Almost no movie needs that much. Only the longest, most visually complex would. I'm talking action epics that are about 4 hours.
This isn't taking into account special features and such though. Pile on a few hours of HD special features, many lossless audio tracks (unlikely, usually), and a 50 GB cap can be justified more easily. Not to mention stereoscopic 3D.
Quote:
My whole point for the original comment was that while i doubt 12gb file would be enough for a blu without quality loss
You might be surprised. A lot of shorter and less visually complex films really could fit down to 12 GB without a noticeable drop in quality. Assuming they're encoded well, that is. A sloppy encode at 12 GB would look terrible... but then again, a bad encode of the same movie at 45 GB would look bad too.
You might be surprised. A lot of shorter and less visually complex films really could fit down to 12 GB without a noticeable drop in quality. Assuming they're encoded well, that is. A sloppy encode at 12 GB would look terrible... but then again, a bad encode of the same movie at 45 GB would look bad too.
I get the impression that people rarely take this into consideration. If anyone wants to see this for themselves all they have to do is encode a video file using the x264 presets Ultrafast and veryslow. Given the exact same bitrate, the result will be very different. People who don't have the money or resources might decide to use less advanced settings to get their product done as fast as possible.
Almost no movie needs that much. Only the longest, most visually complex would. I'm talking action epics that are about 4 hours.
no, action epics that are 4 hours need more. That is why WB had to split it on two disks.
Quote:
You might be surprised. A lot of shorter and less visually complex films really could fit down to 12 GB without a noticeable drop in quality. Assuming they're encoded well, that is. A sloppy encode at 12 GB would look terrible... but then again, a bad encode of the same movie at 45 GB would look bad too.
The issue is not if something shorter and simpler might only need 12GB. Let's face it, if you make a 10 minute clip because of the restriction on max BW you won't need 50GB, or even 25GB or even 12GB, it would necessarily be under 4GB. The issue arose because some guy pointed out that he finds the under 10GB pirated movies he DL acceptable in quality and “as good as BD”. And so we should not use Mr.Ps experimental rough average of 40GB per BD50 but his 10GB per BD50 because he feels like pretending he can't see the difference.
This is the issue. I agree with alehel and you that if a studio used bad compression the result can be worst then good compression. But if they do or not is immaterial in the discussion. None of us have access to the original digital file and none of us have access to the original film. So in essence we need, for argument reason, treat the BD (assuming it is from BD and not a much lower quality sat/cable feed) as the perfect master, since as bad (or good) as the BD is , that is as good as the recompression can be. The issue is that any recompression no matter how "slow" will get rid of data, the difference between fast and slow is that fast might be a 1 pass and destroy more noticeable data while slow will use more passes and try and destroy data that will be less noticeable. go to the corners of the screen, certain colours.... We are also talking (if we use M.Ps 40GB to 10GB) using 1/4 of an already compressed file.
This is the issue. I agree with alehel and you that if a studio used bad compression the result can be worst then good compression. But if they do or not is imaterial in the discussion. None of us have access to the original digital file and none of us have access to the original film. So in essence we need, for argument reason, treat the BD (assuming it is from BD and not a much lower quality sat/cable feed) as the perfect master, since as bad (or good) as the BD is , that is as good as the recompression can be. The issue is taht any recompression no matter how "slow" will get rid of data, the difference between fast and slow is that fast might be a 1 pass and distroy more noticable data while slow will use more passes and try and destroy data that will be less noticable. go to the corners of the screen, certain colours.... We are also talking (if we use M.Ps 40GB to 10GB) using 1/4 of an already compressed file.
no, action epics that are 4 hours need more. That is why WB had to split it on two disks.
I refuse to believe that.
Especially after seeing how little effort they're putting into the release of the extended edition of Lord of the Rings, it seems that they're cutting corners here. They're taking the easy way out by giving themselves 100 GB per movie to play with rather than actually working to fit the 4 hours down to 50 GB without visible quality loss.
I mean, Fellowship of the Ring is "only" 208 minutes. Meanwhile, Avatar is 171 minutes and 3D. I hear that 3D increases required data footprint by about 1.5x, meaning the 3D release of Avatar should be roughly comparable to what it would have looked like with a 256 minute running time. By comparison, Return of the King is "only" 251 minutes.
