Crystal Lake Memories: The Complete History of Friday the 13th (2013)

[RickWJ324]

So... have they given an estimate as to how many signed copies there will be?

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by mar3o

It could also be in 720p instead of 1080p. That would take far less room to store and technically 720p is still HD.

This strikes me as the most likely option.

[Bubba_Hotep]

Heck yeah!

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by mar3o

It could also be in 720p instead of 1080p. That would take far less room to store and technically 720p is still HD.

Is it substantially cheaper to encode the disc at 720p and/or only use one disc instead of 2? I had thought the BD in this case was simply for those who didn't want to have to change a DVD halfway through - an additional of (minor) convenience, not a rather underhanded attempt to pass SD or 720p content off as a genuine 1080p BD.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

Is it substantially cheaper to encode the disc at 720p and/or only use one disc instead of 2? I had thought the BD in this case was simply for those who didn't want to have to change a DVD halfway through - an additional of (minor) convenience, not a rather underhanded attempt to pass SD or 720p content off as a genuine 1080p BD.

Well I'm certainly no expert here - personally, I'm surprised that anybody would want to make a decision like this to knowingly affect the image quality in a substantial way by either offering the feature in a lesser HD resolution or by over-compressing the video to a point where it becomes a disaster like The Invisible Man series.

Personally, I'd rather they offer it in 720p as opposed to 1080p if they're going to squash it all on 1 blu-ray disc. I just can't see how the image quality wouldn't suffer if this was in 1080p - but in 720p I think they could pull it off and it would still look quite good - far better than SD. As an example, if I made a 720p blu-ray rip of one of my blu-ray discs, and I encoded it in, say, 6,000 kbps for a bit rate, that would turn out to be a very decent-looking rip - in fact on my 46" HDTV it would look quite gorgeous, even though the rip is only 720p. Any good tv can upscale 720p very nicely these days, as well as players, and a good 720p encode can still look wonderful. Now if I were to make a 1080p rip but keep the bitrate the same (6,000 kbps), it would look pretty awful, with high artifacting and macro-blocking, because the bitrate would be too low to handle the 1080p resolution. So the smaller 720p file would look far better than then 1080p file at the same bitrate.

If they wanted to squash all 7 hours of the documentary in 1080p on 1 blu-ray disc, then there's no way around it - they will have to apply heavy compression to do it, and that will hurt the image quality. If they went with 720p, they could do so with far less compression, since the resolution would not take up as much disc space for storage, and thus the 720p video would look better than the 1080p video. The 720p video would not be riddled with compression artifacts, and would scale nicely on an HD set, looking sharp and clean, as opposed to the 1080p video that would look riddled with issues.

I don't think it's very common though to use 720 for blu-ray. It has been done but generally I think 1080p is what everybody uses. Sometimes 720p might be used for extras. In this case, who knows what their plan is? It's hard to believe it's worth it to squash it all on 1 disc instead of letting it spread out on 2.

Like you said, I originally thought that it was coming out on 2 discs, and when they announced 1 disc, I figured it was going to be just SD. I think 720p would be a nice option to deliver better than SD without the issues of over-compression, but I doubt that's what they're doing.

[tylergfoster]

What are the chances they shot it in 720p?

[NoirFan]

Has anyone contacted them on Facebook to ask how/why they are going the (insanely compressed) one-disc route?

[dvdboy]

Everyone is forgetting that most of this will be "talking head" interviews, with not a huge amount of movement - that will compress down a lot easier than a Michael Bay film.

[tellybox]

Originally Posted by dvdboy

Everyone is forgetting that most of this will be "talking head" interviews, with not a huge amount of movement - that will compress down a lot easier than a Michael Bay film.

This. There's no reason why it can't fit on a BD-50, and look fine. I imagine the soundtrack won't take up much space either.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

What are the chances they shot it in 720p?

Who knows? They could have shot it in 1080p too and just down-converted it for the blu-ray. It would still be better than SD.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by dvdboy

Everyone is forgetting that most of this will be "talking head" interviews, with not a huge amount of movement - that will compress down a lot easier than a Michael Bay film.

I'm not forgetting - in fact I addressed this very issue in an earlier post and said that because of that it could factor into the compression. This is our only hope - the fact that because it's mostly talking head interviews, it will help immensely with the compression. It's still a hell of a lot of material to squash onto a single disc, regardless.

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by mar3o

It's still a hell of a lot of material to squash onto a single disc, regardless.

Which brings me back to my original question - why are they doing this? A genuine question: is there a significant cost difference between manufacturing a 1 BD release and a 2 BD one? Why else would they be doing this? I am honestly bewildered by their thought process. I'd send them an email, but I couldn't find an email address. Perhaps once the pre-order goes up one will appear.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

Which brings me back to my original question - why are they doing this? A genuine question: is there a significant cost difference between manufacturing a 1 BD release and a 2 BD one? Why else would they be doing this? I am honestly bewildered by their thought process. I'd send them an email, but I couldn't find an email address. Perhaps once the pre-order goes up one will appear.

You could just ask on their fb.

[NoirFan]

I'm not on Facebook. Luddite, I know. I was down with both Friendster and MySpace from day one though!

[mar3o]

I'm also not on FB. So I can't ask there either.

[HarrisonJohn]

I looked at their FB doesn't look like anyone answers questions there.

[Cahleb]

I got an email yesterday asking if i was going to attend the event. I want to go but i'm just too lazy.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

Which brings me back to my original question - why are they doing this? A genuine question: is there a significant cost difference between manufacturing a 1 BD release and a 2 BD one? Why else would they be doing this? I am honestly bewildered by their thought process. I'd send them an email, but I couldn't find an email address. Perhaps once the pre-order goes up one will appear.

I recall a comment somewhere...

About them wanting it all on one disc so you can watch the whole film without changing discs.

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by Beast

I recall a comment somewhere...

About them wanting it all on one disc so you can watch the whole film without changing discs.

Right, I mentioned that earlier. That's all fine and good, as long as you aren't misrepresenting the actual product.

[cropsy]

Originally Posted by Beast

I recall a comment somewhere...

About them wanting it all on one disc so you can watch the whole film without changing discs.

They've dropped a bollock on this then, as in conceiding to put it on 2 dvds if the blu-ray is just SD they have really just paid for the same thing twice,might as well just manufactured 2 dvds only.Can't wait for this whatever the format though.