Lord of the Rings and Bitrates

[darinp2]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

I wasn't aware anyone actually would want to watch the theatrical versions again.

You may not be aware of that, but New Line is. I would be happy to place a wager that the theatrical versions will come to Blu-ray first.

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

And as you've demonstrated a lot of times, you don't know anything about a lot of aspects of production.

Interesting slam giving the lack of comprehension of compression you've shown in this thread with:

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

BD-50, like DVD-9 before it really taps out at 2.5 hours for optimal audio and video performance

and your justification for that claim. It wouldn't surprise me if the other things you are thinking of are also cases where you don't understand the subject matter as well as you think you do. Can you back up your claim about my understanding by showing a specific example? I hope it won't be one of those where some people here have showed their ignorance about disc production issues, but please go ahead and back up your claim. I'm really interested to see what you can come up with.

I guarantee you and others here that paidgeek will not agree with your:

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

BD-50, like DVD-9 before it really taps out at 2.5 hours for optimal audio and video performance

You could use your mod status to delete this post and keep readers from seeing that you don't know the subject matter that well, or you could be a man and stand up and let paidgeek comment on that when he gets back (or figure out on your own that you misled readers here with your claim). If he will comment on your claim, then people can decide whether to believe him or you. But just for a clue in case you think paidgeek will actually agree with you, you can look at The Patriot, where Sony put a 2 hour and 55 minute movie on a BD50 (with PCM for English, 4 other DD tracks, and subtitles in many languages). Or look at Sony's Across the Universe coming out next week, which is listed as 133 minutes and Sony put at least 130 minutes of HD extras on there (with one BD50 for the release) according to highdefdigest. I guess somebody should tell paidgeek that you say BD50s tap out at 2.5 hours for optimal audio and video performance, since Sony put over 4 hours of HD content on that one disc and even if you allow for lower bitrates for extras, they would have to cram those 130 minutes of HD extras into the equivalent of about 20 minutes worth of space leftover after the movie.

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

I cited Pirates 3, which at 168 minutes, and full of major complicated action/battle scenes, as weel as a similar color scheme/shooting process to LOTR

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...16&postcount=3

The disc size is 45GB, with an average bitrate of 22.14 for the video

As I mentioned previously, there are definately scenes that show signs of being bitstarved.

And how did you decide that they were being bitstarved? You just said that the disc size is 45GB, so if bit starvation was the problem, then why do you think they left all that empty space on the disc?

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

So given that Fellowship is 178min (208min EE), 179min(223 EE) for Two Towers, and Return of the King 201 min (251 EE), I fail to see how they could be placed onto a single disc, or have a lower bitrate without severely compromising the quality.

You may fail to see it, but that doesn't make it so. If you understood more about compression, maybe you would see why your logic for your claim about BD50s and 2.5 hours is faulty.

Originally Posted by Bullseye

I have Alexander which is on two discs. If it means the best possible quality i see no problem with two discs.

Alexander was 214 minutes (over 3 and a half hours) in 50GB, although spread over 2 discs. And if it is the same video transfer as the HD DVD (which I believe it is), then the video actually takes up less than 30GB according to data compiled by benes.

As another example, the Director's Cut of Troy was 198 minutes and in 30GB on HD DVD with a 16/48 TrueHD track. Going to 20/48 wouldn't add much. That cut of Troy is 3 minutes shorter than the theatrical release of ROTK, longer than either of the other two theatrical versions of the LOTR movies, and only 10 minutes shorter than the extended version of the first LOTR movie, but the video takes up less than 28GB. That Troy is VC-1 (on both formats), and New Line could use VC-1 for the LOTR movies if they want to (I don't know if they will still be using it by the time these come out).

I think it is sad that a mod here is misleading readers about a subject he doesn't have that great a grasp of, and then when I try to steer things toward the truth nicely (IMO), decides to take the tact he did. I didn't stand aside as Amir misled people on AVS about compression and I'm not going to stand aside as WickyWoo misleads people here about compression just because it might get me banned so that readers won't see the truth. I wonder if the owners here want a mod telling people that BD50s top out at 2.5 hours for optimal video and audio while paidgeek and Sony are putting way more than that on BD50s.

