differences - with some favoring HD-DVD and some favoring Blu Ray. But, given the great majority of cross-platform titles, this would seem to be a waste of time for the studios.
My personal feeling is not to encourage the studios to do different encodes simply to fill respective disc space but, to do a better encode for both formats and quite frankly - To release more movies![]()
Common sense and goodwill prevails! Quite refreshing. Thank you.
Bradley
Yes, I can see quite a few good points here, but I'm not so sure it's the ones you intended. Now let's check this data real quick, the 2:20 running time you are talking about is referring to a full 50gb blu-ray disc. Let's say the average movie is around 1:45 to 2 hours long, that would mean between 20-35 "oodling" minutes of extra material would be needed to cram the last bit of space on a full 50gb blu-ray disc... The comparative running time on a full dual-layer 30gb HD DVD disc would be about 85 minutes. I don't know about you but I can think of a couple of movies longer than that, oh say 90% of them
![]()
. Which means, that as long as Warner keeps just using the same encode on both HD DVD and Blu-ray versions, the only movies that can use maxed out bitrate would have to be shorter than one and a half hours long...
Lets check those numbers though, shall we? After all, is 8mbps really just a wasteful use of space for audio? Well, just ONE LPCM 5.1 soundtrack uses 6912Kbps, and there is usually an option for standard DD5.1, another 640kbps+. It's not very unusual with one or more commentary tracks and additional french / spanish audio tracks. Maybe French/Spanish speaking people even want high quality audio too?! It doesn't really seem like 8mbps is that hard to reach after all for audio?
According to wikipedia, the maximum video bitrate for Blu-ray is 40.0Mbps, which yes does seem a bit on the excessive side, but still within the specs. Let's just drop that number to 30Mbps for the video bitrate, and we have a nice, healthy 175 minutes of high bitrate video available on a full 50gb blu-ray disc. Most movies are not longer than 3 hours, and can therefor fit nicely and still use a very high video & audio bitrate, and even have space available for HD extras.
But, aren't there still going to be movies that are too long to use a bitrate that high and still fit on one disc? Yes, there are. Let's check a few candidates for this category...
Gladiator (extended) 171 min - Wow, just under the limit...
Titanic 194 min - Yep, well over
LOTR: FOTR (extended) 208 min - Yeah, what do you think - it's LOTR
![]()
LOTR: TT (extended) 223 min - Same, of course...
LOTR: ROTK (extended) 251 min - Ditto
Godfather 175 min - Just passed with a whisper
Godfather II 200 min - Again, over
Godfather III 169 min - Another one right on the line
I could continue, but I'm sure you get the drift. Then again, how many would really want high bitrates on these kinds of movies anyway, right?! Oh, you would? My bad...
![]()
So what about HD DVD then? with the same 30Mbps video bitrate, that would come to 105 minutes, just for the movie, to fill up a dual-layer 30gb HD DVD disc. But, there really aren't that many movies longer than 1:45, huh? But, what kind of bitrate does that mean you have to use on a movie like LOTR: ROTK??? Uh, about 15Mbps... Exlcuding menus, additional audio, commentaries and extras of course. What, you want more than a 640kbps sound track? You ungrateful XxXx... Well then it would come to around ~10Mbps for the video... What do you mean that's low?? How much bitrate does a movie like LOTR:ROTK really need anyway? Hardly any action going on, no hard to encode stuff like fire, fog, rain etc either, so what are you complaining about!!
So, long story short - Why would they really need to do a separate encode for blu-ray anyway, bah.. it's all HUMBUG!
Yes, I can see quite a few good points here, but I'm not so sure it's the ones you intended. Now let's check this data real quick, the 2:20 running time you are talking about is referring to a full 50gb blu-ray disc. Let's say the average movie is around 1:45 to 2 hours long, that would mean between 20-35 "oodling" minutes of extra material would be needed to cram the last bit of space on a full 50gb blu-ray disc... The comparative running time on a full dual-layer 30gb HD DVD disc would be about 85 minutes. I don't know about you but I can think of a couple of movies longer than that, oh say 90% of them
Lets check those numbers though, shall we? After all, is 8mbps really just a wasteful use of space for audio? Well, just ONE LPCM 5.1 soundtrack uses 6912Kbps, and there is usually an option for standard DD5.1, another 640kbps+. It's not very unusual with one or more commentary tracks and additional french / spanish audio tracks. Maybe French/Spanish speaking people even want high quality audio too?! It doesn't really seem like 8mbps is that hard to reach after all for audio?
