LOTR ROTK:EE ready to fit on HD DVD.

[Maximus]

Big news for all LOTR fans, a MS employee has announced on a forum that they have calculated the VC-1 requirements for ROTK:EE with lossless audio. What that will mean for BD release I don't know but have a read.

[JTK]

If it can fit on HD-DVD with major compression, like it would have to, then obviously a BD50 is an easy no brainer.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by JTK

If it can fit on HD-DVD with major compression, like it would have to, then obviously a BD50 is an easy no brainer.

Hopefully New Line will optimize for BD, and pump the bitrate, and use DTS-HDMA rather than True-HD or even LPCM. I don't want to see another Warner-esque non-format optimised release here.

[Josh]

He said it could fit, not how it would fit. All this talk about transparency is just bull plop. They can get transparency to the 1080p master, but not the film master. Hopefully Warner won't force New Line to limit this release the way they have with other releases.

[phloyd]

Originally Posted by joshd2012

They can get transparency to the 1080p master, but not the film master.

I doubt even that.

I hear about banding on this or that Warner release. I don't believe for a second that the 1080p masters have banding. The tighter they compress things the more likely it is that they have artifacts like that.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by phloyd

I doubt even that.

I hear about banding on this or that Warner release. I don't believe for a second that the 1080p masters have banding. The tighter they compress things the more likely it is that they have artifacts like that.

Exactly right, despite the Kool Aid of "VC-1 is perfection beyond question or doubt" that's bandied about on certain forums.

[Ben]

New Line won't be releasing any LotR discs in HD DVD or Blu-Ray until 2008 at the earliest... or at least, that's what they've publically said. I'm hearing that no work has been done yet internally on any of these titles. They need to settle the Peter Jackson lawsuit first...

[phloyd]

Looks like Ben Waggoner has joined the Microsoft FUD team.

It is sad because I used to have some respect for him.

Ben says:

Only a few low-volume titles have sold in BD-50 so far.

I guess Superman Returns is a low volume title...

[JTK]

Originally Posted by phloyd

Looks like Ben Waggoner has joined the Microsoft FUD team.

It is sad because I used to have some respect for him.

Ben says:


I guess Superman Returns is a low volume title...

I'll be sure to update my 70+ person ignore list over there accordingly.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by phloyd

Looks like Ben Waggoner has joined the Microsoft FUD team.

It is sad because I used to have some respect for him.

Ben says:


I guess Superman Returns is a low volume title...

Waggoner is still a lot better than Amir, Amir believes that triple layer discs will be integrated into the movie specs, but at least Waggoner will admit that dual layer is the maximum for both formats when concerning films.

[WriteSimply]

192kbps Dolby Digital 2.0 for one commentary track x 4 = 768kpbs.
250 minutes = 15000 seconds
(.768Mbps x 15000 s) / (8 bit x 1000G) = 1.44 GB for the commentary tracks.

So that leaves 28.56GB for the movie (not including menu animation and stuff).

According to my Excel sheet, that means they can do this by using:
a) TrueHD 5.1, 16-bit/48kHz at 13Mbps average video rate
= 27.00 GB + 1.44 GB = 28.44 GB

b) TrueHD 7.1, 16-bit/48kHz at 13Mbps average video rate
= 27.94 GB + 1.44 GB = 29.38 GB

c) TrueHD 5.1, 24-bit/48kHz at 11Mbps average video rate
= 27.00 GB + 1.44 GB = 28.44 GB

d) TrueHD 7.1, 24-bit/48kHz at 10Mbps average video rate
= 27.56 GB + 1.44 GB = 29 GB

So yeah, they can definitely do it on a HD-DVD30. But the question is, would you want to pay to see LOTR:ROTK EE at an average video rate of between 10 to 13Mbps?

I for one will take a pass on that. Next!


fuad

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

So yeah, they can definitely do it on a HD-DVD30. But the question is, would you want to pay to see LOTR:ROTK EE at an average video rate of between 10 to 13Mbps?

I for one will take a pass on that. Next!


fuad

I think Channel 4 in the UK are going to do a HD broadcast over here over Christmas. I am not 100% on this but I do think they use the same standards as the BBC who broadcast their major HD in 20Mb+ AVC DD+ in 1080i60, meaning the broadcast in the UK will be better than the HD-DVD. Hows that for value .

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Big news for all LOTR fans, a MS employee has announced on a forum that they have calculated the VC-1 requirements for ROTK:EE with lossless audio. What that will mean for BD release I don't know but have a read.

Amir did the calculation six months ago. It wasn't very promising from an average or peak bit-rate point of view. But, naturally whatever the number worked out to be, VC-1 was perfect for it at those rates.

