The Ten Commandments 4K UHD (1956)

[Pieter V]

Disc Size: 99,240,105,089 bytes
Protection: AACS2
Extras: Ultra HD, BD-Java
BDInfo: 0.7.5.9

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00040.MPLS
Length: 3:51:36.549 (h:m:s.ms)
Size: 98,182,275,072 bytes
Total Bitrate: 56.52 Mbps

(*) Indicates included stream hidden by this playlist.

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
MPEG-H HEVC Video 47387 kbps 2160p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / Main 10 @ Level 5.1 @ High / 4:2:0 / 10 bits / 4000nits / HDR10 / BT.2020
* MPEG-H HEVC Video 2101 kbps (4.25%) 1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / Main 10 @ Level 5.1 @ High / 4:2:0 / 10 bits / 4000nits / Dolby Vision FEL / BT.2020

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
DTS-HD Master Audio English 3320 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 3320 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
Dolby Digital Audio German 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps
Dolby Digital Audio French 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps
Dolby Digital Audio English 224 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 224 kbps

SUBTITLES:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 37.001 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 39.793 kbps
Presentation Graphics German 39.141 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 37.988 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 67.322 kbps
Presentation Graphics German 58.17 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 56.465 kbps

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by RICKBONDOO7

My order for 10C & TGSOE both say same on Amazon. I called a few days ago and they told me Not to worry. I will be getting both movies on April 1.

Good thing my only Amazon pre-order right now is My Fair Lady 4K. My Target gallery book of Soul arrived this morning via UPS from Memphis (SurePost upgraded to Ground by My Choice Premium); this movie is set to arrive the same way next Tuesday. (BvS remastered is on backorder, but it appears to be OOS if not sold out everywhere.)

[y2jman]

so this movie is already out today? if so does Walmart carry this by any chance

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by y2jman

so this movie is already out today? if so does Walmart carry this by any chance

The release date is listed as March 30. Today is March 23. You have a week before this is out.

[J Nada]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

The release date is listed as March 30. Today is March 23. You have a week before this is out.

Can't believe Australia got something first for once!

[dcforsyth]

Originally Posted by COBill

Be careful.

I just checked and Amazon listed my preorder from January as arriving "April 1 - 21."
They listed new preorders as "Arrives Mar. 30."

Their customer service people said the only answer was to cancel to earlier one and place a new order.

I asked why and they said "It happens."

Someone had mentioned this earlier too. So I just cancelled and reordered and now my expected delivery date is 3/30 I had to do this with The Bad News Bears also And yes, this is lame that people who order early get punished. I didn't even call them once I saw expected delivery date on the order page.

[do.wayne.ClassicFilm]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Total Bitrate: 56.52 Mbps
MPEG-H HEVC Video 47387 kbps 2160p

Thank you for sharing that bit of information.
Minus the audio tracks and various subtitles, average video bitrate is still hanging in there a little above 47 Mbps. I’m glad Paramount decided to put the UHD on (1) BD-100 disc. It sure beats having to shuffle 2 BD-50 discs while watching the movie, like with the standard HD Blu-ray version.

[rachaeldeckard]

Its not exactly a fast paced action movie. The camera barely moves for most of the film. The bitrate should be fine.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by do.wayne.ClassicFilm

Thank you for sharing that bit of information.
Minus the audio tracks and various subtitles, average video bitrate is still hanging in there a little above 47 Mbps. I’m glad Paramount decided to put the UHD on (1) BD-100 disc. It sure beats having to shuffle 2 BD-50 discs while watching the movie, like with the standard HD Blu-ray version.

Not much of action or movement. I bet it would have looked the same even at lower bit rates.

Look at the sad state of Middle Earth 4Ks. Split I to 2 disc but DNRed and sharpened.

[dlb99]

Originally Posted by J Nada

Can't believe Australia got something first for once!

What about New Year’s Day, we get that before most everyone else

[do.wayne.ClassicFilm]

Originally Posted by do.wayne.ClassicFilm

Thank you for sharing that bit of information.
Minus the audio tracks and various subtitles, average video bitrate is still hanging in there a little above 47 Mbps. I’m glad Paramount decided to put the UHD on (1) BD-100 disc. It sure beats having to shuffle 2 BD-50 discs while watching the movie, like with the standard HD Blu-ray version.

Originally Posted by rachaeldeckard

Its not exactly a fast paced action movie. The camera barely moves for most of the film. The bitrate should be fine.

