Smallville S 7 Blu-ray from Blockbuster/6 discs or 3 discs question

[MerrickG]

Shit. this means low bitrate.

[XanderAE]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Shit. this means low bitrate.

Certainly does... Fackin Warner!! :@

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by merrick97

this means low bitrate.

Yep! We've already been through all of this months ago. Low bitrates and "lossy" audio.

Given the shortened season and WB's release of S6 last year, they probably started work on it back when WB was neutral.

~Alan

[Chad Varnadore]

It's three BD50s, averaging 7 episodes per disc plus extras; roughly twice as many episodes as Universal allocated for Heroes. And there's lots of very visible influence from compression because of it - much more than usual from WB. And like Seasons 5 and 6, resolution is very soft for HD, still unnaturally noisy, with more pointless support of lossy audio.

Universal has been getting a bad wrap for Heroes on BD. But, Warner is the one that really deserves it (and then some) for more releases like this. I don't know how much of the finished look could be innate to the production. Just comparing Smallvilles CG to the CG in Heroes, you get the feeling that Smallville is a much more cheaply produced show. But, we can no longer blame HD DVD's limitations for Warner's acceptance of using low bitrates even when the subject material clearly demands better. I think that lies squarely on Warner's authoring standards now, which in terms of video doesn't appear to be changing and is lagging behind even small studios releasing in high def.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

It's three BD50s, averaging 7 episodes per disc plus extras; roughly twice as many episodes as Universal allocated for Heroes. And there's lots of very visible influence from compression because of it - much more than usual from WB. And like Seasons 5 and 6, resolution is very soft for HD, still unnaturally noisy, with more pointless support of lossy audio.

Universal has been getting a bad wrap for Heroes on BD. But, Warner is the one that really deserves it (and then some) for more releases like this. I don't know how much of the finished look could be innate to the production. Just comparing Smallvilles CG to the CG in Heroes, you get the feeling that Smallville is a much more cheaply produced show.

Some of this discussion has been discussed elsewhere: Smallville Season 7 09/09/2008

I asked 2themax on the Insider's Board what he thought about the compression here: Ask questions to BD authoring and compression insider "2themax" - Post #154

Note that we originally believed "Smallville" would come out on 3 discs which would be a mix of BD50s and BD25s (WickyWoo later confirmed that all three would be BD50s)... hence why my question to 2themax didn't say three BD50s.

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

But, we can no longer blame HD DVD's limitations for Warner's acceptance of using low bitrates even when the subject material clearly demands better. I think that lies squarely on Warner's authoring standards now, which in terms of video doesn't appear to be changing and is lagging behind even small studios releasing in high def.

You mentioned "Heroes" above. This brings up a point I have made before, and will make again. To me, the goal of Blu-ray (in regards to TV series) is to present a presentation equal or superior to it's HD broadcast.

"Heroes": I still don't have my S2 set on Blu-ray yet, but I USED to have S1 on HD DVD, and I found it's (PQ) presentation on that set to be SUPERIOR to it's HD broadcasts on my local NBC affiliate... and that's not even mentioning the upgrade in AQ.

"Prison Break": I own S1 on Blu-ray, and whether it's the difference in going from 720p to 1080p or the increase in bitrate (most likely both), it too looks superior to my local FOX affiliate's HD presentation... and that's not even mentioning the upgrade in AQ.

"Lost": and whether it's the difference in going from 720p to 1080p or the increase in bitrate (most likely both), it too looks superior to WABC's HD presentation... and that's not even mentioning the upgrade in AQ.

"Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles": I own S1 on Blu-ray, and whether it's the difference in going from 720p to 1080p or the increase in bitrate (most likely both), it too looks superior to my local FOX affiliate's HD presentation... and that's not even mentioning the upgrade in AQ (and yes, the "lossy" audio on the Blu-ray still has a higher bitrate than the HD broadcasts).

"Smallville": I own S6, S7 is pre-ordered. I can't comment on the PQ for S7 yet, but S6 (with low bitrates) still looks superior to me than the broadcasts on HDNet (no access to CW-HD), so while the show's PQ is disappointing, I don't really believe we'd see A LOT of difference with much higher bitrates. WickyWoo in the thread I linked above commented on the "budget" of "Smallville", so I'm still pretty happy with my copy of S6 on Blu-ray regardless.