If this ends up being my last post, I suggest that people ask paidgeek about the limitations of BD50s, when he gets back, and don't just trust this 2.5 hour limitation claim.

--Darin

[Rob Tomlin]

Nice post Darin.

I, as well as others, have had to point out on several occasions that WickyWoo is not an Insider. It would probably be a good idea if he stopped acting like one.

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by darinp2

As another example, the Director's Cut of Troy was 198 minutes and in 30GB on HD DVD with a 16/48 TrueHD track. Going to 20/48 wouldn't add much. That cut of Troy is 3 minutes shorter than the theatrical release of ROTK, longer than either of the other two theatrical versions of the LOTR movies, and only 10 minutes shorter than the extended version of the first LOTR movie, but the video takes up less than 28GB. That Troy is VC-1 (on both formats), and New Line could use VC-1 for the LOTR movies if they want to (I don't know if they will still be using it by the time these come out).


--Darin

I will be very disappointed if the LOTR films on BD end up looking like Troy DC.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by darinp2

As another example, the Director's Cut of Troy was 198 minutes and in 30GB on HD DVD with a 16/48 TrueHD track. Going to 20/48 wouldn't add much. That cut of Troy is 3 minutes shorter than the theatrical release of ROTK, longer than either of the other two theatrical versions of the LOTR movies, and only 10 minutes shorter than the extended version of the first LOTR movie, but the video takes up less than 28GB. That Troy is VC-1 (on both formats), and New Line could use VC-1 for the LOTR movies if they want to (I don't know if they will still be using it by the time these come out).

It would be a shame if LOTR looks like Troy DC does on Blu-ray.

Troy was nearly pushed back and I have a good idea that it was because of the additional time needed to encode this movie.

The 2.5 hours on a BD50 can be considered an ideal goal not necessarily because of bandwidth, but because of the time it allows the studios to do encodes. The more bandwidth you are able to have for any particular flick, the less time you spend encoding it.

Has this mattered so much at the moment? No. Do you want more output on HDM from all studios? Yes.

2+2=4

The #1 title for PQ last year had all the extras on a second disc, it was 2.5 hours long.

I think a comparison of Troy DC from a 28GB delivery to a 48GB delivery would have been very telling.

[Uxi]

I hope we get the EE and won't buy the theatricals. I could accept a seamlessly branched version, but wouldn't prefer that unless the bandwidth hit wasn't too bad. These titles (at least the EE) being so long and action/SFX filled (to say nothing of high profile) do seem to inspire more bandwidth concerns...

[DaViD Boulet]

I've love branching for both version one one BD but it would require two soundtracks (different audio edits/score), and since I want lossless audio that would be two TrueHD or DTS-HD MA tracks... not sure if there's room for both given that I'd LOVE to have the complete film on one disc (not spread over two).

[kjacobs03]

I honestly don't think we will get branching for LotR, because they most likly will put the EE's on two BD50's and they will not want to split up the theatrical releases. Also for the audio situation DaViD pointed out, two different scores.

[Shadowself]

Compressing raw HDTV signals down to 40 Mbps or less causes a minimum of a 0.2 NIIRS equivalent loss no matter what compression technology you use that is available today. Compressing it down to 20 Mbps causes a minimum of 0.7 NIIRS equivalent loss. Compressing it down to one "red ant ring leader's" 9 Mbps gives a minimum of a 2.0 NIIRS equivalent loss.

It is just life. It is the technology today no matter whether you are using MPEG-2, VC-1, H.264 or H.264 SVC (as different from AVC) or even motion JPEG2000. As you can probably guess, the U.S. government has sponsored many studies on the imagery quality loss of various compression techniques and compression rates of each technique because of the vast number of imagery and video systems they use and the real world necessity to compress it as much as possible before transmission -- with people with "calibrated eyeballs reviewing the output imagery as the final say is really the IA's.

When the industry moves -- eventually -- to MCTF (motion compensated temporal filtering) techniques the loss will be less. How much less is still up in the air as MCTF is still evolving. But MCTF will be a long time coming to consumer electronics and will very likely never show up on Blu-ray disks as "that ship has already sailed".