A quick glance seems to indicate that each of the existing releases of the Lord of the Rings films was at an average bitrate of around 20 megabits per second. Return of the King clocking in at 251 minutes is 15060 seconds. If video runs for 15060 seconds at 20 megabits per second, that's a total of 301,200 megabits. Do you know how big 301,200 megabits is in gigabytes? 36.7675781 gigabytes.
Would you really be dissatisfied with a release of the extended editions that fit the whole movie on a single disc and matched the quality of theatrical editions already available? Do you not think that the theatrical cut has a quality high enough that it was worthy of being released? If WB shouldn't go to the trouble of releasing the extended editions in the "low" quality that would be required to fit on a single disc, then should they have shelved the theatrical editions too because of their "low" quality bitrates? I never bought the theatrical editions myself (I was holding out for the extended edition... ugh), so I can't give firsthand commentary on the quality, but the review here on this very site says the following about the picture quality:
[Show spoiler]
Quote:
Alright, bad news first. The Fellowship of the Ring doesn't look as good as The Two Towers or Return of the King. At first glance, its pudgy 1080p/VC-1 transfer appears to hobble out of the Black Gate of Mordor with a presentation primed to please casual viewers whilst leaving the most ardent videophiles shaking their heads. However, identifying which issues trace back to the original source and which should be attributed to the transfer is a tricky proposition. I recently had the unique opportunity to view a theatrical print of Fellowship and compare it to Warner's new Blu-ray release. The results were most telling, so much so that I adjusted my video review and score.
The Blu-ray image is awash with overcooked colors, oversaturated skintones, and murky nighttime sequences. But since director Peter Jackson and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie adjusted the film's color timing before approving the new master used for this release, it's safe to assume the savory palette is faithful to their intentions. Detail is occasionally underwhelming though. Yes, Jackson employs a variety of shooting and post-production techniques throughout Fellowship that are meant to lend scenes a soft, somewhat hazy temperament. And yes, the filmmakers didn't have the same technological advantages that were afforded them on Two Towers and Return of the King. But any attempt to decipher where Jackson's intentions end and the studio's efforts begin can be as maddening as staring into a palantír. Minor smearing is present in the Blu-ray transfer that isn't present in the original print. Several closeups and long-distance shots appear to have been scrubbed, albeit to a lesser degree than I initially suspected. That's not to say all is lost. Many sequences -- primarily those in the Mines of Moria, the fellowship's visit to Lothlorien, and the landing (and subsequent battle) at Parth Galen -- still manage to make a reasonably strong impact, and the whole of the presentation handily bests its DVD counterparts and HD broadcast. The scenes are still softer than some might expect, but they're altogether more satisfying than the film's more problematic moments. Unfortunately, other issues exist that can't be brushed aside by pointing to the original source. A slight instability affects the credits and other early elements, the film's faint veneer of grain is occasionally little more than a soupy mess (look to the skies when the fellowship journeys into the snowy mountains for a burst of errant artifacts), a smidgen of edge enhancement has been applied throughout, and crush, flickering, and wavering are regular (albeit minor) offenders. Still, after taking the condition of the source and Jackson's intentions into account, the presentation isn't as flawed as some (like myself) will initially assume.
Fellowship's individual video score? Those who aren't typically bothered by its particular issues will push their scores as high as a 4.0. But with so many individual hiccups, it lands somewhere between a 3.0 and a 3.5 for me.
