Warner Bros-How long for Blu specfic Encodes?

[UTVOL06]

Just wondering how long it's going to take Warner Bros to get there act together and give use Blu-ray Specific encodes.

Toshiba has dropped the soap for good and Waner bros seems to keep bending over to pick it up and handing it now back to no one....hmmm did that make any sense?

Why can sister company New Line Cinema give us Blu specific encodes with top notch PQ in VC-1 and WB can't?

I'm sick of getting upscaled DVD quality movies that are great films.

[MOONPHASE]

as soon as they drop hd-dvd. new line doesnt have to worry because they gave up on hd-dvd after just 1 release

[robgmun]

I don't know what your whining about. AVC is a great codic and Warner have been releasing BD's with some of the best PQ around. Happy Feet and 2001 getting special mention. I really don't think they can look any better.

[UTVOL06]

Originally Posted by robgmun

I don't know what your whining about. AVC is a great codic and Warner have been releasing BD's with some of the best PQ around. Happy Feet and 2001 getting special mention. I really don't think they can look any better.

Apparently you must not have a good eye for Video quality. WB releases are notorious for soft looking video with compression artifacts. With a few movies with good PQ.

For the record WB has never released in the AVC codec..they are all HD-DuD quality VC-1 encodes.

[robgmun]

Originally Posted by UTVOL06

Apparently you must not have a good eye for Video quality. WB releases are notorious for soft looking video with compression artifacts. With a few movies with good PQ.

Well maybe the UK releases are better then, because i have a pure HDMI feed to my 24" Samsung monitor and have calibrated it to an inch of it's life. Trust me mate, i know my stuff when it comes to Video quality and i have a superb eye.

If you see compression artifacts then maybe you should turn off all the post-processing crap on your TV's because they do nothing but ****-up the picture.

[UTVOL06]

Originally Posted by robgmun

Well maybe the UK releases are better then, because i have a pure HDMI feed to my 24" Samsung monitor and have calibrated it to an inch of it's life. Trust me mate, i know my stuff when it comes to Video quality and i have a superb eye.

If you see compression artifacts then maybe you should turn off all the post-processing crap on your TV's because they do nothing but ****-up the picture.

Maybe UK releases are indeed better...I don't know for sure.? In the US we are stuck with HD-Dud ports in VC-1 encode.

2nd It's much easier to see compression artifacts on a 46" or larger display than on a 24" computer LCD.

It's a simple matter of bitrate...All WB releases are in a lower bitrate so HD-DUD players can handle it. With lower bitrate you get more compression artifacts and softness.

[robgmun]

Originally Posted by UTVOL06

Maybe UK releases are indeed better...I don't know for sure.? In the US we are stuck with HD-Dud ports in VC-1 encode.

2nd It's much easier to see compression artifacts on a 46" or larger display than on a 24" computer LCD.

Which films are you seeing the most artifacts?

EDIT - And yes bit-rate is important, but if you see the likes of The Prestige or Happy Feet, then i really have to challange you not to see how damn good the PQ is. Granted there's a few duds, all studios have them (Goodfellers and Last Samurai). But then how come Last Samurai (from warner) avarages 20-30 Mbs and look soft and not much better than upscaled DVD, but The Prestiage avarages about 15-25 Mbs and look much better? I'm serious about all the post-processing on your TV by the way. If you turn it off you'll see what your truly getting on the disc. I always strive to get a prue picture from disc to screen. meaning as little processing as possible. 9 times out of 10 they always just make the picture look worse

EDIT - Do we really have to keep calling them HD-DUD's on this site, it's a bit lame and childish

[Giyomu]

long life to vc-1 and dd5.1!!


Appleseed Exmachina with 2.0 tracks!! houray houray
you rock WB!

[Blaumann]

Originally Posted by robgmun

Which films are you seeing the most artifacts?

[...]

The Matrix on HD DVD for example. Let's pray they give them a new transfer. I have remuxed (not reencoded) the films to mkv, so my htpc can play it outside of PowerDVD (for much better pq) and the file sizes with TrueHD audio (as flac) are like 15-16 GB. It looks like upconverted dvd and it's full of artefacts. It's a shame, really.

[robgmun]

Originally Posted by Giyomu

long life to vc-1 and dd5.1!!


