AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What is superbit, and do they play on regular players?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,554 Posts
Yes. Superbit http://www.sonypictures.com/cthe/superbit/

is a trademark name for using a high bitrate (data rate) to encode the video -- which supposedly does not leave room for "extras" on the DVD, as "all" the disc space is used -- to achieve a "superior" quality image/picture.


All Superbit DVDs that I know of also use DTS sound in addition to Dolby Digital (DD). Many on this forum prefer DTS to DD, though it's been a much-argued/debated topic. DTS is "considered" to provide better, richer, deeper, fuller sound (but ... it's 4db "louder" than DD, so to do a true comparison between a DTS track and the same-film DD track, you have to boost the DD track +4db when you make the comparison; this also assumes the "soundmix" is approximately the same for both the DTS and the DD versions).


Superbit DVDs are DVDs and conform to the DVD format -- i.e., they will play on all DVD players. They claim to provide better picture quality, but as many have noted, some recent DVDs like MATRIX: RELOADED equal or better Superbit DVDs for PQ, as studios are taking more care to produce better-looking DVDs these days than they were when DVD first came out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by eweiss
Yes. Superbit http://www.sonypictures.com/cthe/superbit/

is a trademark name for using a high bitrate (data rate) to encode the video -- which supposedly does not leave room for "extras" on the DVD, as "all" the disc space is used -- to achieve a "superior" quality image/picture.


All Superbit DVDs that I know of also use DTS sound in addition to Dolby Digital (DD). Many on this forum prefer DTS to DD, though it's been a much-argued/debated topic. DTS is "considered" to provide better, richer, deeper, fuller sound (but ... it's 4db "louder" than DD, so to do a true comparison between a DTS track and the same-film DD track, you have to boost the DD track +4db when you make the comparison; this also assumes the "soundmix" is approximately the same for both the DTS and the DD versions).


Superbit DVDs are DVDs and conform to the DVD format -- i.e., they will play on all DVD players. They claim to provide better picture quality, but as many have noted, some recent DVDs like MATRIX: RELOADED equal or better Superbit DVDs for PQ, as studios are taking more care to produce better-looking DVDs these days than they were when DVD first came out.
In fairness to Superbit, you should compare apples to apples. The Patriot SB, is far better looking than the SE. Same with the Fifth Element, Dracula, XXX, etc, etc. Yes, some newer DVDs do look great though... ALL SB titles have anamorphic W/S, DD, and DTS. That's one of the other benefits to buying them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Cool. Thanks
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,823 Posts
Columbia should get it right first time and put all the extras on disc 2, Superbit is a ploy to make us buy the same title again because they didnt do it right first time round.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by FoxyMulder
Columbia should get it right first time and put all the extras on disc 2, Superbit is a ploy to make us buy the same title again because they didnt do it right first time round.
Exactly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by FoxyMulder
Columbia should get it right first time and put all the extras on disc 2, Superbit is a ploy to make us buy the same title again because they didnt do it right first time round.
Why is it a "ploy"? Is your SE incompatible with your DVD Player? I should hope not! YOU have the choice to double-dip or not. That doesn't make it a "ploy". We're a very small market niche. Most people will never know, or even care about a higher bitrate, EE, DTS Audio, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by audiom3
Why is it a "ploy"? Is your SE incompatible with your DVD Player? I should hope not! YOU have the choice to double-dip or not. That doesn't make it a "ploy". We're a very small market niche. Most people will never know, or even care about a higher bitrate, EE, DTS Audio, etc.
There is no substantial *technical* reason that all DVDs should be

anything less than Superbit quality. The only thing that should be

different in any release is the extra features/2 disk, packaging

Directors Cut, etc.


What is needed is a independent branding that all DVDs should

be able to obtain. One that buyers could recognize as a quality

level that could be depended on from title to title.


There is nothing more irritating to get a copy of a favorite movie

and the DVD transfer is crap.


b2b
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,823 Posts
Its a ploy because they KNOW theyre releasing inferior titles then they come along and re-release using the term Superbit, they should get it right first time is what many consumers would like to see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,137 Posts
I don't understand why people want to single out CTS (Sony). For crying out loud double and triple dipping is a pretty common industry practice. How many releases of Dirty Dancing has there been, isn't the count at three now? Why couldn't Paramount get the Star Trek films right the first time, or the Jack Ryan series for that matter? Does it make the practice more palatable to collectors when the disc in question does not bear the "Superbit" moniker?


As has already been pointed out, most consumers couldn't care less FoxyMulder. Only anal retentive videophile type folk who frequent forums such as AVS care, and a lot of them double and triple dip anyway in spite of their complaints because they want the best version of a film they can get. The fact that they didn't get it the first time is water under the bridge for a lot of people. Bottom line: for some people it's a curse, and others a it's blessing.


