Why is Warner screwing up Dark Knight release on blu-ray???? - Blu-ray Forum

Sith · 10-10-2008, 12:56 AM

I know Warner really really sucks lately at releasing anything up to par with
say Sony/Disney....

But why with a movie that was their biggest in decades would they release
a vc-1/5.1 truehd blu ray of this movie, instead of doing it right like Iron Man/I Robot/Sleeping Beauty etc etc etc......

And before someone says vc-1 can be good, look at Transformers!!! I say look
at Transformers, it's a good quality vc-1, maybe a 4/5, but compared to Iron
Man or I Robot it is inferior period....I don't understand why this doesn't
have a mpeg4avc code to it at all...

idiot edit: Transformers on blu ray is avc, my bad...

plowmanjoe · 10-10-2008, 12:57 AM

very few people even look at that info. i've only recently cared about codecs

jq71586 · 10-10-2008, 12:59 AM

Well this type of thread was inevitable, wasn't it?

As long as it looks the way the scenes looked on Batman Begins, I don't care what codec it is.

And TrueHD sounds fine to me. Sure 7.1 would please more people, but there is nothing wrong with a good 5.1 DTHD soundtrack. IMO.

Sith · 10-10-2008, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plowmanjoe

very few people even look at that info. i've only recently cared about codecs

I understand that in the beginning of getting blu rays this is the case....But
now i really am starting to notice....When i watched Predator the other day
i almost regretted buying it it's so bad...

Sith · 10-10-2008, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jq71586

And TrueHD sounds fine to me. IMO.

I was hoping for better than fine with this movie...Truehd is fine, it's just
pcm and dtshd are better...

Canada · 10-10-2008, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sith

I know Warner really really sucks lately at releasing anything up to par with
say Sony/Disney....

But why with a movie that was their biggest in decades would they release
a vc-1/5.1 truehd blu ray of this movie, instead of doing it right like Iron Man/I Robot/Sleeping Beauty etc etc etc......

And before someone says vc-1 can be good, look at Transformers!!! I say look
at Transformers, it's a good quality vc-1, maybe a 4/5, but compared to Iron
Man or I Robot it is inferior period....I don't understand why this doesn't
have a mpeg4avc code to it at all...

Are you talking about the HD DVD version of Transformers being VC-1 because I am 99% sure that the Blu Ray is AVC.

ryoohki · 10-10-2008, 01:05 AM

The Blu-ray TF is AVC.. i'am watching it right now

Clark Kent · 10-10-2008, 01:05 AM

It comes down to the fact that Warner is cheap. Unlike every other studio who have experimented with various codecs for both video and audio on actual releases, Warner has stubbornly stayed with low bitrate VC-1 for video and Dolby TrueHD/Dolby Digital for audio on every BD. Some studios actually take the time and money to encode the movie in multiple codecs and pick which one looks the best.

GGX · 10-10-2008, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plowmanjoe

very few people even look at that info. i've only recently cared about codecs

I think on a forum like this most members do look at that info.

Sith · 10-10-2008, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canada

Are you talking about the HD DVD version of Transformers being VC-1 because I am 99% sure that the Blu Ray is AVC.

yeah my bad on using Transformers as a comparison you are correct....

Still wish dark knight wasn't vc-1 though

Blu Titan · 10-10-2008, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jq71586

Well this type of thread was inevitable, wasn't it?

As long as it looks the way the scenes looked on Batman Begins, I don't care what codec it is.

And TrueHD sounds fine to me. Sure 7.1 would please more people, but there is nothing wrong with a good 5.1 DTHD soundtrack. IMO.

True enough.

Irrob · 10-10-2008, 01:12 AM

My advice is to watch the Blu-ray first, then determine if Warner screwed it up.

Sith · 10-10-2008, 01:14 AM

alright let me say it a different way, what do you guys think is the best
looking vc-1 blu ray, then compare it to what you think is the best looking
avc? does it look as good?

Canada · 10-10-2008, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

It comes down to the fact that Warner is cheap. Unlike every other studio who have experimented with various codecs for both video and audio on actual releases, Warner has stubbornly stayed with low bitrate VC-1 for video and Dolby TrueHD/Dolby Digital for audio on every BD. Some studios actually take the time and money to encode the movie in multiple codecs and pick which one looks the best.

For Close Incounters of the Third Sony allowed the viewer to choose which codec sounded best, as did Paramount with Top Gun both these companies gave us 5.1 True HD and DTS MA, in the case of Top Gun they gave us 6.1 DTS MA.

Other disks to feature multiple audio codecs

300 True HD, PCM
Spiderman 3 True HD and PCM

can't think of any others

Sith · 10-10-2008, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canada

For Close Incounters of the Third Sony allowed the viewer to choose which codec sounded best, as did Paramount with Top Gun both these companies gave us 5.1 True HD and DTS MA, in the case of Top Gun they gave us 6.1 DTS MA.

that would of been nice...

plowmanjoe · 10-10-2008, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGX

I think on a forum like this most members do look at that info.

yeah but i don't think warner really cares much about this forum. the op's question was regarding why warner does what it does. and if it still sells a ton of dark knight blu-rays using a cheaper method, then why not? most people don't notice.

MerrickG · 10-10-2008, 01:24 AM

OH good GOD. Not another person who has a problem with VC1.