Appleseed Exmachina with 2.0 tracks!! houray houray
you rock WB!

All warner releases (at least in the UK) have VC-1 encodes and a vast majorty of them also have PCM tracks as well as a multitue of other audio formats. I'm starting to get the feeling that my america cousins are getting screwed over and we Brits are getting better releases!!

[Giyomu]

Originally Posted by robgmun

All warner releases (at least in the UK) have VC-1 encodes and a vast majorty of them also have PCM tracks as well as a multitue of other audio formats. I'm starting to get the feeling that my america cousins are getting screwed over and we Brits are getting better releases!!

in france we just get dd5.1 most of the time... i mean at least 90% of catalog! then you have dtrue hd

[robgmun]

Then it's true!! DAMN! Glad i'm in the right country!

[UTVOL06]

Originally Posted by robgmun

Which films are you seeing the most artifacts?

95% of all WB releases.

[richteer]

Originally Posted by robgmun

All warner releases (at least in the UK) have VC-1 encodes and a vast majorty of them also have PCM tracks as well as a multitue of other audio formats. I'm starting to get the feeling that my america cousins are getting screwed over and we Brits are getting better releases!!

I would guess that's because in the UK Warner has disribution rights to movies produced by other studios. Other studios which made a decent encode, which Warner then distributes.

On this side of the pond, Warner's Blu-rays are almost universally known for their lacklustre PQ and AQ, although there are a few notable exceptions. One wonders, though, how much better Blade Runner could've looked if it was given a Blu-ray specific encode... :-/

[UTVOL06]

Originally Posted by robgmun

Which films are you seeing the most artifacts?

EDIT - And yes bit-rate is important, but if you see the likes of The Prestige or Happy Feet, then i really have to challange you not to see how damn good the PQ is. Granted there's a few duds, all studios have them (Goodfellers and Last Samurai). But then how come Last Samurai (from warner) avarages 20-30 Mbs and look soft and not much better than upscaled DVD, but The Prestiage avarages about 15-25 Mbs and look much better? I'm serious about all the post-processing on your TV by the way. If you turn it off you'll see what your truly getting on the disc. I always strive to get a prue picture from disc to screen. meaning as little processing as possible. 9 times out of 10 they always just make the picture look worse

EDIT - Do we really have to keep calling them HD-DUD's on this site, it's a bit lame and childish

I'm not the only one that feels this way about WB's crap HD-DuD Ports. No matter how you cut it having a lower bitrate for video is going to give you less than optimal PQ with more signs of compression.

Why do New Line Cinema's two single releases look better than 99% of WB releases with the exact same VC-1 codec? I mean Shoot'em Up is razor sharp and has a Blu-ray specific encode with a higher bitrate.

Perhaps it is the US that is mainly getting screwed by WB.

[WickyWoo]

Warner uses the same encode worldwide. All you're seeing is a lot of dub tracks dumped on the European version

[robgmun]

+ PCM's on most titles, which the rest of the world don't seem to be getting. But i own about a dozen WB discs on BD and i only say 2 of them are less than perfect.

[robgmun]

Originally Posted by richteer

One wonders, though, how much better Blade Runner could've looked if it was given a Blu-ray specific encode... :-/

I very much doubt you would see much difference if any, i thought the PQ was jaw dropping on the BD Bladerunner.

You have to understand the law of deminishing returns on such things. It gets to a point where you won't see any difference. I still maintain that most WB discs are far from terrible. And i still maintain that you should try turning off all processing options on your TV's and players and see if that improves things.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Strannix136

A 24 inch monitor? Everything looks good on a screen that friggin' small. Try a 50 inch plasma, then tell us about picture quality.

Good thinking. Why not tell that to the people using this ...

http://www.expandore.com/product/Son...or/LMD2450.htm

or this ...

http://www.abelcine.com/store/produc...cat=251&page=1

[Blu n Gold]

Originally Posted by Teazle

Good thinking. Why not tell that to the people using this ...

http://www.expandore.com/product/Son...or/LMD2450.htm

or this ...

http://www.abelcine.com/store/produc...cat=251&page=1

or this..

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...52921644539854

I mean come on! An 11" screen, and no HD?!