Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[jd213]

Worse comes to worst I can probably figure out how to extract the streams to a .ts file or something and play it on my PS3, although I think it would be output as 1080p60 and not 1080p24, however.

[Jeff Kleist]

The footage was shot on the RED ONE, he didn't specify framerate but it might be 30fps anyway

My computer isn't fast enough for Blu playback (fast single core), that's an expense for next year

[NL197]

So burning it to DVD-R and running it on a PS3 won't work?

I don't know how other Blu-ray players handle files, so I don't know if since PS3 is more multimedia friendly, it can play the disc.

[jd213]

Originally Posted by NL197

So burning it to DVD-R and running it on a PS3 won't work?

It says "Please keep in mind that this image, while only 800MB, cannot be burned to a DVD-R for playback in a player due to the high bit rates used" on the Digital Bits, although you may be right in that a PS3 could handle it anyways. Won't be able to try it myself for a few days, though.

[Jeff Kleist]

That depends actually

Blu-ray players see a DVD media and refuse to spin up faster than 1x, and to do the bitrates on the disc you need the full 1.5x. The PS3 likely shares this characteristic (I expect it's probably an anti-piracy measure as much as anything else, to prevent SVCD style split discs)

[Jason One]

Quoting Bill's writeup from today:

In the specific case of T2, there's a notable difference in detail between the new Lionsgate edition and the version available from Geneon in Japan on Blu-ray. The new Lionsgate disc (encoded in VC-1 - Lionsgate says no DNR was requested) looks a little softer than the Geneon version (encoded in AVC at a slightly higher data rate).

...

As a result of these and other discussions, the consensus seems to be that the difference in image detail between the two T2 Blu-rays MAY result from the way VC-1 and AVC handle hard edges in the image during the encoding process.

Can I ask why the original UK/European HD DVD (later ported to BD) is not part of this discussion? It used VC-1 as well, at a slightly lower bit rate than the Skynet Edition -- and yet, unlike the Skynet Edition, it was able to retain all the grain also seen in every previous high-def version of T2.

This would seem to show that VC-1, if encoded properly, does not inherently soften the image.

I might also ask why we should believe Lionsgate's claim that they didn't use DNR. Wasn't Bill assured by Paramount in advance that no DNR was used on the Star Trek films? We all know how that turned out.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Your opinion interjected as if it were fact?

Do you really have difficulty identifying that statement as opinion?

[Michael.Schinke]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Do you really have difficulty identifying that statement as opinion?

Thanks Doc, but I'm more concerned with his inability to apply the word "coherent" correctly while criticizing my statement.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by Jason One

Quoting Bill's writeup from today:


Can I ask why the original UK/European HD DVD (later ported to BD) is not part of this discussion? It used VC-1 as well, at a slightly lower bit rate than the Skynet Edition -- and yet, unlike the Skynet Edition, it was able to retain all the grain also seen in every previous high-def version of T2.

This would seem to show that VC-1, if encoded properly, does not inherently soften the image.

I might also ask why we should believe Lionsgate's claim that they didn't use DNR. Wasn't Bill assured by Paramount in advance that no DNR was used on the Star Trek films? We all know how that turned out.

This is getting old, so let me address it...

Bill (yours truly) was assured by a friend at the studio who doesn't work in mastering that no DNR was used, and though they were very well meaning, they were obviously incorrect. When Bill DID confirm there was a problem, the weekend prior to street, he immediately spoke directly with the studio's senior mastering person to get to the bottom of things, and then went directly on to his site, The Digital Bits, and spoke the truth so that everyone was forewarned. Including, I assume, you.

The European T2 disc is not part of the discussion because I haven't seen it, and frankly I'm starting to get sick to death of the whole issue.

You can believe, or not believe, my report of Lionsgate's claims. I don't really care. I've now seen plenty of people call Van Ling a liar when he came out and directly said that no DNR was requested on this title, so the fact is, you're just going to believe whatever you want. The deal is this: People I've known for years at Lionsgate who are part of the actual process, who I trust and would know if they were lying to me, told me that they requested no DNR. Van Ling has said he (and they) requested no DNR. Additional sources have independently confirmed to me that the studio requested no DNR. It's possible that the mastering house, out of habit and/or on their own initiative, applied some DNR on their own prior to encoding. We've been unable to confirm whether that happened or not, so we're focusing on what we CAN confirm, and we've consulted Stacey and other film encoding and mastering experts for their thoughts on the matter. The situation is what it is. You can choose to believe that the studio is pulling a snow job on everyone, and they're just out to screw you personally, but this is what we've learned from the people who were directly involved. And what I can say for sure is that Van would never lie about this stuff, and he cares about these things WAY more than you guys do. So make your own best informed decision. All I can do is go directly to the horse's mouth, attempt to get confirmation, and report what they tell me.

Regardless, there's a larger issue here: EVERYONE online now seems to be an "expert" on DNR and grain and video quality. People who should know better are swearing up and down that this or that Blu-ray is shit. Sometimes, they're right. But well over half the time, they have no absolutely idea what they're talking about, and no context or proper reference points upon which to make such judgments, other than that "the previous DVD looked better!" Sometimes people who DO know what they're talking about and do have the context and proper reference points are STILL jumping to hasty conclusions.