According to wikipedia, the maximum video bitrate for Blu-ray is 40.0Mbps, which yes does seem a bit on the excessive side, but still within the specs. Let's just drop that number to 30Mbps for the video bitrate, and we have a nice, healthy 175 minutes of high bitrate video available on a full 50gb blu-ray disc. Most movies are not longer than 3 hours, and can therefor fit nicely and still use a very high video & audio bitrate, and even have space available for HD extras.
But, aren't there still going to be movies that are too long to use a bitrate that high and still fit on one disc? Yes, there are. Let's check a few candidates for this category...
Gladiator (extended) 171 min - Wow, just under the limit...
Titanic 194 min - Yep, well over
LOTR: FOTR (extended) 208 min - Yeah, what do you think - it's LOTR
LOTR: TT (extended) 223 min - Same, of course...
LOTR: ROTK (extended) 251 min - Ditto
Godfather 175 min - Just passed with a whisper
Godfather II 200 min - Again, over
Godfather III 169 min - Another one right on the line
I could continue, but I'm sure you get the drift. Then again, how many would really want high bitrates on these kinds of movies anyway, right?! Oh, you would? My bad...
So what about HD DVD then? with the same 30Mbps video bitrate, that would come to 105 minutes, just for the movie, to fill up a dual-layer 30gb HD DVD disc. But, there really aren't that many movies longer than 1:45, huh? But, what kind of bitrate does that mean you have to use on a movie like LOTR: ROTK??? Uh, about 15Mbps... Exlcuding menus, additional audio, commentaries and extras of course. What, you want more than a 640kbps sound track? You ungrateful XxXx... Well then it would come to around ~10Mbps for the video... What do you mean that's low?? How much bitrate does a movie like LOTR:ROTK really need anyway? Hardly any action going on, no hard to encode stuff like fire, fog, rain etc either, so what are you complaining about!!
So, long story short - Why would they really need to do a separate encode for blu-ray anyway, bah.. it's all HUMBUG!
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
All studios should make the best quality hi-def products they can.
All studios should make the best quality hi-def products they can.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think an CE or Studio listens to views on AVS. The sheer amount of whinging fighting BS that goes on in both HD subforums completely destroys any credability of the few posts with serious intent.
![]()
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink /forum/post/0
Any studio or AV CE corporation that DIDN'T wish to monitor the responses or opinions of their products by early adopters couldn't last long IMO.
AVS is a barometer that is invaluable to these companies.
How are they to know if the products they produce have a broader future with consumers at large?
I believe many forum members would be shocked if they knew how closely AVS is scrutinized by commercial interests.
Think about it...(you marketing people know what I mean).![]()
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think an CE or Studio listens to views on AVS. The sheer amount of whinging fighting BS that goes on in both HD subforums completely destroys any credability of the few posts with serious intent.
They probably will utilize most if not all of it...probably put on multiple lossless tracks...PCM and TrueHD, and hell maybe even some uncompressed director's commentary.
Maybe I am just cynical but I see it being the same transfer and soundtrack as the HD-DVD, with an additional PCM. (nothing at all to base this on, just wild accusations)
Maybe I am just cynical but I see it being the same transfer and soundtrack as the HD-DVD, with an additional PCM. (nothing at all to base this on, just wild accusations)
BD50/PCM should be the standard.
I don't care about codecs, The world's fastest Indian was a BD25/Mpeg2 release and it had more film grain and fine detail than the 30gb/VC1 HD DVD release.
This is just one example, I know, but still something to consider before you pick favorites when it comes to codecs.
![]()
I don't care about codecs, The world's fastest Indian was a BD25/Mpeg2 release and it had more film grain and fine detail than the 30gb/VC1 HD DVD release.
This is just one example, I know, but still something to consider before you pick favorites when it comes to codecs.
81 - 100 of 106 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!