High vs low bitrate discussion v. 20-10

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by jeffb66

https://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_capacity_video

section 1.6 in the Blu-ray FAQ states that a BD of 50 GB will fit over 9 hours of HD video. I suspect this is only possible if an extreme amount of compression is done to the HD video.

The 200GB discs may be very useful for longer movies that could conveniently fit on a single disc. I woder if the BD versions of each LOTR films span two BD50s or just one disc since these films are over three hours?

A BD-50 can fit 9 hours at 720p but not at the 1080p were used to.

Lord of the Rings does not need to be spread over two discs. A BD-50 can fit about 4.5 hours without compromising quality. Baring some kind of 3D conversion (which isn't totally out of the realm of possibility) there is absolutly no reason whatsoever to spread any of the Lord of the Rings extended editions over two discs. I find it hilarious how often Blu-Ray fans severly underestimate Blu-Rays storage capabilities. May I remind you King Kong was 200 minutes long with reference quality video and audio yet only used 37 gigabytes for the feature. Return of the King Extended Edition can be fit at the same quality with its audio commentaries if it uses up the BD-50. Video extras would certainly need a second disc.

These higher capacity discs are vaperware. They might be useful for media storage or recording but for pre-recorded movies they will never be used cause no current Blu-Ray player has the hardware to play them. No a firmware update won't due as the disc reading capacity is inherit in the hardware. However I don't think they would benefit movies much given that studios so rarely use the space BD-50s have now prefering to use multiple discs even when there is absolutly no need to. A least half the Blu-Rays released as two disc sets could have easily been single disc sets without any quality or content lost but the studio wanted to add more percieved value. Money talks.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I follow the video numbers quite closely and any live-action film over three hours in length starts putting pressure on the fidelity of the compression. Anyone telling you differently is covering for laziness of the studios or is not a serious videophile.

See the visually superior (compared to the domestic Warner Bros. version) UK Paramount version of Watchmen: Director's Cut. At three hours and six minutes in length, the movie fills up over 48 GB of a BD-50, at an average rate of 27.24 Mpbs. Any rate below 25 Mbps for most films starts encroaching in that area where grain is not fully resolved correctly and artifacts start appearing.

You have everything backwards. Higher bitrates are evidence of studio laziness. Its easy to just crank up the bit rate. If all Blu-Ray movies had maximum bitrate of 40 megabytes per second sure they would look good but that would be a major waste. In reality reference quality HD can easily be fit at bitrates sub 20 megabytes per second as plenty of releases have. People like you watch the bit-rate meter and if it gives low numbers you ignore what your eyes are telling you to be tech savy. In reality if a studio can deliever great HD video at low bitrates they should be praised for it. Troy the Directers Cut looked and sounded great despite fitting a 194 minute movie plus several extras at under 30 gigabytes. The American and overseas versions of Watchmen look the same. Did you actually watch the disc. I own it and let me tell you one thing. it looks and sounds fantastic. As you can see it gets top marks for both video and audio despite the fact that it only uses 33 gigabytes for the feature. Higher bit rates are not evidence of higher quality they are evidence of lazy studios.

[patrick99]

You have everything backwards. Higher bitrates are evidence of studio laziness. Its easy to just crank up the bit rate. If all Blu-Ray movies had maximum bitrate of 40 megabytes per second sure they would look good but that would be a major waste. In reality reference quality HD can easily be fit at bitrates sub 20 megabytes per second as plenty of releases have. People like you watch the bit-rate meter and if it gives low numbers you ignore what your eyes are telling you to be tech savy. In reality if a studio can deliever great HD video at low bitrates they should be praised for it. Troy the Directers Cut looked and sounded great despite fitting a 194 minute movie plus several extras at under 30 gigabytes. The American and overseas versions of Watchmen look the same. Did you actually watch the disc. I own it and let me tell you one thing. it looks and sounds fantastic. As you can see it gets top marks for both video and audio despite the fact that it only uses 33 gigabytes for the feature. Higher bit rates are not evidence of higher quality they are evidence of lazy studios.

Not to me, it didn't.

It really baffles me what is the motivation behind these posts singing the praises of low bitrate transfers. Reminds me of the format war.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by patrick99

Not to me, it didn't.