The question really is, "Is the loss too much for you?"

For me the loss for Troy DC was too much. For POTC (any of them) not so much.

Conversely I have met people who did not have any significant issues with the first release of TFE.

YMMV

[john_nemesh]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

David, there where obviously a few articles concerning BD-R's that where 100GB, but I don't remember even one credible article talking about 100GB video disks.

There was ONE article talking about Hitachi, pre-CES, stating that Hitachi's 4 layer technology was compatible with EXISTING players on the market, and that only a firmware upgrade would be needed to read the discs.

This article was significant because while Hitachi said, "yes, 100% compatible with existing hardware", Toshiba never would state if the TL51 discs would play in their existing players (and they never have clarified).

Yield seems to be the main issue here. IF (and its a big if) discs can be made with a high rate of reliability, there really would be very little stopping these discs from being made and used.

However, as has been stated elsewhere in these forums, consumers LIKE having multiple discs in "special editions", it adds value to the purchase. Even if more convienient, people want to feel like they are getting their money's worth.

Personally, I would love to see this technology come to market, and I think it will over the course of Blu's lifespan, but right now, I am just happy to be able to buy my movies in HD at all! I think right now the focus needs to be on the movies and not the technology if Blu is going to take over for DVD.

[DaViD Boulet]

John,

that's it.

However, as has been stated elsewhere in these forums, consumers LIKE having multiple discs in "special editions", it adds value to the purchase. Even if more convienient, people want to feel like they are getting their money's worth.

No one likes having to have a "forced" break in a long movie... most of us like to hit pause when *we* want to pause a film (ie, although Jackson picked the best breakpoint that he could for the EE editions, it's a far-cry from a santioned intermission and the film's flow is still destroyed at that moment). Also, no consumer I know enjoys having to spend 3 tries swapping discs to find the South Park Epiode he/she is looking for. I think that for long films and TV series 100GB has great use.

Whether studios still want to continue the tradition of "two disc special edition" with one disc for the movie and one for bonus material is a different matter that isn't related to these two good use-cases I mention for multi-layer BD.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin

Nice post Darin.

I, as well as others, have had to point out on several occasions that WickyWoo is not an Insider. It would probably be a good idea if he stopped acting like one.

That's not fair, Wicky is a pretty smart guy and I wouldn't talk about his status as an insider if you don't actually know whether he is or not...

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by darinp2

You may not be aware of that, but New Line is. I would be happy to place a wager that the theatrical versions will come to Blu-ray first.

It wouldn't surprise me, but that's because of the money aspect, they figure a double dip is worth it, but there is a sense that hardcore fans will just wait it out. I know I will, I won't waste any more money on that series regardless of how good the PQ/AQ is.

Interesting slam giving the lack of comprehension of compression you've shown in this thread with:and your justification for that claim. It wouldn't surprise me if the other things you are thinking of are also cases where you don't understand the subject matter as well as you think you do. Can you back up your claim about my understanding by showing a specific example? I hope it won't be one of those where some people here have showed their ignorance about disc production issues, but please go ahead and back up your claim. I'm really interested to see what you can come up with.

I think four hours on a single BD is optimistic, as to 2.5 hours being optimal, I couldn't say - it depends on the material...

I guarantee you and others here that paidgeek will not agree with your:You could use your mod status to delete this post and keep readers from seeing that you don't know the subject matter that well, or you could be a man and stand up and let paidgeek comment on that when he gets back (or figure out on your own that you misled readers here with your claim). If he will comment on your claim, then people can decide whether to believe him or you. But just for a clue in case you think paidgeek will actually agree with you, you can look at The Patriot, where Sony put a 2 hour and 55 minute movie on a BD50 (with PCM for English, 4 other DD tracks, and subtitles in many languages). Or look at Sony's Across the Universe coming out next week, which is listed as 133 minutes and Sony put at least 130 minutes of HD extras on there (with one BD50 for the release) according to highdefdigest. I guess somebody should tell paidgeek that you say BD50s tap out at 2.5 hours for optimal audio and video performance, since Sony put over 4 hours of HD content on that one disc and even if you allow for lower bitrates for extras, they would have to cram those 130 minutes of HD extras into the equivalent of about 20 minutes worth of space leftover after the movie.
And how did you decide that they were being bitstarved? You just said that the disc size is 45GB, so if bit starvation was the problem, then why do you think they left all that empty space on the disc?
You may fail to see it, but that doesn't make it so. If you understood more about compression, maybe you would see why your logic for your claim about BD50s and 2.5 hours is faulty.
Alexander was 214 minutes (over 3 and a half hours) in 50GB, although spread over 2 discs. And if it is the same video transfer as the HD DVD (which I believe it is), then the video actually takes up less than 30GB according to data compiled by benes.