Thankfully, tossing in The Two Towers and The Return of the King will soothe most of the disappointment Fellowship induces. Within minutes, The Two Towers' 1080p/VC-1 presentation makes a better impression than its predecessor, offering more natural skintones, stronger, more reliable contrast, and deeper, more satisfying blacks. Even though Andrew Lesnie's palette is noticeably bleaker than its lush Fellowship cousin, fine textures haven't been blotted away, tattered rocks and weather-worn cloaks are quite sharp, and hair and pores are largely intact. Note Gandalf's beard and pocky nose during his battle with the Balrog, Gollum's craggly cheeks when he first attacks Frodo, the muddy cocoons of the Uruk-hai, the grassy knolls and stony cliffs of Rohan, the countless leaves in the Ents' shadowy realm, and the worn walls of Helm's Deep. Soft shots dot the proceedings and a number of special effects sequences show their age (Merry and Pippin's travels with Treebeard remain an eyesore), but many of these wince-inducing moments trace back to the original print, not the studio's technical encode. Lingering complaints? First and foremost, edge enhancement rears its ugly head. While it only amounts to a series of thin white slivers in an otherwise respectable presentation, it's still noticeable. Second, smearing appears at seemingly random intervals, but it's less troublesome than it is in Fellowship. Finally, a few nighttime closeups suffer from spiking source noise (a shot of Elrond around the 1:45:00 mark being the most obvious instance). To its credit though, I didn't detect any significant artifacting, aliasing, or crush, and the image is quite clean.
Ultimately, The Two Towers earns a 4.0.
The Return of the King makes such a triumphant entrance that I almost forgot how confused I was after first watching The Fellowship of the Ring. Like The Two Towers, Jackson's third film and Warner's third 1080p/VC-1 transfer hits the ground running, offering a rich palette of wondrous colors, stalwart contrast, enticing blacks, and rewarding delineation. Detail tops the first two films as well. Be it Gandalf's beard, Aragorn's stubble, Frodo's grimy finger nails, Sam's rustled mop, Legolas and Gimli's fallen foes, Eowyn's flowing locks, a high hill glimpse at the cityscape of Gondor, the dank caverns of Dwimorberg, Dickson's impeccable costumes, WETA's marvelous CG battles, or the clashing armies of Pelennor Fields, everything from intimate closeups to sweeping shots of towering castles is blessed with more pleasing clarity. Several special effects show their seams -- the Hobbits may as well be standing against a green screen when the Gondorian crowd bows to them in the third act -- but any such shortcomings are hardly the fault of the technical presentation. Artifacting, aliasing, crush, and source noise never become factors, and ringing, though apparent on a handful of occasions, isn't as gaudy as it is in Towers. If anything, some slight smearing hinders the fun, and small white flecks will catch the eagle-eyes of screenshot-combers from time to time (look closely at Faramir's cheeks around the one-hour mark for one fleeting example). Ah well. As it stands, The Return of the King looks great and stands atop the trio with the best transfer of the bunch.
The Return of the King nabs a 4.25 from me. Trilogy average? A respectable 4.0.
An average score of 4 for the entire trilogy, with Fellowship of the Ring being the one dragging it down... and WB made clear that the extended edition release of Fellowship of the Ring should look better this time around. Also notice especially that the problems identified with picture quality appear to be limited to post-processing and source problems, with encode/bitrate problems like artifacting, banding, crush, etc. not being mentioned. Do you REALLY think an average of 20 megabits per second isn't enough bitrate available to do justice to the Lord of the Rings? And aren't the extended editions slower and less action-oriented too?
And what bitrate are you expecting the extended editions to be released at? What bitrate do you believe is "needed" to give Lord of the Rings a quality encode? Ignoring problems that have nothing to do with encoding (like EE), do you REALLY expect the upcoming release of the extended editions to have a chance of looking visibly better than the theatrical editions already available (barring the obvious Fellowship example, of course)?
why should any of us care what you decide to believe? there are people that believe the earth is flat and that aliens have nothing better to do then give anal probes to pathetic hillbillies and make crop circles in the fields. It does not mean that what they believe is true.
Quote:
Especially after seeing how little effort they're putting into the release of the extended edition of Lord of the Rings, it seems that they're cutting corners here. They're taking the easy way out by giving themselves 100 GB per movie to play with rather than actually working to fit the 4 hours down to 50 GB without visible quality loss.
because only retards and HD DVD fan boys took Amir at his word believe in the concept of "without visible quality loss". Any video loss is ALWAYS visible, the only difference is if you actually care or should care. I will ask you a simple question have you watched a BD and said "I see film grain" on your TV? If the answer is no, then you can talk about the possibility of loss without it being visible, but you are definitely in the minority since the vast majority would say yes. On the other hand if the answer is yes, that means you can see an individual pixel in one frame on your set-up and since actual film grain will only affect one pixel in one frame that means that for something to truly not be visible it will either need to be less then a pixel in size or less then frame. So the issue is not if it is visible, but like I said before if anyone will notice and if they would care. If you don’t care then good for you and you can live with that loss, but some of us care and would rather not have to live with less.
