Has Warner finally started using format-specific encodes?

[JBlacklow]

While browsing er...certain corners...of the series of tubes, I came across evidence of the size of the HD DVD versions of Harry Potter 2 and 4 and Blu-ray versions of Harry Potter 3 and 5. Apart from the weird numbering/even-odd versions, there's a pretty big discrepancy in size:

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets HD DVD (2h41m): 25.16 GB
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Blu-Ray (2h22m): 39.46 GB
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire HD DVD (2h37m): 28.09 GB
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Blu-Ray (2h18m): 47.79 GB

I'd love to believe that Warner has suddenly seen the light and started using encodes specific to the bandwidths of each format on these titles, but I'm still doubtful. Could I be missing something? I know that on Blu-ray, all five films are using PCM and that OOTP has some extras in 1080p (as opposed to 480p on HD DVD), but would that really account for a 15-20GB difference, especially considering the longer length of the HD DVDs?

EDIT: Added runtimes.

[UTVOL06]

Originally Posted by JBlacklow

While browsing er...certain corners...of the series of tubes, I came across evidence of the size of the HD DVD versions of Harry Potter 2 and 4 and Blu-ray versions of Harry Potter 3 and 5. Apart from the wierd numbering/even-odd versions, there's a huge discrepancy in size:

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets HD DVD: 25.16 GB
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Blu-Ray: 39.46 GB
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire HD DVD: 28.09 GB
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Blu-Ray: 47.79 GB

I'd love to believe that Warner has suddenly seen the light and started using different encodes on these titles, but I'm still doubtful. Could I be missing something? I know that the BD versions are using PCM and that OOTP has some extras in 1080p, but would that really account for a 15-20GB difference?

All are encoded using VC-1, but perhaps the Blu-ray versions are receiving a higher bitrate?

[Disco_And]

Maybe WB have finally pulled there finger out and seen the light of Blu-rays 50gb

[CptGreedle]

remember, Disney just released Santa Clause 3 encoded in VC-1, but high encode to show Microsoft that even their lower quality codec can produce good results with enough space on the disc.

It is possible it is a higher rate and better quality. I would LOVE to see these maxing out the Blu-ray disc. WB says they love BD, this would be a great way to show it.

[ack_bak]

Do the Blu-Ray movies have extras in HD? This could allow for the difference (plus PCM versus TrueHD, where PCM takes up more space).

[bajor27]

We can only hope. I'd settle for them putting the encode and extras in HD for us and SD for them if that's the case as well (at least for now until they go BD exclusive)

[UTVOL06]

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

remember, Disney just released Santa Clause 3 encoded in VC-1, but high encode to show Microsoft that even their lower quality codec can produce good results with enough space on the disc.

It is possible it is a higher rate and better quality. I would LOVE to see these maxing out the Blu-ray disc. WB says they love BD, this would be a great way to show it.

Yeah, Santa Clause 3 got nearly a 5/5 on PQ and was said to have a very high bitrate in VC-1. They said these lower bitrates used with most VC-1 transfers to date have soiled the reputation of that particular MS encode.

hopefully WB used a higher bitrate on the HP films..I know a person from the UK reported the PQ was as good as Spider-man 3 if not better.

[JBlacklow]

It's more surprising given that the HD DVDs are actually longer!

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

remember, Disney just released Santa Clause 3 encoded in VC-1, but high encode to show Microsoft that even their lower quality codec can produce good results with enough space on the disc.

It is possible it is a higher rate and better quality. I would LOVE to see these maxing out the Blu-ray disc. WB says they love BD, this would be a great way to show it.

Disney did a really nice job with VC-1 on Santa Clause 3 The Escape Clause. WB take a hint..Do right by Batman Begins and the Harry Potter series...

[Frode]

3 hours of 5.1 LPCM would be around 5.8 gigs. The runtime isn't 3 hours though, and the size difference much larger. This makes me doubly glad that I have the discs on order.

[jorg]

Originally Posted by JBlacklow

While browsing er...certain corners...of the series of tubes, I came across evidence of the size of the HD DVD versions of Harry Potter 2 and 4 and Blu-ray versions of Harry Potter 3 and 5. Apart from the weird numbering/even-odd versions, there's a pretty big discrepancy in size:

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets HD DVD (2h41m): 25.16 GB
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Blu-Ray (2h22m): 39.46 GB
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire HD DVD (2h37m): 28.09 GB
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Blu-Ray (2h18m): 47.79 GB

I'd love to believe that Warner has suddenly seen the light and started using encodes specific to the bandwidths of each format on these titles, but I'm still doubtful. Could I be missing something? I know that on Blu-ray, all five films are using PCM and that OOTP has some extras in 1080p (as opposed to 480p on HD DVD), but would that really account for a 15-20GB difference, especially considering the longer length of the HD DVDs?

EDIT: Added runtimes.

for the last oen i remember hd dvd is two disc but blu-ray they fit on 1 disc

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by JBlacklow

While browsing er...certain corners...of the series of tubes, I came across evidence of the size of the HD DVD versions of Harry Potter 2 and 4 and Blu-ray versions of Harry Potter 3 and 5. Apart from the weird numbering/even-odd versions, there's a pretty big discrepancy in size:

Since you listed 4 different movies instead of comparing the two formats... we don't really know what it means... BUT some of the difference could be caused by the difference in PCM and Dolby TrueHD...

~Alan

[JBlacklow]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Since you listed 4 different movies instead of comparing the two formats... we don't really know what it means... BUT some of the difference could be caused by the difference in PCM and Dolby TrueHD...

~Alan

I just posted a response to this theory at AVS. I'll copy it here:

As I posted above, the audio may account for a couple extra gigabytes, seeing as how both versions have lossless soundtracks (the LPCM space above is total, not amount above TrueHD). The real x-factor here seems to be the extras. While most of the extras on OOTP seem to be 1080i/p, a quick glance at the back cover art for films 2-4 shows only 480p. So again, we come back to the fact that despite being shorter and sharing the same SD extras, the BD releases would be much larger. The PCM track on POA would only be an extra couple of GB (let's be extremely generous and say 4GB) over the TrueHD. Yet the film is almost 10GB larger than a completely full HD DVD, and judging by the other HD DVDs it won't be full, so it would be even more!

So, here we are. After "throwing in some PCM audio and HD extras", we can maybe explain OOTP. But it doesn't explain the other movies.

[Iron Man]

Originally Posted by JBlacklow

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Blu-Ray (2h18m): 47.79 GB

PCM, 138 minutes = 4.78GB
TrueHD (2,5 Mbps), 138 minutes = 2.59GB

47.79 - 2.19 = 45.6GB (without PCM)