HD DVD is definitely the perfect storm format. Whatever turns out to be possible is all that is needed.

Oh, all it can do is 16-bit lossless? Then that is perfect. Oh, not even 16-bit lossless? Oh then we meant 1.5Mbps DD+ was perfect. The extras won't fit? Put it on a second disc. What if the extras are interactive with the main feature? (crickets)

LOTR-ROTK-EE is 251 minutes (15060 seconds). For the BD they could:

1) Use up 30GB for VC-1 video (16Mbps average)
AND
2) Include an 48/20 LPCM audio track (10GB)
AND
3) Have 10GB left over for extras interactive with the feature (other angles, animatic story board, etc. in PiP)

No improvements in VC-1 need to relied upon to occur. No massive effort from the compressionists to accomplish it.

It is going to cost New Line a fortune in compressionist time to get the HD DVD to look OK. I really hope they will treat those titles with the respect they deserve and allow them to be unleashed on Blu-ray.

LOTR is the type of title for which we want a format to be designed for. The HD DVD crowd waves it off as an outlier that is a mere inconvenience.

Geez, if the great films of all time aren't what home theater is all about, what the heck are you in it for?

Gary

[DaveFi]

Yeah, well I just computed how many HD-DVDs it takes to wipe my ass. WTF cares?

Really, I mean if you compress it enough you can fit anything on any format. What a totally meaningless post.

Thank you very much.

[iceman]

I would be seriously worried about the quality of LoTR extended on one dual layer HD-DVD. Of course it "could fit" with VC-1, it could also fit on a DVD, just that it had to be compressed slightly more....

In any case, it will take a while until they release it and hopefully (I'm sure they will) they will release it with really nice PQ and AQ and I think a BD-50 would be the appropriate choice.

[Deciazulado]

Well if the audio is 16 bit, it's not loss-less, as the multichannel DVD-As of the soundtracks are at a much more higher bit-depth. So a 16 bit HD-DVD would be then a truncated/decimated/amputated (take your pick ) lossless track. Doublespeak?
I thought we'd gotten into blue lasers and bigger storage discs to get better quality than red laser DVD and DVD-A

Anyway, I think I'll repost this MaxiDeci version numbers:

Here's a krazee Maxbit TrueHD version:

TrueHD 6.1 Maxbit

ROTK 250 mins x 60 secs = 15000 secs
Sound in TrueHD (24/48 in 6.1) - 15000 x 4.025 Mb/s = 7.6 GB
Video in AVC @ 22.6 Mb/s x 15,000 = 42.4 GB
Total film: 50 GB

video bitrate will actually be a luttle less cus of subs and other stuffi,
and yes another sound codec could be used to change these numbers, but why would you?

So mmm looking at fuad's Excellent sheet stuff we can see that optimizing for HD-DVD you have to use about TWICE as much compression (discard half the data) (or more!) than if you optimize for BD. I don't want half of the Return Of the King, I want the whole of it. Give me the gasoline, give me the pump, give me the whole compound - Mad Deci


How about you?

[zzap64]

It is advertised on HD DVD on Amazon. Hopefully will come out on Blu-ray as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Tri...650831-6796618

[MFS3Kiryu]

It's such a shame there is no way to get the real info out to average-Joe consumer. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or electronics expert to see that 20-35gigs > 25-50gigs and that more space = better audio and video quality.

I mean, why settle? The prices between discs $5 is marginal and will only go down as time goes by. I don't see how someone who is a fan of Lord of The Rings, owns those expensive extended cuts on DVD already, would want to settle for anything less the the best available. And lets face it kids, only Blu-Ray can offer the best. And as consumers we should be demanding the best bang for our buck.

If you ask me, for something with the scope of Lord of the Rings, the overhead shots of the landscape, the massive armies marching, all the things that took your breath away in the theater, who wouldn't want to be able to re-experience that in their home with the best picture and sound the entertainment industry has to offer?

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by MFS3Kiryu

It's such a shame there is no way to get the real info out to average-Joe consumer. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or electronics expert to see that 20-35gigs > 25-50gigs and that more space = better audio and video quality.

I mean, why settle? The prices between discs $5 is marginal and will only go down as time goes by. I don't see how someone who is a fan of Lord of The Rings, owns those expensive extended cuts on DVD already, would want to settle for anything less the the best available. And lets face it kids, only Blu-Ray can offer the best. And as consumers we should be demanding the best bang for our buck.

If you ask me, for something with the scope of Lord of the Rings, the overhead shots of the landscape, the massive armies marching, all the things that took your breath away in the theater, who wouldn't want to be able to re-experience that in their home with the best picture and sound the entertainment industry has to offer?

Exactly. Why settle for anything less than the best, especially when the price difference has become negligible/non existant.