Poll: Should Sony use DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD?

[davcole]

I could have sworn I'd seen TERMINATOR: SALVATION being released in TRUEHD, however i'm not mad at the DTSMA, just suprised.

Now the question is will it be 24bit?

Interesting with Watchmen, Terminator: Salvation, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, if they aren't trying to slowly move towards first time theatrical releases or high profile catalog titles in the future, or a move to DTSMA in the future?

Wonder what Paramount/Dreamworks are up to for their later year releases.

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by trans22

The UK version by SONY will have both versions via seamless branching.

I contacted Sony in Australia and we only get the theatrical cut.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by davcole

I could have sworn I'd seen TERMINATOR: SALVATION being released in TRUEHD, however i'm not mad at the DTSMA, just suprised.

Now the question is will it be 24bit?

Interesting with Watchmen, Terminator: Salvation, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, if they aren't trying to slowly move towards first time theatrical releases or high profile catalog titles in the future, or a move to DTSMA in the future?

Wonder what Paramount/Dreamworks are up to for their later year releases.

I think Watchmen and Harry Potter are probably DTS-HD MA due to the seemless branching (if what I was told is true).

The only complaint I have about WB is the fact they're using 16-Bit tracks when the master is 24. There's no reason for this at all as you can see other studios are doing just fine using the full 24-Bit tracks.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I think Watchmen and Harry Potter are probably DTS-HD MA due to the seemless branching (if what I was told is true).

The only complaint I have about WB is the fact they're using 16-Bit tracks when the master is 24. There's no reason for this at all as you can see other studios are doing just fine using the full 24-Bit tracks.

I'm just glad that WB seems to have finally got the message about actually providing lossless for their movies. And they also seem to have toned down their use of DNR/EE on their 2009 releases.

[Robert Siegel]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

The only complaint I have about WB is the fact they're using 16-Bit tracks when the master is 24. There's no reason for this at all as you can see other studios are doing just fine using the full 24-Bit tracks.

I agree, but I have one other big complaint about Warner, though it doesn't have to do with the sound...extensive DNR on so many titles like Poltergeist, Twister and on and on and on, proven by how good the UK version of Twister looks which is released there by Universal, who obviously used a different master. I own it and it has no DNR compared to moderate to heavy on the USA Warner.

I do give Warner credit for using lossless most of the time now. There are still titles without it like Journey to the Center of the Earth.

[ClaytonMG]

I only meant sound wise... PQ wise I have the same complaints though, as it's been said, their 2009 titles have been much, much better. I think one of their worst presentations I've seen was Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford... The lack of lossless audio was depressing, as was the overly DNR'd and compressed image. Grain didn't even look like grain, it just looked like a still image. So sad...

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I only meant sound wise... PQ wise I have the same complaints though, as it's been said, their 2009 titles have been much, much better. I think one of their worst presentations I've seen was Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford... The lack of lossless audio was depressing, as was the overly DNR'd and compressed image. Grain didn't even look like grain, it just looked like a still image. So sad...

That title is saved only by the absolutely gorgeous cinematography. I would still rather watch it even with the processed image than watch a reference quality transfer of Transformers. heh

[Brett C]

A lost opportunity in my opinion is Sony not utilising the 8 ch SDDS mixes they made for a lot of their films and reconfiguring them into 7.1 tracks for the BD's. Films like The Fifth Element, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Wolf
all had them. I must of seen a dozen films in the mid nineties at the theatre
with these tracks.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Brett C

A lost opportunity in my opinion is Sony not utilising the 8 ch SDDS mixes they made for a lot of their films and reconfiguring them into 7.1 tracks for the BD's. Films like The Fifth Element, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Wolf
all had them. I must of seen a dozen films in the mid nineties at the theatre
with these tracks.

You can't convert the 8 channel mixes into 7.1 as the channel layout is completely different. With SDDS 8 Channel, it's 5 channels in the front, 2 on the sides to the rear, and then the subs. 7.1 is 3 channels in the front, 4 in the rear.

[Brett C]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

You can't convert the 8 channel mixes into 7.1 as the channel layout is completely different. With SDDS 8 Channel, it's 5 channels in the front, 2 on the sides to the rear, and then the subs. 7.1 is 3 channels in the front, 4 in the rear.

Well you could still encode the track as a 7.1 and have the speakers setup in that order and the effect would still be as it was in the theatre, would work perfectly for people with large setups.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Brett C

Well you could still encode the track as a 7.1 and have the speakers setup in that order and the effect would still be as it was in the theatre, would work perfectly for people with large setups.

Even looking through the galleries on here, I can't find anyone that has 5 speakers up front with 2 in the rear. SDDS 8 Channel was modeled after older theater set ups to produce huge sound for a huge screen. I can't imagine anyone with a home theater large enough to need the extra 2 channels in the front and lose the 2 back channels. Plus we'd then end up with yet another different layout option. We've seen what happens when there's multiple layout options for users. Many 7.1 DTS titles are now screwed up because of it.

[Brett C]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Even looking through the galleries on here, I can't find anyone that has 5 speakers up front with 2 in the rear. SDDS 8 Channel was modeled after older theater set ups to produce huge sound for a huge screen. I can't imagine anyone with a home theater large enough to need the extra 2 channels in the front and lose the 2 back channels. Plus we'd then end up with yet another different layout option. We've seen what happens when there's multiple layout options for users. Many 7.1 DTS titles are now screwed up because of it.

Well of course your not going to find anyone on here with that setup,
the mixes in question have never been released. I do agree about the different setup options being a pain but thats what you get when a 7.1 standard STILL hasn't been set in stone. I don't see the harm in encoding these tracks though, even if you don't have any intention of having this setup, the soundtrack can be played back in regular 5.1. As for the need for it, thats up to the user, some people say the same about the added back channels.

[lgans316]

Sony release WILL feature:

1. Both cuts
2. DTS-HD MA
3. BonusView instead of Maximum Movie Movie
4. Probably AVC encoded

http://www.so-net.ne.jp/movie/sonypi...code=BRR-61426

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

You can't convert the 8 channel mixes into 7.1 as the channel layout is completely different. With SDDS 8 Channel, it's 5 channels in the front, 2 on the sides to the rear, and then the subs. 7.1 is 3 channels in the front, 4 in the rear.

Since most of the sound processes to convert 5.1/6.1/7.1 tracks into 9.1 add two extra channels in the front (usually as height channels), maybe a future discrete 9.1 format could be used to reconfigure those old 8 channel SDDS mixes? Of course, that'd be a few years from now.

[GoodToGo]

Yes DTS pays studios to use their format. They also paid 884 people from blu-ray forum to vote for them. I was one of them and in fact here I have a nice and shiny cheque (of undisclosed amount) for my undying support and loyalty.

[RocShemp]

Dammit! I knew I should have said yes to the DTS bribe!

[davcole]

Originally Posted by saprano

Penton said he would like if it stayed open for other studios to see that might be making their own decision between dts or dolby.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=9832

I remember that and him specifically mentioning for Warners (by name) as a reason.

Like many, I don't believe it has anything to do with financial incentives. If that were the case, Dolby could buy dts many times over to secure they keep their codec. However that isn't want the trends are suggesting.

I've always felt this is about Bandwidth. The differences between the peaks on TRUEHD and DTSMA probably aren't that great but one thing for sure, with TRUEHD you had to add 640kbs DD in order to meet requirements. With DTSMA, the peaks are the peaks.

Then I remember one poster here commenting on how the atypical TRUEHD track you have to give about 30% headroom, whereas with DTSMA it's only about 10% (if my memory is correct) which amounts to a substantial amount of savings. Is it any wonder that the typical DTSMA track is at 24bit (for new releases) whereas the TRUEHD tracks are typically 16bit (save Paramount/Dreamworks of the major studios).

Then factor in another poster who has obviously has authoring experience who states that it's much more complex to encode TRUEHD for Bonus View and Seamless Branching material. Think about it, how many times do you see Warners or Paramount offer "multiple versions" of the film in comparison to DTSMA studios like Universal, Fox (not sure of Disney) and now upcoming Sony (w/ Angels and Demons).

Add all those together it's pretty easy to see why the advantages may favor DTSMA and that's without mentioning the "core" or people's "perceptions".

[davcole]

Kinda suprised to see this from Warners with what i'd consider a deep catalog title such as Mystic River:

Mystic River
Street Date: February 2, 2010
Order Due Date: December 29, 2009
Catalog # 1000114941
Run Time: 138 Minutes
Rated R
16x9 1.77 DTS-HD Master Audio
$28.99 SRP

[BozQ]

Hmm. This thread still going on eh?
So Warner has started using DTS-HD more frequently. Are they still releasing in 24-bit audio then?
The next thing they should do is to start encoding their video in MPEG4/AVC/H.264

Warner needs to stop being the "special studio".

[Robert Siegel]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Hmm. This thread still going on eh?
So Warner has started using DTS-HD more frequently. Are they still releasing in 24-bit audio then?
The next thing they should do is to start encoding their video in MPEG4/AVC/H.264

Warner needs to stop being the "special studio".

I am frankly surprised at some of Warner's releases. Known for their great transfers of classic films, for Blu-ray they seem to be getting it all wrong on many titles, extensive DNR, lower bit-rates and old Hd-dvd transfers. Yes there are some spectacular releases, like Wizard of Oz, but Poltergeist, Twister and many others should have been better. I think all of the other studios get a better grade from me.