--Jerome
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by FoxyMulder
Its a ploy because they KNOW theyre releasing inferior titles then they come along and re-release using the term Superbit, they should get it right first time is what many consumers would like to see.
That is the exact reason I _NEVER_ buy before renting. I have enough

expensive junk around the house as it is. No need to waste money

on low quality, crappy DVDs to pile up gathering dust.


b2b
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jsaliga
I don't understand why people want to single out CTS (Sony). For crying out loud double and triple dipping is a pretty common industry practice. How many releases of Dirty Dancing has their been, isn't the count at three now? Why couldn't Paramount get the Star Trek films right the first time, or the Jack Ryan series for that matter? Does it make the practice more palatable to collectors when the disc in question does not bear the "Superbit" moniker?


As has already been pointed out, most consumers couldn't care less FoxyMulder. Only anal retentive videophile type folk who frequent forums such as AVS care, and a lot of them double and triple dip anyway in spite of their complaints because they want the best version of a film they can get. The fact that they didn't get it the first time is water under the bridge for a lot of people. Bottom line: for some people it's a curse, and others a it's blessing.


--Jerome
Ack!!! So much for all of this HDTV hype. Let the masses eat twinkies

and watch TV on 19" analogs. :D


b2b
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
Regarding the Jack Ryan trilogy above, the existing releases were much earlier, non-anamamphoric releases. The SE's are anamaphoric and much higher quality.


The problem with superbit is what they did with titles like Men In Black 2 and XXX, and Charlies Angels. They release the original versions then after only a few months, release the superbit version. There is no reason why the original release couldn't be the same quality as the superbit. dvd transfer technology didn't jump by leaps and bounds in that three month time period. They actually lose some sales because I hardly ever buy a CTS release right away because I figure there will be a superbit two months down the road.


Some of the titles, like Lawrence of Arabia and Das Boot, were much improved. In the case of lawerence, because of it was a completely new transfer. Das Boot was another earlier dvd release that could be done better with newer transfer technology. But there's no excuse for XXX, Men in Black 2, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,137 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by gtaylor74
Regarding the Jack Ryan trilogy above, the existing releases were much earlier, non-anamamphoric releases. The SE's are anamaphoric and much higher quality.
I understand that, but the comment still stands. Why couldn't they be "done right" at that time. Warner was sure as heck producing anamorphic DVDs then, so why not Paramount?


I'm not saying waiting on CTS titles for a Superbit release is a bad strategy. Personally, I don't buy DVDs very often these days. I'm pretty much a HDTV kind of guy. But I will buy an occasional DVD here and there. New releases are always rentals though, since I've bought my share of DVDs that were a mess PQ-wise.


--Jerome
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by gtaylor74


Some of the titles, like Lawrence of Arabia and Das Boot, were much improved. In the case of lawerence, because of it was a completely new transfer.
Is the transfer that much improved? LoA is just one of my favorite

screen classics. I would love to see it in 70mm at a restored theater

like the one in Seattle.


Next time I get the urge to watch it, I may have to pick up a copy

of the SB version. :)


b2b
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,999 Posts
Talk about double/triple-dipping, the same car gets sold five years in a row before they actually change it for real!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,823 Posts
I'm sure if there is apathy about it and consumers let them get away with it this practice will continue, but why can't Columbia do what they did with Panic Room and make the title Superbit and as good as it can look and sound, why should they release a title such as Spiderman and then 1 year later release a Superbit version when the technology is there to produce a pristine grade edition first time round, this isn't about the fact that people like myself will buy the same title twice if a better version is released this is about the fact we as consumers too often get ripped off and the dvd market will be harmed if companies take advantage of the prospective buyers we will eventually boycott certain titles on first release as i am now doing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by WanMan
Talk about double/triple-dipping, the same car gets sold five years in a row before they actually change it for real!
And? Who do you know that will buy the same type of car five years in a row?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
Quote:
Is the transfer that much improved? LoA is just one of my favorite
YES! The superbit is a new transfer and was personally supervised by Robert Harris who restored the film in the late 80's with director David Leans approval. The superbit is really a must have for fans of the film. I have both the previous LE and the new superbit and the SB is leaps and bounds better in my opinion. Here is a good link to some discussion about the superbit with input by Robert Harris himself.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=152422
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
Quote:
I don't understand why people want to single out CTS (Sony). For crying out loud double and triple dipping is a pretty common industry practice.
Yes, but no other studio has an entire product line dedicated to the notion of double dipping. If all they did was release Superbit versions of old titles that came out on DVD *before* Superbit's came out then it would be a good idea. However, what does it say when they release a film years after they started making Superbits and then re-release it in Superbit form 5 months later? Also, these Superbit re-releases almost never have the same extras that the first release had, forcing buyers to choose between a proper transfer and the extras, or better yet, buy both versions.


I'm sorry, but Superbits are a very obvious and underhanded marketing ploy to suck more money out of your wallet for the same goods that other studios have the decency to pack into one release on the first try. Personally, I never buy new-releases from Columbia/Tri-Star since I know the transfer is probably sub-standard and a Superbit may already be planned. (Yes, I did mean sub-standard. Superbits are competetive with first-rate releases from other studios in terms of bit-rate. Columbia/Tri-Star's normal non-Superbit titles usually have much lower bit-rates by comparison and are excessively filtered to make those bitrates work without artifacting.) As much as I might like the extra's, I never buy both version of a given film as a matter of principle.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top