Originally Posted by lgans316

Not much of action or movement. I bet it would have looked the same even at lower bit rates.

You're both misinterpreting my post. Average video bitrate above +47 Mbps... is a good thing. I said I'm glad Paramount took this approach with one BD-100 disc for the entire movie. +47 Mbps is more than ample to pull off great picture quality at 4K, with video in motion. That's what I'm conveying here.

[do.wayne.ClassicFilm]

But it's only a matter of time, once this officially gets released when somebody out there pauses the 4K disc, does a still frame by frame picture advancement and tries to convince us that the 4K isn't any better than the standard blu-ray, and that there's picture degradation, not to buy it. Then they will be insulted by their hypothesis, and I will do what I usually do, ignore their hypothesis and buy the release because +47 Mbps on video is plenty with video in motion.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Not much of action or movement. I bet it would have looked the same even at lower bit rates.

Nope. You are then moving into trouble territory for HEVC with 4k resolution, let alone 12 bit FEL Dolby Vison if you start dipping even lower.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

There is never a good argument to justify low-balling the bitrate when the option is available to maximize the potential quality; when implemented correctly and optimally for the content a higher bitrate will always resolve greater precision, clarity, & motion resolution.

Splitting TTC across two discs would have ensured maximized potential picture quality for the format, not just simply a good enough encode.

Yet since the majority of the material does not involve a whole lot of rapid movement and typically more slower pans and static shots it maybe fine most of the time. The disc may overall looks fabulous but there will always be a bit less then the maximum potential since nearly four hours of material was squeezed into one encode.

Just look at the Star Trek 09 UHD which is a two hour+ movie with an average bitrate of 53Mbps for the video on a 66gb disc. That encode has absurdly obvious macroblocking because of the various instances of insufficient bitrate to accurately resolve the movement within the shots.

L316, not sure why you are conflating the prebaked in DNR and sharpening of the transfers to having to do with anything in regards to bitrates and having the EE split over two discs. They would have exhibited the same issues on a single disc and might have looked even worse because of lowering the bitrate in order to squeeze them onto a single disc.

[LmaoBR]

Me waiting for this to be mailed before the holiday like:

[chewbabka]

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

There is never a good argument to justify low-balling the bitrate when the option is available to maximize the potential quality; when implemented correctly and optimally for the content a higher bitrate will always resolve greater precision, clarity, & motion resolution.

Splitting TTC across two discs would have ensured maximized potential picture quality for the format, not just simply a good enough encode.

Yet since the majority of the material does not involve a whole lot of rapid movement and typically more slower pans and static shots it maybe fine most of the time. The disc may overall looks fabulous but there will always be a bit less then the maximum potential since nearly four hours of material was squeezed into one encode.

Just look at the Star Trek 09 UHD which is a two hour+ movie with an average bitrate of 53Mbps for the video on a 66gb disc. That encode has absurdly obvious macroblocking because of the various instances of insufficient bitrate to accurately resolve the movement within the shots.

L316, not sure why you are conflating the prebaked in DNR and sharpening of the transfers to having to do with anything in regards to bitrates and having the EE split over two discs. They would have exhibited the same issues on a single disc and might have looked even worse because of lowering the bitrate in order to squeeze them onto a single disc.

What if they tried it and determined the added bit rate didn’t appreciably help the picture, and therefore decided not to waste consumer money or cause inconvenience by doing two discs. Would that be a “good argument”?

Don’t know what they tried or not, but the only differences that count for home media releases are those that can be seen in motion on home theater equipment. And word is this looks spectacular on home theater equipment.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

There is never a good argument to justify low-balling the bitrate when the option is available to maximize the potential quality; when implemented correctly and optimally for the content a higher bitrate will always resolve greater precision, clarity, & motion resolution.

Splitting TTC across two discs would have ensured maximized potential picture quality for the format, not just simply a good enough encode.

Yet since the majority of the material does not involve a whole lot of rapid movement and typically more slower pans and static shots it maybe fine most of the time. The disc may overall looks fabulous but there will always be a bit less then the maximum potential since nearly four hours of material was squeezed into one encode.

Just look at the Star Trek 09 UHD which is a two hour+ movie with an average bitrate of 53Mbps for the video on a 66gb disc. That encode has absurdly obvious macroblocking because of the various instances of insufficient bitrate to accurately resolve the movement within the shots.

L316, not sure why you are conflating the prebaked in DNR and sharpening of the transfers to having to do with anything in regards to bitrates and having the EE split over two discs. They would have exhibited the same issues on a single disc and might have looked even worse because of lowering the bitrate in order to squeeze them onto a single disc.