Note that while I also have "Mad Men" on Blu-ray, I have no access to HD airings of it, so I really can't compare it to anything.

While I will "bash" WB a lot, I'm not really sure how much a difference we'd see in "Smallville", and I can understand why "Smallville" might still be using lower bit-rates. Hopefully, WB will start to change things on the 16th with their release of "Pushing Daisies: Season One" on Blu-ray with 9 episodes divided among three discs with Dolby TrueHD.

~Alan

[Chad Varnadore]

Sorry, but I didn't take the time to read thru the threads you've linked.

While comparisons to broadcast aren't completely without merit, surpassing the quality of a shows broadcast is not necessarily an indicator of the films technical capabilities. I think the goal of any BD should be to preserve the art to the fullest, purest capability possible - not just surpassing the DVD or broadcast.

Whether color rendition, which is more akin lower grade video and the shows grossly soft (by HD standards) resolve are innate to its production, I'd be reluctant to even guess, considering how cheesy aspects of its CG. And, I hope we never see a BD as profoundly over-compressed as is typical of our local HD broadcast and DirecTV (the worst BD I've seen is not nearly that bad). But, while not absurdly compressed, there is still ample room for improvement with S7's bit budget. Artifacts that are unique to bit starvation can't be passed off as intentional. Some might be traced to the master, but WB also seems to have a monopoly on problems with their masters that give the appearance of compression. So, again, it's something solely within their control to fix. And, like the other two seasons, in S7 various influence of compression are so abundant, they might as well be called intentionally careless.

I haven't seen Heroes Season 1 on BD, but of what I saw of Season 2, Universal did a respectable job with the BDs, despite all the bad press that I'm guessing has again been fueled by people that don't like or don't understand dynamics of photography like grain, even though some of those very people are "reviewers". I wouldn't hesitate to make the investment if you're a fan.

If you were satisfied with S6 on BD, I'm sure you'll be satisfied with S7 too. It and S5 on HD DVD look very consistent. But, I'll be watching the rest of the season on our 52" Sony in the living room. Even the sound just doesn't cut it for our dedicated HT when you're used to seeing and hearing better even from companies like BCI and Tai Seng.

We've been saying "hopefully WB will change" starting with so and so for months. But, I fear that if they were going to, we would have already seen it. Standardized support of lossless is something they should have been doing when HD DVD was still around. Assuming they actually deliver now that they've indicated they've taken the hint, I'm finding it hard to praise a major studio for finally doing something that fans and the press have criticized them for for nearly 2 years and even comparitively tiny companies have been doing from the start. And I haven't heard any indication that WB even acknowledges that there's something going on with their video authoring that just isn't right.

I love WBs catalog of films. So I long for the day I feel compelled to praise their BD efforts as much as I have their DVD in the past. But, at this point I'm beginning to think I'll just have to settle for less from Warner and hope that their seeming economized, over-processed approach to HD isn't so financially successful as to entice other studios to follow their lead, thinking most consumers are complacent or can't tell a difference.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

Sorry, but I didn't take the time to read thru the threads you've linked.

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

While comparisons to broadcast aren't completely without merit, surpassing the quality of a shows broadcast is not necessarily an indicator of the films technical capabilities. I think the goal of any BD should be to preserve the art to the fullest, purest capability possible - not just surpassing the DVD or broadcast.

TOTALLY AGREE!!

However, I feel I should elaborate further.

You read a lot of reviews of Blu-ray movies, and you often hear the reviewer comparing the PQ to the theatrical presentation they viewed. Short of being an "insider" with first hand experience with the product at it's purest/best form, theatrical presentations are the best way to gauge whether or not the PQ/AQ is true to the source. With TV series, we often have to rely on delivery sources which are inferior... so the question comes up, how do we know if "Smallville" is not living up to it's "fullest, purest capability" on BD?

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

And, I hope we never see a BD as profoundly over-compressed as is typical of our local HD broadcast and DirecTV (the worst BD I've seen is not nearly that bad).

I hope so as well, but that's not exactly what I'm saying... what I'm saying is that not all shows are HD equals.

For instance, some shows like "Lost", any CSI you want to pick, etc..., look FANTASTIC. I have access to SEVERAL different CBS stations (three via antenna, one via DirecTV from NY (or two depending on how you look at it). All three have varying degrees of compression... yet CSI looks roughly the same on each. Sure, the more compression used by the source gives it more issues (pixelation during fast moving scenes, or softness from time to time), but they still look roughly the same. The same goes for "Lost" and several other shows with GREAT PQ.