It really baffles me what is the motivation behind these posts singing the praises of low bitrate transfers. Reminds me of the format war.

I am a reviewer on another site. Lots of little flaws in the compression start appearing around 20 Mbps. The only movies that compress well at low-bitrates are the CGI movies. Anything shot on film needs 25 Mbps at least, and preferably 30 Mbps. The only evidence to the contrary was the early HD DVD encodes that were hand-tweaked repeatedly and had segment re-encodes for any problems. But the studios do not have the manpower or money to do that on movies now. The only reason HD DVD got away with it for a time was that Microsoft was throwing money down the drain hoping to derail Blu-ray and its superior bandwidth.

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I am a reviewer on another site. Lots of little flaws in the compression start appearing around 20 Mbps. The only movies that compress well at low-bitrates are the CGI movies. Anything shot on film needs 25 Mbps at least, and preferably 30 Mbps. The only evidence to the contrary was the early HD DVD encodes that were hand-tweaked repeatedly and had segment re-encodes for any problems. But the studios do not have the manpower or money to do that on movies now. The only reason HD DVD got away with it for a time was that Microsoft was throwing money down the drain hoping to derail Blu-ray and its superior bandwidth.

Indeed.

To repeat, I find it extremely baffling as to what is the motivation behind these posts, long after the end of the format war, deriding as lazy those studios that use ample bitrates and praising those who give us instead the bare minimum. Baffling.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by patrick99

Indeed.

To repeat, I find it extremely baffling as to what is the motivation behind these posts, long after the end of the format war, deriding as lazy those studios that use ample bitrates and praising those who give us instead the bare minimum. Baffling.

Agree, god forbid people wanting more then good enough. But what do you except too many drank the kool aid of "visual lossless", without understanding the simple fundamentals, compressing prety much always destroys info, the more you compress the more you destroy and if there is nothing to destroy the encoder won't add useless info. If a scene could be encoded with X>Y and you have an encode at X and at Y then Y has lost more detail, if there was nothing to lose then it would have ended at Y (or less). The whole premises is “maybe you won’t notice the detail that is lost”. Maybe we won’t but who cares, I bought something for 1080p and I want it as close as possible.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by patrick99

Indeed.

To repeat, I find it extremely baffling as to what is the motivation behind these posts, long after the end of the format war, deriding as lazy those studios that use ample bitrates and praising those who give us instead the bare minimum. Baffling.

You falsely accuse me of being a former HD-DVD supporter. I was a Blu-Ray supporter from the beginning and have never bought an HD-DVD. However there is no denying that the only reason Blu-Ray originally had higher bit-rate capability was so that studios could give great HD transfers with the space wasting MPEG-2 codec. Fact is with VC-1 or AVC codecs for 2D 1080p video never requre bit-rates beyond 25 megabytes per second at least not if the transfer artists and studios are willing to put the time and effort into the transfer. Therefore HD-DVDs bit-rate limitation never effected quality. Any bad HD-DVD transfers were the result of bad source material or bad studio masters not bit-rates just as all poor Blu-Ray transfers are. I almost find it funny some actually complain that discs like I am Legend and The Matrix use the same encodes on Blu-Ray as they do on the HD-DVD versions. Funny because both movies feature reference quality video and audio transfers that should disipoint nobody.

However Im not argueing that Blu-Rays higher bit-rates aren't an advantage. The new 3D standard relays on them. 3D Full HD requires 50% higher bitrates then 2D 1080p and thus would not be able to fit on HD-DVDs bitrate limitations. Had HD-DVD won the format war 3D Full HD would have been impossible. If a disc doesn't fit with the standards maximum bit-rates the format would be incompatible with all previous 2D HD-DVD players and thus would be unable to acheive the nessesary backwards compatibility. Not to mention no movie over 2 hours could fit in 3D Full HD on 30 gigs without compromising quality. BD-50s can fit any movie under 3 hours which at the moment occupies all current 3D movies. For 3D Full HD Blu-Rays higher bit-rates are an advantage but for 2D video they are not. 3D is the best reason to be glad Blu-Ray won the format war.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Fact is with VC-1 or AVC codecs for 2D 1080p video never requre bit-rates beyond 25 megabytes per second at least not if the transfer artists and studios are willing to put the time and effort into the transfer.