Guarantee is a strong term, and this isn't a certain science, it all depends on the material, LOTR won't be easy given the complexity of the battle scenes.

As another example, the Director's Cut of Troy was 198 minutes and in 30GB on HD DVD with a 16/48 TrueHD track. Going to 20/48 wouldn't add much. That cut of Troy is 3 minutes shorter than the theatrical release of ROTK, longer than either of the other two theatrical versions of the LOTR movies, and only 10 minutes shorter than the extended version of the first LOTR movie, but the video takes up less than 28GB. That Troy is VC-1 (on both formats), and New Line could use VC-1 for the LOTR movies if they want to (I don't know if they will still be using it by the time these come out).

If LOTR turned out like Troy I would be pretty unhappy...

I think it is sad that a mod here is misleading readers about a subject he doesn't have that great a grasp of, and then when I try to steer things toward the truth nicely (IMO), decides to take the tact he did. I didn't stand aside as Amir misled people on AVS about compression and I'm not going to stand aside as WickyWoo misleads people here about compression just because it might get me banned so that readers won't see the truth. I wonder if the owners here want a mod telling people that BD50s top out at 2.5 hours for optimal video and audio while paidgeek and Sony are putting way more than that on BD50s.

I don't think it is a case of misleading, you are being waaaay too sensitive, and it seems unlikely that you will get banned, but if you don't cool down, you could get suspended - a lot of people on Dave Vaughn's mailing list could if they don't cool it down.

If this ends up being my last post, I suggest that people ask paidgeek about the limitations of BD50s, when he gets back, and don't just trust this 2.5 hour limitation claim.

--Darin

I wouldn't worry about that, just take chill out, there is no need to be so combative here, it's not AVS...

[scragham]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

I don't think it is a case of misleading, you are being waaaay too sensitive, and it seems unlikely that you will get banned, but if you don't cool down, you could get suspended - a lot of people on Dave Vaughn's mailing list could if they don't cool it down.

lol.

[sj001]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

I don't think it is a case of misleading, you are being waaaay too sensitive, and it seems unlikely that you will get banned, but if you don't cool down, you could get suspended - a lot of people on Dave Vaughn's mailing list could if they don't cool it down.

I wouldn't worry about that, just take chill out, there is no need to be so combative here, it's not AVS...

100% man, 100%.

People around here just need to relax and chill out.

[Rob Tomlin]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

That's not fair, Wicky is a pretty smart guy and I wouldn't talk about his status as an insider if you don't actually know whether he is or not...

He is not designated as an Insider here, is he?

If not, then he isn't. And speaking of unfair: I think it is unfair for you to imply that he is an insider, which is exactly what you just did.

[Rob Tomlin]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

I don't think it is a case of misleading, you are being waaaay too sensitive, and it seems unlikely that you will get banned, but if you don't cool down, you could get suspended - a lot of people on Dave Vaughn's mailing list could if they don't cool it down.

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

Please clarify, because frankly, I don't like the implication here at all.

[iceman]

Like several people have already pointed out, what bitrate is enough depends on tons of factors, not the least how sensitive you are yourself to compression artifacts. This is all very subjective and I believe it has been discussed to death the last few years... and most likely ever since the first codec was created.

If you are looking for a yes/no answer if Troy's bitrate was enough, I recommend that you read Shadowself's post. I believe it is as good yes/no answer you will get. It's highly recommended to listen to what Shadowself says, far more important people than you and me do that and make decisions based on his information.