However, there are shows that exist on the other end of the spectrum. Try watching "Monk", "Psych", or "Burn Notice" on USA-HD. These shows not only exhibit noise or grain, but a general lack of detail compared to the shows mentioned above... yet USA-HD is capable of looking quite good as HD broadcasts of "Life" (the TV series) last year not only looked good, but superior to the HD broadcasts from my local NBC affiliate.

As I said before, I don't have access to the CW in HD, so I can only compare S5 on HD DVD and S6 on Blu-ray to viewings of "Smallville" in HD on HDNet (both the downrezzed bit-starved MPEG2 version on DirecTV channel 79 or the full resolution MPEG4 version on channel 306), and the general look of the series is the same. Some shots look fairly good (predominately those scenes with lots of light like those that take place outside the Kent farm, etc...), some scenes look decent, and some just look underwhelming as HD goes. This is the way it appears to me in the sources I've seen, and some of the links I posted above lead me to believe it's not just my sources.

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

But, while not absurdly compressed, there is still ample room for improvement with S7's bit budget. Artifacts that are unique to bit starvation can't be passed off as intentional. Some might be traced to the master, but WB also seems to have a monopoly on problems with their masters that give the appearance of compression. So, again, it's something solely within their control to fix. And, like the other two seasons, in S7 various influence of compression are so abundant, they might as well be called intentionally careless.

While I have often wondered whether or not the creators wanted a certain amount of "softness" to better conceal the age differences of the actors to the parts they are portraying, I don't doubt that WB stuck a few too many sardines in the cans for "Smallville" (though I was at least happy to hear they were all BD50s instead of a mixture of BD50s and BD25s).

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

I haven't seen Heroes Season 1 on BD, but of what I saw of Season 2, Universal did a respectable job with the BDs, despite all the bad press that I'm guessing has again been fueled by people that don't like or don't understand dynamics of photography like grain, even though some of those very people are "reviewers". I wouldn't hesitate to make the investment if you're a fan.

I thought Universal did respectable with the HD DVD set of "Heroes" S1, and while I don't have the set anymore, I do intend on double-dipping for the Blu-ray set. I was VERY happy with the HD DVD release, so I know I will be with the Blu-ray set, but funds did not permit, and so I only picked up S2 at this time.

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

If you were satisfied with S6 on BD, I'm sure you'll be satisfied with S7 too. It and S5 on HD DVD look very consistent. But, I'll be watching the rest of the season on our 52" Sony in the living room. Even the sound just doesn't cut it for our dedicated HT when you're used to seeing and hearing better even from companies like BCI and Tai Seng.

I do not doubt this for a second!

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

We've been saying "hopefully WB will change" starting with so and so for months. But, I fear that if they were going to, we would have already seen it. Standardized support of lossless is something they should have been doing when HD DVD was still around. Assuming they actually deliver now that they've indicated they've taken the hint, I'm finding it hard to praise a major studio for finally doing something that fans and the press have criticized them for for nearly 2 years and even comparitively tiny companies have been doing from the start. And I haven't heard any indication that WB even acknowledges that there's something going on with their video authoring that just isn't right.

I love WBs catalog of films. So I long for the day I feel compelled to praise their BD efforts as much as I have their DVD in the past. But, at this point I'm beginning to think I'll just have to settle for less from Warner and hope that their seeming economized, over-processed approach to HD isn't so financially successful as to entice other studios to follow their lead, thinking most consumers are complacent or can't tell a difference.

Standardized support of "lossless" wasn't practical for HD DVD, and while Weinstein/Genius gave "lossless" pretty good support, WB's support of "lossless" for that format was stronger than the rest of the major studios (while New Line's 100% support of "lossless" audio on HD DVD is to be commended, the fact that it was only 1 title still gives WB the crown).

As for WB's commitment to quality, they have a long way to convince me as well... though I do have to admit that I am glad that all but one of WB's releases today contained a "lossless" track, and the majority of their upcoming "catalog" releases have a "lossless" track as well. Add in the fact that "Pushing Daisies: Season One" has a "lossless" track as well, I am pleased with WB for more support for "lossless", I'm just still disappointed by the amount of upcoming D&D (Day & Date) titles without "lossless" audio, and their video quality issues.

~Alan