Just recently, an acquaintance who I respect and like (well known online to all of you and who knows film very well) e-mailed me swearing that the new Ghostbusters Blu-ray is crap and Sony screwed it up, and that the D.P. Laszlo Kovacs would NEVER have allow it to happen, and that the original DVD was far superior in color timing, etc. Turns out Kovacs wasn't involved at all with the original DVD transfer, but he actually DID personally supervise and approve the new Blu-ray transfer and color timing before he died. Not only that, the director is happy with it too. All of which goes to show you that even very smart and well meaning people are having a hard time keeping all this grain/DNR business in perspective, and are jumping to hasty conclusions. In the various online forums, the usual expression of this is something along the lines of "THE STUDIO IS SCREWING US! IT'S AN OUTRAGE!" Occasionally, it really is an outrage. Think Patton. More often than not, however, people who should know better are going overboard. Everyone has an opinion on grain, and no two opinions seem to be the same on any given title.

This is why we asked Stacey to put together this disc to at least TRY to educate people a little bit, and give them all a better frame of reference, and try to raise the bar on these discussions. This way, you can all look at an objective comparison of how codecs and filtering and bit rate impact grain and image detail on Blu-ray. Download it, check it out, take a deep breath... and PLEASE everyone try to put this whole DNR/grain issue IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. Seriously.

I swear to god, I get 50 e-mails a day from people complaining about too much grain, or not enough grain, very often on the SAME titles. Ugh.

Sorry to seem as if I'm unloading on you... but this needed to be said. So there you go. It's said. Believe what you will.

[jd213]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Just recently, an acquaintance who I respect and like (well known online to all of you and who knows film very well) e-mailed me swearing that the new Ghostbusters Blu-ray is crap and Sony screwed it up, and that the D.P. Laszlo Kovacs would NEVER have allow it to happen, and that the original DVD was far superior in color timing, etc. Turns out Kovacs wasn't involved at all with the original DVD transfer, but he actually DID personally supervise and approve the new Blu-ray transfer and color timing before he died. Not only that, the director is happy with it too.

Was just checking out the discussion of GB on HDD, and in this post the reviewer posted a link to a '99 interview where Reitman says that he worked on making sure the original DVD was just right and improved upon the LD release which "pumped up the light level so much you saw all the matte lines". The reviewer then points out that the matte lines were more visible on the 2005 DVD.

So is this a case of the director and DP not seeing eye to eye? I know I personally would personally prefer the contrast to be not so high, but I'll take GB on Blu any way I can get.

[Stacey Spears]

Has there been independent testing done on the different codecs at different bitrates?

It is not meant for you to compare codec A vs. codec B. It was meant for you to compare Codec A with and without loop filter and then codec B with and without loop filter. However, I knew people would suggest A vs. B, which is why I am offering the source content for you to encode with encoder x, y and z.

The source is large. (1.5 GB uncompressed), it will shrink some when zipped up. If someone has a place for me to dump the source, I will put it there. You should be able to extract the streams and mux into MP4. I could also provide the streams unmuxed, if someone wanted to host them.

I only had access to one AVC encoder. I did NOT use x264 because at that bitrate you must use profile 4.1, which requires 4 slices. If x264 would allow more than one slice, I would have used it.

There is something wonky in the MPEG2 version. I suspect it is a bug in the encoder.

These days I work on one of the E3 announcements.

[Stacey Spears]

who I trust and would know if they were lying to me, told me that they requested no DNR.

Just to add to Bill's comment. I know of at least one example, where a studio does NOT allow the use of DVNR on their titles. However, DVNR was used on certain parts of a high profile title to clean it up. This occured a couple of years ago. I don't know if the studio every learned it was done. The reviews of this title were positive.

DVNR seems to be used in post as well. Many digital cameras have poor low light capability. DVNR is used to clean some of the noise up. Not always, but it is done.

If you look at the DVNR version(s) I put on the disc, it is impressive on how much detail is retained. The one thing I wish I would have included was an original, non-grain, encode. The file was getting too big, so I ran out of room. I could, provide that source as well.

[Jeff Kleist]

One thing that should also be noted RE: T2

There are 2 seperate encodes for the Skynet edition. Most of the scientists screenshots were taken from the more highly compressed European version. LG's domestic has a higher overall bitrate and peaking. Lower bitrate=softer fine detail on challenging shots (simplified)

[Doctorossi]

This may be one for Penton, but...

Guys, I know Sony is taking a 'not before it's ready' approach with Lawrence of Arabia, and I'm so thankful for it- I don't want it until it's *RIGHT*.

With that proper approach in mind, have you heard anything recently about what kind of timeframe things are looking on track for? And/or do you have an educated guess? In the simplest terms, I'm curious what you think the chances are, at this point, that it'll see a 2009 release. Any update?

[Jeff Kleist]

Any release dates on Lawrence are taboo I'd say within the next 2 years is not an unreasonable expectation given current circumstances that are always subject to change

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Any release dates on Lawrence are taboo

Unpredictable secret weapon, huh?

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.







Two years- that's a relief.

Thanks, Jeff!

[Jeff Kleist]

I do want to emphasize that that's my personal guess based on the facts at hand and should not be taken as gospel in any way, shape or form

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

One thing that should also be noted RE: T2

There are 2 seperate encodes for the Skynet edition. Most of the scientists screenshots were taken from the more highly compressed European version. LG's domestic has a higher overall bitrate and peaking. Lower bitrate=softer fine detail on challenging shots (simplified)

That's completely true. However, it is awfully puzzling how the images taken from the screenshot scientist's original (lower bit) Euro copy seems to show the same amount of detail as the Geneon. This is like trying to figure out the missing link to the entire situation IMO.

[Jeff Kleist]

They don't show the same amount of detail.

Check out the shot of sarah at the picnic table in the desert, you can see loss of detail on her face which can be explained by the loop filter

[HeavyHitter]

I was referring to the images in this thread in terms of the original UK release vs. the Japanese release (among others). The DVDBeaver site doesn't have the original UK shots (if that is what you meant).