WickyWoo is not a designated insider here, correct. Our insiders have the Insider title because it indicates that they work with something directly related to Blu-ray and what they say is highly reliable. WickyWoo is considered a blu-ray.com staff/team member and has a Moderator title. We allow our moderators to discuss things just like a "normal person". However, being a "normal person" doesn't mean you have no insight in the industry, I believe WickyWoo knows more what's currently going on than most "self-claimed insiders". Unfortunately I can't go into it more than that, because WickyWoo still wishes to remain anonymous.

When it comes to the current discussions, we will of course not ban anyone for having an opinion (FUD is not considered to be an opinion). As long as you are polite and follow the forum rules there are no problems! We try to have a nice and relaxed atmosphere here

[WickyWoo]

Can you back up your claim about my understanding by showing a specific example?[

I did, Pirates 3

And how did you decide that they were being bitstarved?

Because I know what it looks like, the sudden mystical softening of several low-action scenes that was not present in the DLP or 35mm prints, and the characteristic look of filtering, DVNR designed to lower bitrates. I first noticed this kind of practice on the Stargate SG-1 DVDs, where they'd bitstarve the conference room scenes to help fit 5 episodes on a disc, which was later confirmed by someone who did the international versions

Alexander was 214 minutes (over 3 and a half hours) in 50GB, although spread over 2 discs. And if it is the same video transfer as the HD DVD (which I believe it is), then the video actually takes up less than 30GB according to data compiled by benes.

Yup, and it doesn't look that hot either. Like most Warner titles it's been filtered and smoothed to death. It's also a very static film packed with exposition

As another example, the Director's Cut of Troy was 198 minutes and in 30GB on HD DVD with a 16/48 TrueHD track.

You're bringing up Troy DC...with the 11 mbps average bitrate, with so many scenes that look horiffic because they squeezed the video portion down to like 20GB to fit it all on 1 HD DVD.

When you've spent as long as I have working in various aspects of the industry, you start to pick up things. How many DVD authoring and compression houses have you been in? How many times have you sat at someone's desk watching major titles being worked on and asking questions as they worked? I have spent hours in various compression bays and authoring stations since 2000, and I keep my information up to date, and that includes Blu-ray titles.

Every movie out there is a completely different project to compress, and I specifically chose Pirates 3 as a high quality example that shared many characteristics of LOTR including photographic process (Super35) aspect ratio, color palette, high action elements with many small details (maelstrom battle, helm's deep). Sure, you can have fluffy bunnies in a field for 4 hours on a BD-50 and it'll look smashing. A dialog driven TV show, sure. A scope film (the hard borders take up extra bits), with high complex action is going to take lots of bits, and I stand by 2.5 hours is really the max you want for that kind of film.

I remember something at the bits reporting 100GB manufacture (not recordable) that played in existing hardware with no firmware update. This was around the time that Toshiba started to trumpet it's supposed "51GB" vaporware disc.

No, they have only showed a 100GB recordable disc that could be played without an update. No one has ever mentioned except to respond to a question with something like "well, of course it's possible" of anything above 50

Let's face it, 98% of the movies out there will fit on a BD-50 just fine, and probably at least half of the remainder with some careful massaging. In my opinion, settling for "good enough" just so you don't have to change discs in the middle goes against a lot of what we all just fought to squish HD DVD over. Being obcessed with "how low can you go" isn't what Blu-ray is all about, it's about the best possible presentation of the films we love, loved and will love in the future.

[richard lichtenfelt]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

I wasn't aware anyone actually would want to watch the theatrical versions again.

I've seen every version more than a couple of times and compared them with critical scrutiny, I found the extended versions added nothing to the story except for time.

The theatrical versions IMO were perfect.

[scragham]

Originally Posted by richard lichtenfelt

I've seen every version more than a couple of times and compared them with critical scrutiny, I found the extended versions added nothing to the story except for time.

The theatrical versions IMO were perfect.

well... i don't know about that. were you a big fan of the books?

i've found that people who were less diehard about the books tended to like the theatrical versions; people who were/are diehard about the books (like me) tend to like the extended versions.