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

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by Jason One

This was the main point of my post. I just wanted to point out that the original UK T2 release does not seem to support your conclusions regarding AVC/VC-1 and their effects on T2, and I think the discussion is incomplete without taking that disc into account.


I see that you added an editor's note mentioning this on the site. Thank you.

That's all I was getting at. I was not saying I disbelieved your report of Lionsgate's claim. I am glad that you agree that, despite Lionsgate and Van Ling's best intentions, there could still have been some DNR or filtering snuck in at some point in the chain.

I believe I've mentioned this possibility on The Bits in previous discussions of the title. It IS possible, yes. Though not confirmed.

[AKORIS]

Bill or Jeff--

just to whet our appetites-- and without giving any hints or names--

how many "blockbuster" titles are you guys aware of that will hit blu
this year and are not announced as of yet?

[SMGOFF]

Originally Posted by NutsAboutPS3

Remember that if every block were an exact representation of the original image, there would be no need for smoothing of this kind. The smoothing is only necessary because blocks are reused within the image, to use fewer bytes and give an approximate representation of the image. Thus, the hard boundaries between blocks are an artifact, not genuine image detail, so we aren't losing image detail by smoothing them out. Also remember that at the time of encoding, the software knows what the original image looks like. What I would hope that the software is doing is modifying the blocks to try to avoid it looking blocky, and to produce as close a representation as possible of the original image. Because AVC can modify more pixels during this process, it should be able to achieve a closer representation of the original image.

Yes, I know that it is a deblocking loop filter, but if it affects more pixels it smooths more pixels, the trade-off being removal of detail (whether real picture information or blocking) for the removal of artifacts. AVC's loop filter may be better at deblocking, but the claim has been that VC-1 retains more fine detail at the expensive of more blocking. Of course, the AVC loop filter can be disabled, as it is for some films (Ratatouille, for one). I think I read somewhere that this is the preference at Sony.

On the other hand, it has been said that use of a loop filter may actually help retain more detail at lower bitrates, since it is part of the decoding of reference frames, and thus allows later frames to be more accurate using fewer bits.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

Bill or Jeff--

just to whet our appetites-- and without giving any hints or names--

how many "blockbuster" titles are you guys aware of that will hit blu
this year and are not announced as of yet?

Honestly, I suspect that MOST of the major titles that will be released this year have already been hinted at. There are a few possibilities for surprises in the 4th quarter, but it's too early to confirm anything reliably. Convesely, I know of key titles that were planned for late 2009 that are likely to become 2010 titles. I suspect we'll know at lot more following Comic-Con next month. If any surprises are likely to be dropped, that's where it will happen. There, or in announcements within the following few weeks.

[AKORIS]

I had a feeling you would say something like that (and I want my
ALIENS set this year thank you very much!)

okay-- thanks for the info as always and congrats on 19 years of
marriage!! (same boat here-- our 19th anniversary is in August)

[blu2]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

He might, but finding exactly the right one that strikes him in the same vein as the other films is still tough.

Seems like he's wanted to do "The Forever War" for a lonnnng time:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...ryid=1236&cs=1

"I first pursued ‘Forever War’ 25 years ago, and the book has only grown more timely and relevant since," Scott told Daily Variety. "It’s a science-fiction epic, a bit of ‘The Odyssey’ by way of ‘Blade Runner,’ built upon a brilliant, disorienting premise."

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Quad MAY get moved into 2010, because they want to take the time to get it right. I said MAY. Just be ready for it.

That's cool.

[FourToedStatue]

When should we see more Bonds?

[Jeff Kleist]

Bonds are going to slow down a bit because theyre not selling as well as they'd like.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Bonds are going to slow down a bit because theyre not selling as well as they'd like.

Well, they are kind of selling the dregs of the franchise lately.

No GoldenEye, no Spy Who Loved Me
...

Of what has not been released, I personally like Tomorrow Never Dies, You Only Live Twice, and The Living Daylights quite a bit.

[bluskies]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

I'll see what I can find out. The original release was a 2-disc DVD, or 3?

Bill, I appreciate that you will check on the question of the documentary "MGM: When the Lion Roars" on the Wizard of Oz Blu-set. And, yes, it was recently released on its own as a 3 DVD set, running just over 6 hours. That's why I find it hard to believe they are going to include the full documentary here. I mean, I would love it if they did, but I can't imagine them doing it. I truly believe it will be just a few minutes clip about Oz from the documentary.

[Michael.Schinke]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Well, they are kind of selling the dregs of the franchise lately.

No GoldenEye, no Spy Who Loved Me
...

Of what has not been released, I personally like Tomorrow Never Dies, You Only Live Twice, and The Living Daylights quite a bit.