I dont know how many times it has been repeated but there is NOTHING wrong with VC1. When given high bitrates its every bit as good as AVC.

Dark Knight on VC1 is NOT a bad thing and its a shame that people are already complaining about it.

Watch deja Vu and try and tell me VC1 is bad.

Sith · 10-10-2008, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plowmanjoe

yeah but i don't think warner really cares much about this forum. the op's question was regarding why warner does what it does. and if it still sells a ton of dark knight blu-rays using a cheaper method, then why not? most people don't notice.

No i think people notice, they just are gonna settle cause it's the Dark Knight...

If it looks like Batman Begins I'm gonna be disappointed....In my personal opinion Batman Begins could of looked and should of looked better..

Sith · 10-10-2008, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merrick97

Watch deja Vu and try and tell me VC1 is bad.

I never said it was bad, just not as good as mpeg4avc....

Deja Vu is probably the best VC1 can do, but it still isn't as good as say Iron Man or Sleeping Beauty...

Canada · 10-10-2008, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merrick97

OH good GOD. Not another person who has a problem with VC1.

I dont know how many times it has been repeated but there is NOTHING wrong with VC1. When given high bitrates its every bit as good as AVC.

Dark Knight on VC1 is NOT a bad thing and its a shame that people are already complaining about it.

Watch deja Vu and try and tell me VC1 is bad.

Why people have a problem with VC-1 I presume is Warner has had some so so tranfers (they have had great transfer), while Sony (after the MPEG 2 25gig thing got figured out) and Disney knock out prime examples of Blu Ray every time with AVC. To me AVC looks better than VC 1 but that probably has as much to do with how the studio's use the codecs as anything?

10-10-2008, 12:56 AM	#1
Sith Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Dec 2007 Location:Seal Beach, CA Blu-ray collection:168	Why is Warner screwing up Dark Knight release on blu-ray???? I know Warner really really sucks lately at releasing anything up to par with say Sony/Disney.... But why with a movie that was their biggest in decades would they release a vc-1/5.1 truehd blu ray of this movie, instead of doing it right like Iron Man/I Robot/Sleeping Beauty etc etc etc...... And before someone says vc-1 can be good, look at Transformers!!! I say look at Transformers, it's a good quality vc-1, maybe a 4/5, but compared to Iron Man or I Robot it is inferior period....I don't understand why this doesn't have a mpeg4avc code to it at all... idiot edit: Transformers on blu ray is avc, my bad... Last edited by Sith; 10-10-2008 at 01:07 AM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
The Dark Knight re-release.	Movies	McKellars	71	03-27-2009 02:59 PM
Warner Awards Blu to The Dark Knight	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	TheIgster	8	09-29-2008 01:53 AM
Is Warner screwing up Blu-ray titles because of HD DVD??	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	MrVorhees	3	06-24-2007 05:08 AM

10-10-2008, 12:57 AM	#2
plowmanjoe Senior Member Member since:May 2008 Blu-ray collection:6 Trading Score:2	very few people even look at that info. i've only recently cared about codecs

10-10-2008, 12:59 AM	#3
jq71586 Special Member Member since:Jan 2008 Location:Fall River, MA Blu-ray collection:55 Trading Score:29	Well this type of thread was inevitable, wasn't it? As long as it looks the way the scenes looked on Batman Begins, I don't care what codec it is. And TrueHD sounds fine to me. Sure 7.1 would please more people, but there is nothing wrong with a good 5.1 DTHD soundtrack. IMO.

10-10-2008, 01:05 AM	#7
ryoohki Blu-ray Samurai Member since:May 2007 Home Theater Gallery:6 Blu-ray collection:6 Blu-ray reviews:8 Trading Score:5	The Blu-ray TF is AVC.. i'am watching it right now

10-10-2008, 01:05 AM	#8
Clark Kent Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Metropolis Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:184	It comes down to the fact that Warner is cheap. Unlike every other studio who have experimented with various codecs for both video and audio on actual releases, Warner has stubbornly stayed with low bitrate VC-1 for video and Dolby TrueHD/Dolby Digital for audio on every BD. Some studios actually take the time and money to encode the movie in multiple codecs and pick which one looks the best.

10-10-2008, 01:12 AM	#12
Irrob Blu-ray Guru Top ranked HT gallery Top contributor Member since:Aug 2007 Location:USA Home Theater Gallery:49 4K collection:61 Blu-ray collection:880 DVD collection:16 Blu-ray reviews: 4 Trading Score:91	My advice is to watch the Blu-ray first, then determine if Warner screwed it up.

10-10-2008, 01:14 AM	#13
Sith Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Dec 2007 Location:Seal Beach, CA Blu-ray collection:168	alright let me say it a different way, what do you guys think is the best looking vc-1 blu ray, then compare it to what you think is the best looking avc? does it look as good?

10-10-2008, 01:24 AM	#17
MerrickG Blu-ray Knight Member since:Sep 2007 Location:College Station, TX Blu-ray reviews:2	OH good GOD. Not another person who has a problem with VC1. I dont know how many times it has been repeated but there is NOTHING wrong with VC1. When given high bitrates its every bit as good as AVC. Dark Knight on VC1 is NOT a bad thing and its a shame that people are already complaining about it. Watch deja Vu and try and tell me VC1 is bad.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals