Ask the Insiders: Putting the Last Nails in the Coffin

[darinp2]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Many Disney titles also push the meter. AVC on Chicago peaks over 40 quite a bit... and seems to average in the high 30's.

One thing to consider is that Chicago is a 1.85:1 movie, so about 1920x1038 of picture data (unless they convert to the full 1920x1080 at 1.78:1), where 2.35:1 movies have about 1920x817 of picture data (they may truncate or round to a multiple of 8 or something like that though). Also, from seeing them on different formats I would say that Chicago seemed much grainier than the LOTR movies. I would be surprised if the LOTR movies required the same bitrates as Chicago before no improvement could be seen with a top display, even though Chicago has some slow moving scenes.

--Darin

[DaViD Boulet]

I assume that's total bitrate though, not just video? Since the max bitrate for video on BD is 40Mbps, either the bitrate meter is wrong (which Max has alluded to before) or it's measuring total bitrate.

I thought that the max video bit-rate was a little over 40? What's the exact answer?

[FourToedStatue]

I asked this in Talk and Bill's thread but I guess this would be the most appropriate thread to ask in:

Insiders, Are we likely to see the studios increasing their catalog output? It seems rather skimpy the next few months. I wish each studio would move at a rate similiar to Universal.

[WickyWoo]

Is your position that they will split these LOTR movies across 2 discs in order to get more languages on there total, more with lossless, or to allow video ABRs above 25 Mbps?

They absolutely will because even at 25 they still can't get ROTK onto one disc. You need to have a logical break point, that was already designed into each film for DVD. Honestly I don't think you'll be seeing a push for dub tracks in lossless that much anyway. People who care about sound quality aren't listening to dimestore voiceover people, they're watching the real thing. Warner's "lossless on main track and a pile of DD 5.1" is closer to what will be the norm.

nsiders, Are we likely to see the studios increasing their catalog output? It seems rather skimpy the next few months. I wish each studio would move at a rate similiar to Universal.

Again, no you really don't. Look at Bill's report last week about how Uni can't reuse a bunch of their HD DVD compressions because they come from decade old masters and look like crap compared to the other stuff on Blu

Universal moves fast on catalog titles because they were doing shovelware to try to increase HD DVD's title count

[Slec]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Again, no you really don't. Look at Bill's report last week about how Uni can't reuse a bunch of their HD DVD compressions because they come from decade old masters and look like crap compared to the other stuff on Blu

Universal moves fast on catalog titles because they were doing shovelware to try to increase HD DVD's title count

Hmm interesting... Should we be wary when they finally become Blu? Other than reviews, would the insiders then be bombarded with transfer questions?

Something to think about

[WickyWoo]

Hmm interesting... Should we be wary when they finally become Blu? Other than reviews, would the insiders then be bombarded with transfer questions?

I don't think any of our insiders would really know, since they don't work for Uni or at places they would be dealing with.

[Mystery Clock]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Again, no you really don't. Look at Bill's report last week about how Uni can't reuse a bunch of their HD DVD compressions because they come from decade old masters and look like crap compared to the other stuff on Blu

Universal moves fast on catalog titles because they were doing shovelware to try to increase HD DVD's title count

You know, I'm actually wondering if there might also be a technical reason why they can't reuse the titles. IIRC, another former insider (on another forum) who shall remain Anonymous once mentioned that the VC1 specs were very slightly different between BD and HD, and that you had to be careful to produce encodes that would be compatible with both. I don't recall the specifics, I'm afraid.

Could it be that Uni was not so careful and never even considered the future, and may be stuck with a pile of non-compatible HD-only encodes (crappy transfers or not)??

-John

[DaViD Boulet]

You know, I'm actually wondering if there might *also* be a technical reason why they can't reuse the titles. IIRC, another former insider who shall remain *A*nonymous once mentioned that the VC1 specs were very slightly different between BD and HD, and that you had to be careful to produce encodes that would be compatible with both. I don't recall the specifics, I'm afraid. Could it be that Uni was not so careful and never even considered the future, and may be stuck with a pile of non-compatible HD-only encodes (crappy transfers or not)??

Quite possible. Though that wouldn't necessiate the expense of new transfers, only new VC-1/AVC compressions.

[TheRealBob]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

They absolutely will because even at 25 they still can't get ROTK onto one disc.

I'd forgotten how long RoTK was (250 minutes). Just doing simple math, a 50 GB disc would give it 26.7 megabits per second, total (video and audio).

So, yeah, we're definitely starting to run out of bits here. I stand corrected.

[darinp2]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

They absolutely will because even at 25 they still can't get ROTK onto one disc.

Are you claiming that they will split the theatrical version across 2 discs, or just the extended version? I doubt they will split the theatrical version and I think there is a good chance they won't split the extended version across 2 discs, since I doubt New Line thinks they need even over 20Mbps ABR for video for that one. Depends on extras and maybe they will decide to split the extended version if they are going to be using 2 discs anyway because of extras or if they decide to do it for marketing reasons.

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

You need to have a logical break point, that was already designed into each film for DVD. Honestly I don't think you'll be seeing a push for dub tracks in lossless that much anyway. People who care about sound quality aren't listening to dimestore voiceover people, they're watching the real thing. Warner's "lossless on main track and a pile of DD 5.1" is closer to what will be the norm.

