Why is Dolby True HD going the way of the Dodo?

[Jeff Kleist]

Jeff, you kinda lost me there....would you care to simplify? My feeble mind could not keep up

HD DVD has 30GB maximum to play with and 28mbps total, audio, video and picture in picture tracks (which eat up about 4mbps by themselves) included. Fitting a 2 hour plus dynamic picture like Batman Begins into 12 megabits per second average (as I recall) with almost no room for spiking due to 8GB of extras, and another few gigs of picture in picture leaves it severely hampered. One of the biggest strengths of Blu-ray over HD DVD is having the headroom so that when you need to throw bits at the problem, they're available.

Blu-ray has 48mbps, of which up to 40 can be video and 20 audio at any one time, and 50GB of disc space

[Monkey]

DTS-MA tracks average better audio scores than Dolby True HD on blue.

Polls were done on several forums as well (here included) and DTS-MA completely curb stomped Dolby True HD in the polls.

[rded]

Originally Posted by Monkey

DTS-MA tracks average better audio scores than Dolby True HD on blue.

You gotta be kidding me!!!!

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by rded

You gotta be kidding me!!!!

Nope, not joking. That is factual. Go talk to Squid Puppet, he's got a link to the compiled scores.

[rded]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Nope, not joking. That is factual. Go talk to Squid Puppet, he's got a link to the compiled scores.

But you're comparing different movies with different mixes. These releases do not have both DTS HD and True HD tracks. Not a fair comparison. This merely justifies Big Daddy's post(#2) above.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by rded

But you're comparing different movies with different mixes. These releases do not have both DTS HD and True HD tracks. Not a fair comparison. This merely justifies Big Daddy's post(#2) above.

I'm not sure you point. I stated a fact and your response was "you got to be kidding me". I didn't state they were the same movies and the same mixes.

Never said life was fair either. Fact is however that Dobly True HD got curbed stomped in polls here and at other forums.. Of course it came down to member votes so I don't see anything about it not being fair unless you feel their were a mass amount of fraudulent votes (users with multiple accounts).

Then again I also don't see why it wouldn't be fair that DTS-MA scores higher on average in reviews. It's just a simple fact.

Maybe Penton-Man can jump in with more info but I think he alluded to in the poll thread that studios are paying attention to how the consumers voted Could very well explain why Dolby True HD is going the way of the Dodo (if that really is true)

[Jeff Kleist]

Gotcha! But if the studios were to eliminate the extras and lossy/foreign language mixes, will this result in better AQ and consequently PQ by maximizing bit rate

They're not going to get rid of either one. Given that most reference Blu-ray experiences come in somewhere in the 35GB size for the movies, it's maximizing the available bandwidth for scenes of high complexity that's more important than raw disc space.

Running high bitrate isn't necessary all the time, If you look at Star Trek TOS or the new Gone with the Wind, you'll see they get along with superb picture at well under 20mbps on average, because they're low complexity and fairly static productions (compared to today's movies). Throwing 15 or 30mbps at that isn't going to change much.

Dolby and DTS are catch-all codecs that work with the latest stuff and have the legacy built right in that will work on JoeSixpacks existing equipment, that's another reason why they choose them, because PCM comes out as stereo over optical.

[rded]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Everyone these days charges per track, regardless of the resulting format. They typically have set packages with so much extra per item outside of it.

It's not cheaper if you're including additional lossless tracks because you still have a bit budget to worry about, and a CBR 4.5mbps track (6mbps for 24-bit) is still 10-12% of available bandwidth at any one time.

There wasn't any marketing strategy at the time, it was contractual. I prefer PCM audio myself wherever possible because it eliminates decoding errors from the equation. Bandwidth and bit budgets aren't as cut and dried as you think, there's a very fine art to balancing the load, and not having a 5mbps that has to be there makes their lives a lot easier, and gives the video room to stretch its legs when it needs it.

So if the studios just give us one track, say Uncompressed audio then it will be cheaper? And will make a lot of guys like you and I very happy. I am with you on this- I prefer Uncompressed PCM.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

HD DVD has 30GB maximum to play with and 28mbps total, audio, video and picture in picture tracks (which eat up about 4mbps by themselves) included. Fitting a 2 hour plus dynamic picture like Batman Begins into 12 megabits per second average (as I recall) with almost no room for spiking due to 8GB of extras, and another few gigs of picture in picture leaves it severely hampered. One of the biggest strengths of Blu-ray over HD DVD is having the headroom so that when you need to throw bits at the problem, they're available.

Blu-ray has 48mbps, of which up to 40 can be video and 20 audio at any one time, and 50GB of disc space

Gotcha! But if the studios were to eliminate the extras and lossy/foreign language mixes, will this result in better AQ and consequently PQ by maximizing bit rate?