I agree. The release schedule for these films has been odd to say the least. I also think it came to close to the last big DVD push a couple of years ago. I think some of the studios last gasp DVD re-releases are making it difficult for them to persuade people to buy the Blu-ray's when they hit the next season.

[NutsAboutPS3]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Bonds are going to slow down a bit because theyre not selling as well as they'd like.

I suspect they are having the same problem as they will have with movies like Gladiator and Titanic when they get released on Blu-ray. The titles have already been severely devalued in people's minds by the DVDs selling for next to nothing. You can get the complete Bond box set on DVD for £85 from play. When the Bond Blu-rays are released they are £18 each, so £378 for the same 21 movies as are in the DVD box set. It's asking a lot for people to see a Blu-ray as being worth 4-5 times the price of the DVD. When the Bond DVD set was selling for £300 a few years back they might have had a chance of charging close to £400 for a Blu-ray set, but I just can't see it in the context of an £85 DVD set.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by NutsAboutPS3

I suspect they are having the same problem as they will have with movies like Gladiator and Titanic when they get released on Blu-ray.

I get your point, but Gladiator and Titanic have a few differences to Bond:
1.)Gladiator and Titanic were both Best Picture winners
2.)for some reason the perception online is among the HD demographic (young to middle aged males) is that older movies (like many of the Bond movies) don't benefit much from HD.

[Jeff Kleist]

Well, they are kind of selling the dregs of the franchise lately.

No GoldenEye, no Spy Who Loved Me
...

Too true, but Goldfinger is hardly a dreg. When I say "not as well", I mean in general, across the entire franchise, even the good ones At this point I'd even wager that they'll hold Goldeneye till Craig3. Such a shame because I'm pretty sure the disc is done.

I completely agree that the SRPs on them is too high, that's why you've been seeing so many sales in the $10-15 range. MGM did spend a small fortune restoring the films, and thus far the sales have not justified a reduction in what they're charging.

Frankly I think more of the problem is that the younger demo isn't interested in older movies as much, and that combined with the fact that the DVDs are running as low as $4-5 each isn't helping. You're absolutely right that the "old movies can't be HD" myth is alive and well, and the whole industry needs to work better on getting that message across. Having some a/b demos at the start of must-have films will certainly help

Gladiator is only 10 years old, and Titancic has giant cross appeal, especially on the Wife Acceptance Factor

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by NutsAboutPS3

I suspect they are having the same problem as they will have with movies like Gladiator and Titanic when they get released on Blu-ray. The titles have already been severely devalued in people's minds by the DVDs selling for next to nothing. You can get the complete Bond box set on DVD for £85 from play. When the Bond Blu-rays are released they are £18 each, so £378 for the same 21 movies as are in the DVD box set. It's asking a lot for people to see a Blu-ray as being worth 4-5 times the price of the DVD. When the Bond DVD set was selling for £300 a few years back they might have had a chance of charging close to £400 for a Blu-ray set, but I just can't see it in the context of an £85 DVD set.

This is why Blu-ray catalog pricing has to get more reasonable IMO. I think this is one reason why they aren't selling - it's not so much the demographics as it is the pricing. A lot of folks aren't going to pony up $30.00 for a title they already have on DVD. Now, I do see some positive signs as a whole slew of Warner catalog titles can be had for $11.99-12.99 on Amazon, but you often see these same titles priced at $24.95 in the regular stores (Best Buy, Borders, etc.). I'm a huge Blu-ray fan and there are some MGM/Fox catalog titles I want, but I refuse to spend $22.99 each on them (lowest price available today). I will patiently wait until they hit $14.99.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

MGM did spend a small fortune restoring the films, and thus far the sales have not justified a reduction in what they're charging.

Though I'm sure they had Blu-ray in mind, didn't they do the restoration during the last (or next to last) DVD re-releases of the titles?

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

You're absolutely right that the "old movies can't be HD" myth is alive and well, and the whole industry needs to work better on getting that message across.

I actually think the majority of the older Bond movies look better than the Brosnan films...

~Alan

[Alan Gordon]

Bill,

I'd like to thank you for talking about the Smart Strips on your website around Earth Day a couple of months ago, as I've already gotten two of them, plan on getting more, and have already told others about them who intend on giving them a try as well.

A fantastic product which I might never have known existed if you haven't brought it up.

Thanks!

~Alan

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Quad MAY get moved into 2010, because they want to take the time to get it right. I said MAY. Just be ready for it.

I want them to get it right, so Ill wait. The holidays are looking too crazy as it is.

[Jeff Kleist]

So what did everyone who downloaded it think of our little educational experiment? Should we do more things like thatin the future? When I dropped off the seed I'd had more than 250 unique peers, so evidently a bunch of people were interested.