VC1 and AVC are lossy codecs - you will be throwing away picture information even above 25 megabits per sec. Most titles will use >25 megabits at some point.

Re-encoding takes times and money. What are they going to do if they see artefacts - increase the bitrate? Take some of the bitrate from one part of the picture and give it to another? Apply more DNR and filtering? It's still throwing away picture information.

Higher bitrate = more like the original & less compression artefacts.

[Jimmy Smith]

I suggest everyone readthis excellent editorial from highdefdigest it makes my basic case fantasticly

Please read and understand

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

I suggest everyone readthis excellent editorial from highdefdigest it makes my basic case fantasticly

Isn't that from someone, who, at the time he wrote the article was supporting HD DVD which had lower bitrates? So is it surprising if he says low bitrates are ok?

Lossy compression is lossy compression. More lossy compression = less of the original picture info.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Isn't that from someone, who, at the time he wrote the article was supporting HD DVD which had lower bitrates? So is it surprising if he says low bitrates are ok?

Lossy compression is lossy compression. More lossy compression = less of the original picture info.

You obviously didn't read the article. He never takes sides in the format war or argues for HD-DVD superiority. He is simply making the very real case that some on this forum seem to be watching a bit meter and not a movie. Video compressionists who deliever high quality transfers at low bit rates should be praised for it not scolded because some stupid bit meter gives low numbers. His point about Paramounts higher bit rate transfers on Blu-Ray looking identical to the lower bit rate transfers on HD-DVD is valid and should not be dismissed.

Add Watchmen the Complete Motion Comic as another feature that compresses the 5.5 hour long feature with TrueHD audio plus a couple extras (totally about 13 minutes but still there) on a single BD-50 and the quality is totally uncompromised. Of course the limited motion in this motion comic doesn't require as high bit rates as an actual action filled feature would but its still a testimant to what can be achieved with good compression work and the vast space of a BD-50.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

You obviously didn't read the article. He never takes sides in the format war or argues for HD-DVD superiority. He is simply making the very real case that some on this forum seem to be watching a bit meter and not a movie. Video compressionists who deliever high quality transfers at low bit rates should be praised for it not scolded because some stupid bit meter gives low numbers.

If they're giving lower bitrates, they're throwing more picture information away, unless that section was so easy to compress it could be done 'losslessly' eg. simple credits over a black background.

With real video/film there's no way to encode it without throwing away picture info - they will just apply DNR or filter it or something like that. Throwing away picture info or leaving artefacts just so they can use a lower bitrate instead of a higher one, and so they can use less disc space eg. to fit on a 25GB disc instead of a 50GB one, doesn't deserve praise.

Add Watchmen the Complete Motion Comic as another feature that compresses the 5.5 hour long feature with TrueHD audio plus a couple extras (totally about 13 minutes but still there) on a single BD-50 and the quality is totally uncompromised. Of course the limited motion in this motion comic doesn't require as high bit rates as an actual action filled feature would but its still a testimant to what can be achieved with good compression work and the vast space of a BD-50

With real video/film (not simple cartoons) it will be harder to compress. How do you know the quality has been "totally uncompromised" if you haven't compared it to the original master? And what do you think they will actually be doing for compressing real, live action content?

[Blove23]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

You obviously didn't read the article. He never takes sides in the format war or argues for HD-DVD superiority. He is simply making the very real case that some on this forum seem to be watching a bit meter and not a movie. Video compressionists who deliever high quality transfers at low bit rates should be praised for it not scolded because some stupid bit meter gives low numbers. His point about Paramounts higher bit rate transfers on Blu-Ray looking identical to the lower bit rate transfers on HD-DVD is valid and should not be dismissed.

Add Watchmen the Complete Motion Comic as another feature that compresses the 5.5 hour long feature with TrueHD audio plus a couple extras (totally about 13 minutes but still there) on a single BD-50 and the quality is totally uncompromised. Of course the limited motion in this motion comic doesn't require as high bit rates as an actual action filled feature would but its still a testimant to what can be achieved with good compression work and the vast space of a BD-50.

