Archived: Insiders Thread

[mattym]

see what sony announce at cedia, its the US market thats targetting so you may get a bone thrown from that?

[WriteSimply]

paidgeek, (puts US$25 in the coffer)
I know it's a different studio but can you confirm with your friends at Fox if Live Free Or Die Hard on BD as being the PG-13 version only? If it currently is, tell them that at the very least we want the unrated cut that the DVD versions get. Thanks!


fuad

[FourToedStatue]

Originally Posted by TheLion

Let me chime in here and confirm that about 8 minutes of the Blu-Ray edition of PotC-The Curse of the Black Pearl are definitely "misframed".

First of all I feel VERY embarrassed that I didn't really notice it when I viewed this release about 4 times now. If it is any consolation I thought to myself that some framing choices looked a bit odd - but not having the DVD release nor a captured transport stream for comparison I willingly accepted it.

Now that this issue has been brought up (Kudos to Denner!) and re-watching the sequences in question it is more than obvious.


In fact this roughly 8 minutes on Blu-Ray are not just "mis-framed" -> there is actually no intentional framing at all!


Let me explain it and put it very simple:

The Pirates trilogy was shot on Super 35(mm) with a target aspect ratio of 2.35:1 (actually 2.39:1 theatrical prints). Super 35 is used to cut costs and to make releases in "any" aspect ratio possible ,as the final frame will be extracted and converted from the larger full frame negative.

A Super 35 full frame (assuming 4-perf) ergo the camera aperture itself is a 1.33:1 ratio (I think to remember it is something like 0.98 inches × 0.7... inches).

Super 35 is purely a PRODUCTION format - therefor it has to be transferred including applying proper framing in order to make release prints.

Disney promoted the pirates movies as minted directly from the "digital source material" -> DI -> scanned Super 35 full frame. Therefor proper framing is required to get to the desired 2.35:1 aspect ratio of the Blu-Ray edition.

The 8 minutes in question don't have any framing applied (as far as I can see it) => the bottom line of the 2.35:1 transfer is aligned with the bottom of the Super 35 full frame.

To put it simple: This 8 minutes simple show the bottom of the Super 35 full frame (within a 2:35:1 frame) - resulting in framing (or better lack of framing) that is "way too low" to be intentional with cut off heads and productions auxiliaries clearly visible.

Savvy?


Let me conclude this post by a quote from AVS. This is a new thread (" Pirates framing issue. Could this tip Disney?") demonstrating quite clearly what has become of the SCIENCE in AVS...



http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=902983

In a very pathetic way worth a laugh...

Mistakes happen, but will Disney announce a trade in program soon?

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You would be proud of how paidgeek has nearly broken the Sony Classics budget on the production of Lawrence of Arabia……. and there is still possibly room for improvement......if one didn't care about placing all other projects on *hold* for the next twenty years or so.

I think if he asks for anymore money for LoA, the President of SPE will have a stroke.

That’s it for this week guys, I answered as many PM’s as I could.

Penton, in truth, it is the work of our asset management department that has nearly made a career out of doing the best work possible on this title.

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by Razter

So apparently there is nothing called Profile "1.0,1.1,2.0"
They are just made up to make it easier to talk about I guess.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=813

The right terms are "Profile 1" and "Profile 2"
This has been confusing but it now seems that the new Samsung(combo) will have the 2.0 profile(with profile 1=PiP)

Are there other new players that could of been mistaken as a old "Grace Period" player?

paidgeek: What about the new Sony, is it really a "Grace Period" player or a new "Profile 1" player?

The new Sony players scheduled for release this year are profile 1.0 players.

[lokus]

paidgeek,
With the new holiday season approaching, why are we not seeing profile 1.1 players (maybe we are and I am not aware of it)? According to what you have just said the new Sony players scheduled for release this year are profile 1.0. Wouldn't it make sense to release players during this year's shopping season with the movies that will support their interactivity? I'm a little concerned that when consumers go into the stores this holiday season and we cheaply priced HDDVD players with full interactivity that they may shy away from our baby Blu. Thanks!

[Bullseye]

Will there be a firmware upgrade to facilitate the new interactivity with profile 1.0?

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by lokus

paidgeek,
With the new holiday season approaching, why are we not seeing profile 1.1 players (maybe we are and I am not aware of it)? According to what you have just said the new Sony players scheduled for release this year are profile 1.0. Wouldn't it make sense to release players during this year's shopping season with the movies that will support their interactivity? I'm a little concerned that when consumers go into the stores this holiday season and we cheaply priced HDDVD players with full interactivity that they may shy away from our baby Blu. Thanks!

It would make sense, and I don't think there is any mis-understanding in Sony that this is important. They just have not been able to get it done in time. You have multiple companies (strong competitors) that all want to be the first to get a full profile player into the market, so rest assured that there is plenty of pressure to make this happen.