Quote:
I mean, Fellowship of the Ring is "only" 208 minutes. Meanwhile, Avatar is 171 minutes and 3D. I hear that 3D increases required data footprint by about 1.5x, meaning the 3D release of Avatar should be roughly comparable to what it would have looked like with a 256 minute running time. By comparison, Return of the King is "only" 251 minutes.
but Netflix has much smaller files and DVDs where 4.7/8.5GB. what is your point. Obviously, like I said before, we are at the mercy of what the studios put out.
As for Avatar there is no commercial 3D release and it is 162minutes long. Also Avatar was mostly CGI and what was filmed was mostly digital while LOTR is film and so has more detail to capture.
Quote:
A quick glance seems to indicate that each of the existing releases of the Lord of the Rings films was at an average bitrate of around 20 megabits per second. Return of the King clocking in at 251 minutes is 15060 seconds. If video runs for 15060 seconds at 20 megabits per second, that's a total of 301,200 megabits. Do you know how big 301,200 megabits is in gigabytes? 36.7675781 gigabytes.
Would you really be dissatisfied with a release of the extended editions that fit the whole movie on a single disc and matched the quality of theatrical editions already available? Do you not think that the theatrical cut has a quality high enough that it was worthy of being released? If WB shouldn't go to the trouble of releasing the extended editions in the "low" quality that would be required to fit on a single disc, then should they have shelved the theatrical editions too because of their "low" quality bitrates? I never bought the theatrical editions myself (I was holding out for the extended edition... ugh), so I can't give firsthand commentary on the quality, but the review here on this very site says the following about the picture quality:
no need to run bad numbers the 20mbps is low, the average video rate is higher closer to 25mbps, also you forgot this is not a silent movie and so you need to add audio to it. The actual sizes for each of the TE LOTR movies is around 40GB (but they also have Spanish DD so you can remove that if you want but on FOTR it is 2.0 and really won’t change the value much). Plus a lot of people did not buy them because they thought the quality was mediocre. And yes, if possible, I want the EEs to look much better, there is definitely room for improvement.
Also your whole rant makes no sense since basically you start off with the supposition that it makes sense to spend millions if not billions in extra replication /packaging then to have the tech take a few extra hours to properly compress the film.
I knew that there was audio... Duh. Notice that I pointed out 20 Mb/s only took up 37 GB? You should recall that Blu-ray has 50 GB available, leaving 13 GB for the audio. Audio doesn't take up much space. You do know this, right?
Anyway, I'll humor you. Quick check of the audio bitrate on Fellowship of the Ring says its 4214 kbps. For the purposes of making this easy on myself, I'll assume the others are similar. That bitrate over Return of the King's length is 7.5 GB.
If we assume a generous 8 GB space for audio for 251 minutes, that leaves 42 GB for video. Now, 42 gigabytes is equal to 344064 megabits. Those megabits available would be spread over 251 minutes in the case of the longest film, making for nearly 23 megabits per second as the ceiling limit possible for the picture in Return of the King when paired with a lossless audio track. The other, shorter films would be able to accommodate higher bitrates, too.
And yes, I ignored the lossy audio tracks in running that math, because frankly, I was considering the movie as barebones, without extras... but a lossy audio track runs at a bitrate about 1/22 in rate I pulled for the lossless audio track. A single lossy DD running at 192 kilobits per second accounts for only a few hundred megabytes, barely even a blip on the 50 GB total. Dropping the commentaries and filling the 50 GB would allow for about 23 megabits per second for the main feature's video, but including the four commentaries at 192 kilobits per second would still leave enough room for about 22 megabits per second for the video. Would you expect rampant compression artifacts, banding, crush, etc. because of such a "low" bitrate? Do you see signs of compression artifacts or encoding problems in the existing theatrical edition release? I'm aware that the theatrical edition release isn't perfect (apart from Fellowship's problems, it sounds like there's possibly DNR and EE on all 3 films), but are there truly problems with the encode or are you just being temperamental because you saw how "low" the bitrate is and wanted to complain about it? What problems are there that a higher bitrate would have solved? How high would this bitrate need to be to "solve" these mystical "problems"?