Some people are just caught in their way of thinking. People like paper specs just like they like paper champions. I read the article and I have to agree.

My only thought is if you increase the capacity will we need new hardware down the road. As the format keeps involving sooner or later we will need new hardware. i'm going to be upset because i just purchased a OPPO. If I have to change my hardware and Blu-ray disc change I'm going to lay into all those who thought the knew, but in reality had no idea...

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

If they're giving lower bitrates, they're throwing more picture information away, unless that section was so easy to compress it could be done 'losslessly' eg. simple credits over a black background.

With real video/film there's no way to encode it without throwing away picture info - they will just apply DNR or filter it or something like that. Throwing away picture info or leaving artefacts just so they can use a lower bitrate instead of a higher one, and so they can use less disc space eg. to fit on a 25GB disc instead of a 50GB one, doesn't deserve praise.

Alright please explain why Paramounts cross format release look exactly the same. For all the trolls bashing Warner for not giving different encodes to HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray versions well Paramount did exactly what you bit rate hounds wanted. When they transfered Transformers to Blu-Ray they used higher bit rates then the previous HD-DVD version. The same movie with the same source material the same video codec but higher bit rates should by your logic be an improvement and look closer to the studio masters. Problem for you is the video quality on the Blu-Ray version of Transformers looks exactly the same as the previous lower bitrate HD-DVD version. The higher bit rates did absolutly nothing to benefit the picture for the human eye just gave it a higher bit rate meter that benefits only those who watch bit rate meters and not movies. Frankly the idea that bit rates above 25 megabytes per second will reveal more detail and make Blu-Rays look better is utter nonsense.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Blove23

My only thought is if you increase the capacity will we need new hardware down the road. As the format keeps involving sooner or later we will need new hardware. i'm going to be upset because i just purchased a OPPO. If I have to change my hardware and Blu-ray disc change I'm going to lay into all those who thought the knew, but in reality had no idea...

You don't need to worry. The BDA has made it clear that discs higher capacity then 50 gigabytes are for video storage not for pre-recorded movies. Any disc format that uses discs beyond 50 gigs would effectively be a new format and if one ever does come out down the line certainly won't be called Blu-Ray. Its vital for format unification that every single Blu-Ray player be able to play every single Blu-Ray movie. The studios know that better then anyone. Since youd be hard pressed to find more then 5 movies that can't fit on a BD-50 things should be fine.

[Blove23]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

You don't need to worry. The BDA has made it clear that discs higher capacity then 50 gigabytes are for video storage not for pre-recorded movies. Any disc format that uses discs beyond 50 gigs would effectively be a new format and if one ever does come out down the line certainly won't be called Blu-Ray. Its vital for format unification that every single Blu-Ray player be able to play every single Blu-Ray movie. The studios know that better then anyone. Since youd be hard pressed to find more then 5 movies that can't fit on a BD-50 things should be fine.

I'm not worried it was just a joke. I do understand what you are saying and you are one of the few that as brought logic to the discussion. Just remember there are some people out there who just complain about everything. Never happy just complainers!

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by patrick99

Not to me, it didn't.

On the issue of Troy the directers cut I never claimed Troy was a reference quality disc. Even I agree that it looked a tad soft and overly compressed at times. However it certainly looked good anyone who watches it objectively no one would call it a bad transfer. It fit a 194 minute movie, with a lossless audio, and an hour of standard definition extras all at 30 gigs. The way bit hounds talk this transfer should be a disaster that barely edges out DVD but instead its a fine transfer that retains the high definition feel. More importantly is that it also looks better then many movies that use far higher bit rates and take up more space. Point is if Troy can look so good with HD-DVDs format limitations then Blu-Ray with 66% more capacity should be able to fit virtually any movie.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Therefore HD-DVDs bit-rate limitation never effected quality.

[jerwin]

hmm. 2001 seems to be rather highly regarded, despite having a low video bitrate. It, is, of course, a rather languid film.

[patrick99]

To repeat yet again: I don't understand the motivation of people who seem to want lower bitrate transfers. It is completely incomprehensible to me. Just as it was incomprehensible to me during the format war how anyone could prefer the lower capacity format.