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Will there be a firmware upgrade to facilitate the new interactivity with profile 1.0?

If you mean PiP, then no, but full Java support will be there. This is a requirement for every player, even if some of the early players/firmware releases did not execute Java as well as they should.

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

If you mean PiP, then no, but full Java support will be there. This is a requirement for every player, even if some of the early players/firmware releases did not execute Java as well as they should.

Cheers paid. But will the new disks released with PiP be playable on the PS3?

[Blackraven]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

The new Sony players scheduled for release this year are profile 1.0 players.

The European version of BDP-S500 though will have Profile 1.1 support (BD-JAVA with PIP/PAP).

I'll try to find a press release on that.

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Cheers paid. But will the new disks released with PiP be playable on the PS3?

Any disc with PiP will be playable on any player, you just won't get the PiP feature itself. It is expected that the PS3 will get a firmware updated to support it in the future.

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

Any disc with PiP will be playable on any player, you just won't get the PiP feature itself. It is expected that the PS3 will get a firmware updated to support it in the future.

Excellent

[celle]

@paidgeek and other insiders

Will there be a firmware upgrade for the new S500 to DTS-HD MA (as bit stream out via HDMI 1.3) support? I saw at the IFA in Berlin DTS-HD MA-Demos with the new Samsung and Pioneer hooked up with HDMI 1.3 amplifiers (Z11 and new Onkyo xx5-series).

I was very disappointed to hear the new Sony can´t do DTS-HD MA bit stream, also DTS-HD only as core! It can do TrueHD and Dolby Plus as bit stream, but why not DTS-HD (MA)? Is DTS-HD/-MA so complicated?

Is that an hardware or software problem? The S500 is an HDMI 1.3 player?

Does the Pioneer LX70A have more audio power than the Sony? I can´t believe that, it´s nevertheless only the old LX70 with HDMI 1.3...
Which makes the Samsung and Pioneer so special than the Sony, that they are able for DTS-HD MA bit stream and the Sony not?

http://www.cinemotion.biz/archivos/upload/bdps500.pdf

[kjack]

AVS looking for a voice with Blu Ray
4-Sep-07 07:39 pm
http://www.china.org.cn/english/business...

China Hualu Group Ltd, China's biggest AV contents and services provider, has applied to the Blue-ray Disc Association (BDA) for making China's self-developed DRA audio format and AVS video format as blue-ray disc standards.

Hualu has been accepted by the BDA as a contributor with the rights to make suggestions and proposals toward the development of international blue-ray standards.

Zhang Weimin, secretary-general of AVS Industry Alliance, said that if the BDA approves Hualu's application, Chinese AV formats and enterprises will have a louder voice in future blue-ray disc industry.

For more details, please read the full story in Chinese. (http://www.china-cbn.com/s/n/000004/2007...

[stockstar1138]

my wally world has not restocked hd dvd in a long time either. I had a best buy guy that i trust tell me Wal Mart is going BD exclusive, Ive had beatboy say they are and now hd dvd fanboys are scared of this too. ive never seen anything under the venterur name in a walmart and im starting to think they aren't going to carry this. what a bust for hd dvd if walmart doesn't carry the cheap player.

[stockstar1138]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

I believe Wal-Mart already issued a statement that they were not going to carry the Venturer HD-DVD player.

EDIT: Yep: http://www.videobusiness.com/article....html?nid=2705

so where are these going to be sold?????

[Jazar]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

I thought that the cutoff date for 1.0 players was Oct. 31st. Has that date been pushed back by the BDA, or will the Sony players be shipping ahead of the cutoff date?

I would like to know this as well.

[Icemage]

With respect to the above, can any insider confirm or deny whether the amount of data to be replicated materially affects the yield rate?

Specifically, David Vaughn's claim is that more data on the disc significantly lowers the yield rate. This seems rather strange to me, as increasing the amount of data storage should only produce very small incremental decreases in yield based on the overall chance of a manufacturing fault in any given sector of a disc.

[David Forbes]

Originally Posted by Icemage

With respect to the above, can any insider confirm or deny whether the amount of data to be replicated materially affects the yield rate?

Specifically, David Vaughn's claim is that more data on the disc significantly lowers the yield rate. This seems rather strange to me, as increasing the amount of data storage should only produce very small incremental decreases in yield based on the overall chance of a manufacturing fault in any given sector of a disc.

Though I'm loathe to quote Amir, what he said about this does make some logical sense. His comment was that the centrifugal force used for the spin coating causes the coat to pool at the edge of the disc, which makes that segment out of spec.

Whether this actually happens or not is up in the air, but from a logical standpoint it at least isn't completely ridiculous.