I'm still not sure how you came up with your 2.5 hour claim for BD50s. Did you use specific numbers for the audio bitrates and video bitrates to come up with that? Would you apply your 2.5 hour claim to releases with 3 languages or less on there (like most releases in the US)?

--Darin

[WickyWoo]

You know, I'm actually wondering if there might also be a technical reason why they can't reuse the titles. IIRC, another former insider (on another forum) who shall remain Anonymous once mentioned that the VC1 specs were very slightly different between BD and HD, and that you had to be careful to produce encodes that would be compatible with both. I don't recall the specifics, I'm afraid.

It's just a difference in block size. It takes less than an hour to convert a full 30GB disc if that's all you're doing. Otherwise you just have to make sure that the peaks don't violate HD DVD's limited bandwidth. Anything HD can do, Blu can do better as they say.

Are you claiming that they will split the theatrical version across 2 discs, or just the extended version?

I wasn't aware anyone actually would want to watch the theatrical versions again.

Are you claiming that they will split the theatrical version across 2 discs, or just the extended version? I doubt they will split the theatrical version and I think there is a good chance they won't split the extended version across 2 discs, since I doubt New Line thinks they need even over 20Mbps ABR for video for that one

And as you've demonstrated a lot of times, you don't know anything about a lot of aspects of production. I'm not sure why anyone would be advocating a "good enough" approach for the most important film trilogy since Star Wars just so they don't have to get their butt off a couch after 2 hours

I'm still not sure how you came up with your 2.5 hour claim for BD50s. Did you use specific numbers for the audio bitrates and video bitrates to come up with that?

I cited Pirates 3, which at 168 minutes, and full of major complicated action/battle scenes, as weel as a similar color scheme/shooting process to LOTR

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...16&postcount=3

The disc size is 45GB, with an average bitrate of 22.14 for the video

As I mentioned previously, there are definately scenes that show signs of being bitstarved. So given that Fellowship is 178min (208min EE), 179min(223 EE) for Two Towers, and Return of the King 201 min (251 EE), I fail to see how they could be placed onto a single disc, or have a lower bitrate without severely compromising the quality.

[Bullseye]

I have Alexander which is on two discs. If it means the best possible quality i see no problem with two discs.

[WickyWoo]

I have Alexander which is on two discs. If it means the best possible quality i see no problem with two discs

Alexander was 2 BD-25s because HD DVD needed 2 HD 30s to fit the whole movie.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Alexander was 2 BD-25s because HD DVD needed 2 HD 30s to fit the whole movie.

I read at one point that Mr. Stone wanted two discs for the intermission. Any truth to that?

[OokieSpookie]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

I have Alexander which is on two discs. If it means the best possible quality i see no problem with two discs.

Exactly.
Give me a mind blowing experience, with the best sound and visual and all of the extras you can scrounge up.
I will accept two disks if they are loaded.

[FourToedStatue]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Universal moves fast on catalog titles because they were doing shovelware to try to increase HD DVD's title count

Ah ok. I was not aware of this. So you think for the most part this is as fast as they can go for the time being (with respect to quality)?

[WickyWoo]

Ah ok. I was not aware of this. So you think for the most part this is as fast as they can go for the time being (with respect to quality)?

Given current authoring, replication capacity, and the size of the market this is as fast as they can/should be going.

Larger market=More authoring houses=bigger replication=more titles on shelves

[BillCable]

Originally Posted by OokieSpookie

Exactly.
Give me a mind blowing experience, with the best sound and visual and all of the extras you can scrounge up.
I will accept two disks if they are loaded.

The Hobbit comes out in 2010. Is it reasonable to hope BD100s will be in production at that point? If so, then problem solved! A single disk RotK with a flawless, bit-rich presentation won't be any problem at all.

[Anthony P]

I thought that the max video bit-rate was a little over 40? What's the exact answer?

40mbps for video (max)
48mbps for all content (max)
54mbps spin rate. (min)

But you need to remember two things

1) bitrate meters are never exact
2) the max video bitrate is there because the video processing needs to have a min (in other words if you stay below max then the player should not have any issues playing it back) there is nothing to really stop someone that does go a bit over and in most cases you should be OK. And if you do go above and everything is not OK (beyond what the player’s capabilities) it would just mean some extra decoding artefacts and issues, the movie will still go on but for a fraction of a second you will have some glitches.

[WickyWoo]

The Hobbit comes out in 2010. Is it reasonable to hope BD100s will be in production at that point? If so, then problem solved! A single disk RotK with a flawless, bit-rich presentation won't be any problem at all.

No, I seriously doubt you will ever see a commercial, pressed BD100 disc, nor have I even heard of anyone proposing making them. They don't even have the specs for one, and only lab samples for the burnables, and personally, I believe the chances of seeing even one of those at a price that even approaches being worth it is slim. Just because they can make them work in a lab does not mean that mass replication is, or ever will be practical(not saying it WON'T mind you), at least on a consumer level.

Remember, even after what, 4 years on the market, DVD-R 9s are about $4 each in bulk. On a good sale, DVD-R is $0.20, making it 10 times more expensive for the same amount of storage

Which means that if BD-100 hit today, each blank, again in bulk and on a real good sale would be $125 each.