It's bitrate allocation, not bitrate alone

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Originally Posted by chewbabka

What if they tried it and determined the added bit rate didn’t appreciably help the picture, and therefore decided not to waste consumer money or cause inconvenience by doing two discs. Would that be a “good argument”?

Don’t know what they tried or not, but the only differences that count for home media releases are those that can be seen in motion on home theater equipment. And word is this looks spectacular on home theater equipment.

How would it appreciably waste consumer money by spanning a 4 hour film onto two discs?

Just look at all the recent 4K UHD releases that now no longer include a 1080p version of the film which has not reduced the MSRP at all, if in fact the prices have not actually increased.

Also Digital Copies are insufficient alternatives to a well authored 1080p blu-ray disc and if you live in an area with poor quality Internet speeds, like much of US because we permitted the corporations to charge expansion fees for decades but did little if any expansion apart from prime areas and did not hold them account for half-assing expansion coverage nor their frequently duopoly shenanigans, and added insult to injury with hogwash data caps which can increase you costs by a more appreciable margin than by an extra disc.

Also TTC has an Intermission break so.... tell me again why it would be such a chore to swap a disc? Some folks must have butts of iron.

The encode may look fine indeed but there is likely some extra quality left off the table and since we will not have a higher quality source to reference we cannot draw a definitive conclusion either way. Unless there is a higher quality encode on Kaleidescape which does happen and some folks have found that yes indeed those versions do produce a superior image.

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

It's bitrate allocation, not bitrate alone

Agreed. Thought I conveyed that sentiment but evidently not.
That said a higher average bitrate, and following best practices to allocate greater breathing room for unique required cases, only notable negative would be exceeding the space allocation of the delivery medium.

[chewbabka]

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

How would it appreciably waste consumer money by spanning a 4 hour film onto two discs?

Just look at all the recent 4K UHD releases that now no longer include a 1080p version of the film which has not reduced the MSRP at all, if in fact the prices have not actually increased.

I suspect this often has to do with what stock is lying around. It may cost next to nothing to add the BD because it’s been sitting in a warehouse already pressed for 10 years. There’s no good reason to expect excluding an old BD reduces costs to the same extent adding an extra 4k disc would increase them.

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

Also TTC has an Intermission break so.... tell me again why it would be such a chore to swap a disc? Some folks must have butts of iron.

Negligible, yes. But also possibly unnecessary.

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

The encode may look fine indeed but there is likely some extra quality left off the table and since we will not have a higher quality source to reference we cannot draw a definitive conclusion either way. Unless there is a higher quality encode on Kaleidescape which does happen and some folks have found that yes indeed those versions do produce a superior image.

By this logic, every title ever released in 66GB disc should have been released on 100GB to assuage your concerns that it could have been better. And every movie released on a 100GB disc should have been released on two discs to assuage your concerns that it could have been better. Maybe Lawrence of Arabia should have been split across 3 discs, but you probably don’t own that because the included copy of Mr. Smith is on a BD 66.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Originally Posted by chewbabka

By this logic, every title ever released in 66GB disc should have been released on 100GB to assuage your concerns that it could have been better. And every movie released on a 100GB disc should have been released on two discs to assuage your concerns that it could have been better. Maybe Lawrence of Arabia should have been split across 3 discs, but you probably don’t own that because the included copy of Mr. Smith is on a BD 66.

Not every title is a nearly four hour movie that was shot on film which is a medium that benefits the most from a higher bitrate in order to be retain & resolve the most amount of detail as well reduce issues with grain reproduction.

Plenty of digitally captured two hours films will and do look just fine on a maxed out 66gb disc, as well a fair number titles captured on film. Such as Pitch Black, which is an amazing encode that is about 64gbs for a sub two hour movie. ST09 likely could have looked better if just an extra degree of TLC had been applied to reduce those below par bitrate allocation moments resulting in issues.

But with longer movies captured on film they benefit the most from large encodes, same as it was with Blu-ray and DVD, and when appropriate they should span several discs.


Although I am not an ardent fan of TTC it is an important title catalog release which deserves the best presentation possible since it will likely be the last time it will receive a physical release on a new medium.

I have not picked up LoA yet because it has only been in that 6 title set which only had 3 titles I am interested in. LoA is split between two discs, I believe and the first half is a 100gb disc and the second half is a 66gb disc, which is fine by me.