I think Carlos would rule on a single Blu-ray. A five hour feature on a single disc? Awesome. I mean, six hours for the Venture Bros. worked out well, didn't it?
Last edited by AreaUnderTheCurve; 04-10-2011 at 05:56 AM.
I knew that there was audio... Duh. Notice that I pointed out 20 Mb/s only took up 37 GB? You should recall that Blu-ray has 50 GB available, leaving 13 GB for the audio. Audio doesn't take up much space. You do know this, right?
but we are not talking about the TEs but the EEs. FOTR TE is ~40GB with audio and is just under 3h, ROTK EE is over 4h, that is more then 33% longer. 1/3 of 40GB >10GB so you go beyond 50GB. if you want the same quality.
Quote:
And yes, I ignored the lossy audio tracks in running that math, because frankly, I was considering the movie as barebones, without extras... but a lossy audio track runs at a bitrate about 1/22 in rate I pulled for the lossless audio track. A single lossy DD running at 192 kilobits per second accounts for only a few hundred megabytes, barely even a blip on the 50 GB total. Dropping the commentaries and filling the 50 GB would allow for about 23 megabits per second for the main feature's video, but including the four commentaries at 192 kilobits per second would still leave enough room for about 22 megabits per second for the video.
So not only are we supposed to acceptbad over compressed video because you want to pretend that nothing should need or even come close to 50GB but we also have to give up lossless audio which not even the most fanatic idiot will say "I can't tell the difference" just because you feel like making an invalid point.
Quote:
Would you expect rampant compression artefacts, banding, crush, etc. because of such a "low" bitrate? Do you see signs of compression artefacts or encoding problems in the existing theatrical edition release? I'm aware that the theatrical edition release isn't perfect (apart from Fellowship's problems, it sounds like there's possibly DNR and EE on all 3 films), but are there truly problems with the encode or are you just being temperamental because you saw how "low" the bitrate is and wanted to complain about it? What problems are there that a higher bitrate would have solved? How high would this bitrate need to be to "solve" these mystical "problems"?
I never look at the bitrate meter. As for the artefacts, I have the set, do you? But to answer your question yes I think there is room for improvement. The issue, and why I never ***** about the quality of the transfer and only use “is it better then DVD” as a criteria for it being worth the purchase, is that you can’t realistically tell why each artefact is there. (Is it a stylistic choice, was it there in the master……) but if a studio tells me that it can look better and they are willing to offer it, I won’t look a gift horse in the mouth. Now when the EE come out both you and I we will be able to see exactly how much better that extra BW/capacity made them. Until then it is more or less useless since you assume the only reason WB was willing to spend millions on an extra 3 disks in the set was to make your statement appear wrong.
As a film fan first and a Bluray fan after, i love the quality that BR represents. Why anyone would wan't to settle for downloaded junk when they can watch a film in the highest quality possible is a mystery. Those people are just passive film fans, i believe it is the enthusiasts who will keep Bluray going strong for many years.
I love technology and i a fan of the Internet, but the day that Bluray bcomes obselete i will give up and subscribe to Sky HD and watch my films that way. No match for Bluray but probably better than anything that downloads can manage for several years. Streaming does not appeal to me either. The picture freezing even for a second would be too much of a distraction. If i wanted dancing pixels i would of stopped with dvd!
I will be stocking up on my blurays and collecting as many as possible.
As for the arguments about quality of downloads matching Bluray in 5-10 years (yeah....right!)
My prediction for Bluray is that it will be around for another 10 years at least and hopefully after that 4k! Bring it on!!! Technology should improve not go backwards.
As a film fan first and a Bluray fan after, i love the quality that BR represents. Why anyone would wan't to settle for downloaded junk when they can watch a film in the highest quality possible is a mystery.
You make some good points and I do agree with you in part, however...
To me ownership of my contact on physical media trumps quality (within reason). So, while at the moment I happen to be able to enjoy the best of both worlds since Blu-Ray physical media currently offers the best quality available, even if the tables were turned (or if they get turned one day), I'll still take Blu-Ray (or some physical media) over "download junk" or even "download gold".
Heck, even now if something isn't available on Blu-Ray, I'll still take a DVD over a download even if the download offers better quality. I don't want all of my data on a hard drive that can crash and then lose everything.
So, while quality does matter to me, ownership trumps it. And in that sense, I don't consider myself any less of a "film fan" for potentially choosing a lower quality option if it benefits me in many other ways in terms of me having access to the films that I like.
Fair points, I too would buy the dvd in special cases. I suppose I have become obsessed with quality but the pixellation on some dvds were distracting to the point of taking me out of the film. Downloads would be more of the same. It really does seem like a backward step to me. I'm sure people will argue that the content is more important than the delivery and in a way I think they are partly correct. However, with large HD screens, once the eyes have adjusted to Bluray it's just not the same going back to dvd or any other inferior format. Just finished watching 'The Pacific' and the detail is superb. There is a grain structure, that is handled superbly and i could only imagine what a mess internet compression systems would of made of it.
It's a strange world we live in when finally we have a format to rival cinema (in a home environment) and some folk seem to want to go back to sub dvd quality. I know everyone is different and people have different standards but it is frustrating hearing of all this crap about digital downloads making Blurays obsolete.
Fair points, I too would buy the dvd in special cases. I suppose I have become obsessed with quality but the pixellation on some dvds were distracting to the point of taking me out of the film. Downloads would be more of the same. It really does seem like a backward step to me. I'm sure people will argue that the content is more important than the delivery and in a way I think they are partly correct. However, with large HD screens, once the eyes have adjusted to Bluray it's just not the same going back to dvd or any other inferior format. Just finished watching 'The Pacific' and the detail is superb. There is a grain structure, that is handled superbly and i could only imagine what a mess internet compression systems would of made of it.
It's a strange world we live in when finally we have a format to rival cinema (in a home environment) and some folk seem to want to go back to sub dvd quality. I know everyone is different and people have different standards but it is frustrating hearing of all this crap about digital downloads making Blurays obsolete.
It will never make blu-ray obsolete at least not in a time frame that blu-ray would still be viable without the option of streaming. However i do see it as a growing method of delivery and yet another way to get content in our homes, i just hope as quality increases some of the die hard purists will hop on board to be the voice that keeps those quality standards high. The same voices that kept us from inferior transfers like fifth element and full metal jacket during the early stages of this format.
It will never make blu-ray obsolete at least not in a time frame that blu-ray would still be viable without the option of streaming. However i do see it as a growing method of delivery and yet another way to get content in our homes, i just hope as quality increases some of the die hard purists will hop on board to be the voice that keeps those quality standards high. The same voices that kept us from inferior transfers like fifth element and full metal jacket during the early stages of this format.
the issue is that it first needs to become a "premium" service. Anyone that cares about quality look at quality first so as long as BD (or some other hard media) offers something better there is no need to ***** about something you don't use. Only once SM/DL/streaming surpasses it would anyone who cares about quality look at it.
Thanks guys, i agree with most of your comments. However, just because we love higher quality does not mean we will always get it. Look at the MP3 format. Plenty of music lovers out there were afraid of this format, especially true music lovers with their seperates sound systems. There is no way mp3's are going to sound great through a good setup. I know Cd's are still holding out (even Vinyl)and that is encouraging for the Bluray format because it shows people still love better quality and the ability to hold a product in their hands or store it on shelves. Blurays lasting as long as cd's will do me fine because i am 36 now! hopefully the industry will have the common sense to see that people love their quality and step it up to the next (better) technology many many years from now.
I thought to share this with everyone. I discovered this article, posted today, as it was reported by Slashdot. It's an interesting article about one person's view on why Blu-ray has failed to catch on among consumers and why many consumers are still hesitant over the new format.
In its first two years, DVD struggled to take off, and the so-called experts were predicting its imminent demise because (they said) consumers would stick with the recordable VHS format.
The rest, as they say, is history.
I'm not saying that Blu-ray doesn't have a way to go before it truly takes hold in the mass market. But to predict its obsolescence by the end of the year is poppycock.
w/the huge push for HDTV's and tv being broadcast in high def....i really can't see people settling for an inferior picture while streaming after investing in an HDTV.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
